"The Party of Life" and the Death Penalty

"The Party of Life" and the Death Penalty

When Brian Williams brought up Rick Perry’s unusually high record of executions while governor of Texas, he clearly thought he was making a critical point against the Republican presidential candidate. The crowd at Perry’s first debate as a candidate for president, however, cheered openly and with abandon when Perry’s death penalty record was mentioned.
This glorification of the death penalty by the Tea Party is, frankly, disturbing. For a political group that- in Perry’s own words- is the “party of life,” its positive attitude towards killing inmates feels strange and contradictory, not to mention incredibly detached. The US is one of the few developed nations who still executes its prisoners, and this is not something to be proud of. Our company on the list of countries that still engage in capital punishment includes Iran, North Korea, and Yemen; in Europe, for example, ninety-two percent of the UN member-states have abolished the death penalty.
There is, of course, the Constitutional argument, that the death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment, that it is not properly regulated or controlled and, therefore, can lead to incredible pain on the part of the prisoner.
Frankly, it is doubtful that the Constitutional argument would resonate with the Tea Party and Republican constituents who cheered at the debate, since they probably have little concern about the well being of a prisoner suffering what they so clearly consider to be a just punishment. Perhaps, then, these proponents of capital punishment will respond to an argument about the justness of the death penalty; after all, Perry said their support for his use of state executions is based in what he considers to be their affinity for justice.
Seven years ago in Texas, while Perry was governor, a man named Cameron Todd Willingham was sentenced to the death penalty and executed for committing an act of arson, which led to a non-accidental death of his children. In 2009, Texas ordered an investigation of new evidence and changed testimony that had been discovered and could clear him of all charges. Many scientists and investigators who reviewed the case found that the evidence against Willingham was not sufficient; however, Perry removed the chair of the investigation at the last minute and placed one who was more favorable to the governor. The new chair dismissed the investigation.
In 2009, over 3,000 men and women were on death row, and Texas alone had over 300 inmates waiting to be executed. Many of them were convicted before DNA evidence was customary to introduce by police or prosecutors.
It is abominable that the United States is so unconcerned with confirming evidence in death row cases. And as the American social right reminded the rest of the country two weeks ago, it is generally disinterested with the lack of fairness or justice in the punishment, let alone the cruelty of it. Still, these are the very same voters who complain about how America is viewed on the international stage today. Considering the huge majority of developed, leading nations that have taken actions to end capital punishment as compared to America’s cavalier attitude towards it, banning the death penalty could be a major route to reestablishing America’s place in the world.

Read more »

The Debt

The Debt

Even though Republicans got most of what they wanted in the debt-ceiling deal, including a long-term deficit reduction plan, the debt is not going away, either as a problem or a talking point. And it's true: the debt is a big problem. A mammoth one, in fact. However, if the House and Senate let the debt become the biggest issue of this and next term, they will be throwing away any tentative, stumbling progress the US economy has made and will send a message to the more than nine percent of Americans who are unemployed that they do not matter.
After all, the debt is a long-term problem; it has been around for decades and will be around for decades. Any serious solution to the deficit will be a big one and will involve years worth of budget-reassessment and will probably include cuts into the big three: Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security as well as gigantic, damaging cuts into non-defense discretionary spending.
Now, though, is the worst time to make damaging cuts into non-defense discretionary spending, which includes education, infrastructure, job creation, and many other crucial government programs that are both the base of the US job creating ability and its "win the future" programs that make up most of President Obama's docket. These programs have already been cut to the bone through the debt-ceiling deal as well as from other budget cuts that were passed in this Congress, and cutting them any more would be devastating. There are school districts in America that will start up school in September with its students going to only four days of classes, and American students need to be in school more days, not less. Rabid debt-cutters always remind the US public that the deficit is putting a burdon on America's children, which is, generally, true. But that is not as big as a burden for American children as the one of school budget cuts. American children are mis- and under-prepared for a world economy, less educated then their foreign peers, and barely reaching standards that are dwarfed by those of Europe and Asia.
And then there is the matter of unemployment, the real problem in America, not the debt or budget deficits. When over nine percent of job-seeking Americans are unemployed, it is the responsibility of Congress to invest in job-creating measures. And it's not that hard; Congress has the power to fund desperately-needed projects for infrastructure or research or scientific development and to re-saturate the budgets of school districts. That's how jobs are created by the government. Some argue that it should be businesses creating jobs in America. Well, that's fine; they can. But in order for businesses to have any kind of incentive to move their job-creating factories and other means of production (after all, America is supposed to be a production-based economy) back to the US, Congress has to impose taxes on goods created out of the United States, even if the companies that make those goods are based in America. Otherwise, the jobs that left America will not return and nine-percent unemployment will become the norm while blooming overseas markets capitalise on low minimum wages and workers rights to attract the companies that once fueled US employment.
These are the important economic issues in America; these are the ones that need the imminent attention of Congress. While the debt is a problem and does require a long-term conversation on how to reduce it, the paramount issue is the jobs crisis America is facing and the elimination of non-defense discretionary spending that could have helped America "win the future."

Read more »

"War on Terror" and Bin Laden

"War on Terror" and Bin Laden

“And a war will be won,” concluded CIA Director Leon Panetta’s email to the CIA last Monday, following the capture and deadly shooting of Osama Bin Laden, the leader of the international terrorist organization Al-Qaeda and a man considered by some to be the most dangerous extremist of the 21st century, The raid on Bin Laden’s million-dollar compound in Pakistan by US forces concluded the longest and most expensive manhunt of all time.
Panetta’s email mirrored the language of President Obama and other top national security officials, all of whom focused on the idea that America can and will win the so-called “war on terror.” Some even said that American troops will not leave Afghanistan or Pakistan until Al-Qaeda is eliminated.
Simply, that is not going to happen. Unless American troops are willing to spend decades more fighting the terrorist network and its affiliates across the world, Al-Qaeda as an organization is not going anywhere.
And the “war on terror” is even more of a problem. Firstly, a war against terror can never be won; terror will always exist. No matter how many terrorists US forces track down and kill, terror will still be there.
Secondly, since the Obama Administration and the American intelligence groups have created a war that is, simply, impossible to win, they have essentially doomed themselves politically. Sure, it was the Bush Administration that started both the war and its nickname, but the Obama Administration is trying to end military engagement in the Middle East. And while US forces may leave Afghanistan and they have nearly entirely left Iraq, this does not equate to winning a war on terror.
Finally, in addition to the impossibility of winning a “war on terror,” internationally, the phrasing may unintentionally have an unwanted effect upon tto whom the words are directed. Joseph Nye Jr, professor at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, noted that “[w]hen British MI-5 interrogated arrested terrorists, they found that the words “war on terror” were heard as “war against Islam” and that helped terrorist recruiters.”
Beyond our allies or enemy’s feelings internationally, and even beyond our own countries opinion, using the phrase “the war on terror” allows the American Government to make an excuse. An excuse for still being in Iraq, an excuse for weak Afghanistan policy, but mostly an excuse to house long-term detainees at Guantanamo Bay and perform possibly illegal interrogation techniques upon them. If by eliminating “the war on terror” from our national vocabulary, we eliminate on more facade for the government to hide behind when dealing with detainees, it needs to go.
The death of Osama bin Laden at the hands of the United States is a triumph for the Obama administration. It makes the administration seem more legitimate on foreign policy, and it is an enormous gain for national security. However, his death does not signify the end of the war on terror. It may weaken Al-Queada’s operational ability, but even if his death meant the end of Al-Quaeda, it still would not mean the end of the war on terror. Simply, a war on terror cannot be won, since terror will always exist.

Read more »

Big Bird: An Endangered Species

Big Bird: An Endangered Species

In the midst of unimaginable crisis in Japan and Libya, as well as extended protests across the Midwest, it is possible that the conservative Congressional leadership thinks that Americans are not paying attention, and they are probably right. So while the American people are preoccupied by much more terrifying problems, Congress has gone on an attack of its own, taking a lesson from all of the gun rights advocates and hunting down Big Bird.
The end of publicly funded television and radio programing could be devastating for Americans. Perhaps that sounds hyperbolic, but it is not. Programs like National Public Radio (NPR), the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), and Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) are not the entertainment-based, liberal subsidies that the conservatives in Congress like to pretend they are. In fact, they provide vital services to all Americans.
PBS offers unique programing for young children through PBS Kids. Programs like Sesame Street, Arthur, and Cyberchase provide educational television for preschoolers and elementary school students. Where else could this sort of early-education television be found? The fact is, no other network does for children what PBS does. Families that cannot afford early education may find some substitute in the math and reading-centric shows PBS carries. No show on Disney or Nickelodeon or any other kid's channel provides such educational benefit.
And NPR, too, provides a valuable service to Americans. In a radio format, NPR is able to truly break down news and make it understandable to average people, while also delivering world and local news as well as giving a voice to issues that media that has to pay for itself cannot afford to cover. Cutting NPR funding means cutting easy access to news and information to thousands of people. NPR remains one of the most comprehensive and investigative journalistic outlets in the United States. Beyond losing news access, cutting NPR funding means eliminating one of the only truly journalistically responsible news organizations in the country.
Cutting funding to federally funded broadcasting companies is one of those political choices that has no real benefits and serious ramifications. In a world without PBS and NPR, low-income children are at an even further disadvantage than they are now; the achievement gap grows beyond recognition; good journalism is punished in favor of weakly constructed political fights; Americans lose trusted news. How is this worth cheap political points?

Read more »

Not Quite an Anti-Poverty Campaign

Not Quite an Anti-Poverty Campaign

The Republican leadership- both in DC and nationally- has never really championed the war on poverty. Now, however, the GOP is engaging in a series of legislative actions that directly undermine the very federal programs that help support the poorest Americans.
For example, new Speaker John Boehner wants to cut funds for Social Security and Medicare. He has already defunded Planned Parenthood. Governors across America including, most notably, Scott Walker of Wisconsin, are attempting to cripple unions, especially public employee unions. The House has already campaigned to end the 2009 health care reforms that are vital to America's working families.
Working class Americans rely on these programs and have, for some, for more than 80 years. Ending these funds could be devastating to thousands of families.
If there's anything the government is supposed to do, it is help Americans who cannot support themselves. Yet, the House Republicans are trying to defund this very basic function of government in America.
And with that as the goal, these actions are not at all unexpected. There have been month-long rumblings about shutting down the federal government from seemingly mainstream conservatives. Ending these vital programs is only a first step towards that end.
Beyond that, its is clear that the GOP's targets are social programs (see: Planned Parenthood, Medicare), not economic excess. Look at Wisconsin's anti-union politics. Considering that the unions have already conceded the financial points of Walker's plan, how would the economy benefit from ending collective bargaining or strikes? Republicans across the country were elected on a platform of economic recovery. It is time for them to deliver on that platform and leave social programs alone.

Read more »

DOMA, The Challenges Ahead

DOMA, The Challenges Ahead

For the record, President Obama's decision to stop enforcing section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in court is a huge deal. What is perhaps an even bigger deal is the rationale behind the Obama decision: he, along with Attorney General Eric Holder, chose to end the court enforcement of section 3 of DOMA because they believe it to be unconstitutional. This administration's decision sets an interesting precedent, should DOMA ever be challenged in court. In the meanwhile, however, Obama has effectively suspended section 3 of the policy by eliminating the only viable means of prosecuting it.
DOMA was enacted in 1996 as a major piece of the big push for the conservative social agenda during the Clinton administration. As a definer of federal marriage law, DOMA attempts to legally end any national campaign for marriage equality by defining marriage as, in section 3, an institution exclusively between a man and a woman.
Over the past year, President Obama has proved himself to be a powerful if lethargic LGBT ally, and what the Obama administration did last week took a lot of political courage. After all, with the upcoming presidential election and an increasingly socially conservative right, many presidents would have simply put it off. However, simply dropping the court defense of DOMA is not enough, as it can still act as a court defense for those who attempt to hinder equality.
President Obama must find the political courage to go further than he has. If he truly believes DOMA to be unconstitutional, then he should challenge it in court, not simply abandon his defense of it.

Read more »

This is Not Egypt

This is Not Egypt

Perhaps the Republican Wisconsin State Senator misspoke when he compared Madison to Cairo. For, after all, however misguided Governor Walker may be, he is not former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak; he is no undemocratic, corrupted dictator. No United States governor is. And rallying in opposition to union rule changes, however drastic, is not the equivalent of protesting for democracy. This does not, however, mean that the Wisconsin protesters' cause is any less important or serious.

Why do Republicans demonize unions, especially teachers' unions? It's not as though teachers are overpaid. Besides which, the Wisconsin teacher's unions have already agreed to the financial compromise Governor Walker offered. Now, he holds out on one issue- collective bargaining. A union's main role is to act as a singular representative for a group of people and to bargain with management to maintain or improve the people's rights. What use is a union without collective bargaining?
And this structural attack on unions in Wisconsin is not only confusing (the economic benefits of ending collective bargaining are negligible) but also dangerous. Governor Walker plans to create a condition where workers' rights can be slashed and teachers' paychecks can be shrunk for the benefit of a conservative social agenda against unions, not an economic one.

[Photo Credit: AP/Huffington Post]

Read more »

Education Thoughts

Education Thoughts

The State of the Union is generally seen as the most important speech a president makes each year. And this year, amid a faltering economy, an increasingly polarized political climate and in the post-event storm following the shooting in Arizona, President Obama delivered a speech that appealed to America for a renewed sense of respect for education.
In the speech, Obama had an urgent message for America’s students: become teachers. Get educated, he said, and then pass it on to other American children. Help renew a sense of reverence toward teachers. Respect the institution of public education. This generation has to compete with students in Asia who have been selected to receive a world-class education and with European students whose education values math and science more so than its American equivalent, Obama reminded the country, so help them do it.
President Obama is right. Simply put, America cannot compete on a global scale with countries that treat teaching as a widely respected career and pour funding into education. How can American schools expect to retain excellent teachers if they do not approach teaching as the most important career in terms of ensuring American excellence?
Some people worry that America’s days as the world’s superpower are dwindling. America’s great contribution to the world is its support of innovation. The best and perhaps the only way for America to sustain innovation continually is to further education. Unfortunately, some voices in politics continue to undermine this path to a renewed place for America.
Some of the more popular political figures in America got to where they did by being patently anti-intellectual. Take Christine O’Donnell in Delaware, who continually denied even the most basic of recent scientific research. Some Democratic politicians, Obama included, have been accused of being Ivy-league educated or being overly intellectual by conservative radio and television personalities. Suddenly, being smart and well educated is a bad thing in politics.
And attitudes like these undermine the very way that America can, as Obama called it, "win the future." American innovation cannot prosper and future American pioneers cannot succeed in economics, management, entrepreneurship or even simple world leadership without strong educations. Strong educations are impossible without a new sense of respect in America for teaching and a new place in the national budget for it.

Read more »

Friday Feature: Spiderman (Spectacular, Spectacular)

Friday Feature: Spiderman (Spectacular, Spectacular)

The setting: the most expensive Broadway play of all time. The draw: in the technical feat of a lifetime, Spiderman and company will soar over the heads of audiences. Enter, stage left: director Julie Taymor, of “Lion King” fame, whose artistic vision of unprecedented technical achievement has left actors in the hospital and leads threatening to quit.
Spiderman: the Musical, based on the comic series, employs the use of never-before seen technology wherein the heroes and villains of the series will fly over the theatre (not just the stage, the entire theatre) using automatic rigs for the actors. Usually, in a show that requires actors to fly, a union technician manually operates the machine. This ensures that actors who get stuck or caught on the rope can be lowered quickly and safely, hopefully without interrupting the performance. However, in the case of Spiderman, the actors who get stuck on the electric path either must be rescued while the entire show is stopped or, if they are unlucky, they fall.
Spiderman: the Musical continues a long tradition of Broadway showstoppers where the main draw is the spectacular spectacle and the sheer drama, not the acting or the play’s theatrical value. This style (a supposed audience-magnet, though the dwindling ticket sales do not exactly confirm this) is not new to the theatre world or even to Broadway, for, after all, most audiences want to get some literal bang for their buck. Miss Saigon, for instance, employed a fully operating helicopter for its Broadway run. The Blue Man Group relies on pounds of toilet paper that fly out the ceiling at the audience as strobe lights run wild.
Let lavish sets and over-the-top (and potentially dangerous) technical feats not be the legacy of Broadway. There is so much more to an excellent performance than just the spectacle. In traditional theatre, a set could be something as minimal as a few seats and a makeshift wall: the focus was on the performance.
If Spiderman is really causing people to go see theatre, then that is fantastic. Mass consumption of theatrical art is always a good thing. However, the returns are not really coming in for Broadway shows in general- the same shows that are trying to pull in audiences with huge spectacles.
It is unfortunate that extreme excess has become the norm in Broadway instead of truly great performances. Especially in this economically rough time, Broadway has the responsibility to ticketholders to produce its best work, rather than a capitalistic explosion of sets and technical extravaganzas.
This post originally appeared in the Rank & File, rank-n-file.com.

Read more »

Violence

Violence

When volatile political rhetoric inspired the murder of Dr. George Tiller, one of the country's only late-term abortion doctors, nothing changed. Sure, Fox News stopped referring to him as "Dr. Tiller the baby killer," but nothing really changed. When political extremism led to the Oklahoma City bombings carried out by Timothy McVeigh, nothing changed. Commentary television and radio programs continued to feature divisive, polarizing voices. Now that six innocent Arizonians (including a nine year-old girl and a federal judge) are dead and Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, as well as a handful of others, are severely injured after a politically-charged shooting, will anything change? The past record indicates no.
The volatile nature of political rhetoric today is incredible. With subtly violent undertones, political speech- whether that be from commentators of politicians themselves- has inspired acts of violence before and probably will continue to.
Too often in America, commentators don't understand the repercussions when they insinuate that politicians ought to be physically targeted or promote "second amendment remedies" to "take out" an opponent. Some people, like Jared Loughner, the man charged with the Arizona crimes, are bound to take that rhetoric literally.
But even with this consideration, a real change in political speech is unlikely. American violence metaphors are simply rooted too deeply in the political system. Mainstream politicians like Sharon Angle and Sarah Palin use hunt-like and attack-based language too casually and without real consequence. Conservatives, of course, do not own the territory of violent rhetoric nor of mentally deranged extremists, but it is undeniable that the most recent and controversial examples of these can be traced back to ultra-extreme conservatives. Anti-Obama Americans who attended 2009 town halls with the president were seen on several occasions with guns strapped to their person and wearing shirts with slogans like "the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants," which has its own bloody past in the history of political assassinations.
Unfortunately, these sort of actions and speech aren't going to change anytime soon. But if the rhetoric can't change, then maybe the policies can. Loughner passed the federal background check to buy his automatic weapon with flying colors, and purchased a 30+ round magazine without a problem. These are not weapons of self-defense or of hunters. A magazine with that many rounds should be exclusive to the military and to the police force, just like it was through the 90s.
Six innocent people died last weekend in a violent attack in a time of politically charged speech. This attack could not have happened if Loughner did not have access to the weaponry he used.
It is horrendous that this attack occurred. It is even more so that it could have been prevented by regulations to gun control (to which, sadly, Congresswoman Giffords was opposed) or by a conscious realization by commentators that their rhetorically violent flourishes are not always as level-headedly received as they may think. But what is most unfortunate is that these commentators may never have this realization or make a change.

Read more »

PISA

PISA

The Race to Nowhere, a film that has resonated so well with American parents, caused so much contention that the New York Times recently hosted an online debate with a spew of academics about the validity of the movie’s argument. Both the movie and the debate follow the same basic premise, one that high school students probably contemplate themselves on those longest working nights: do American high school students get pushed too hard to be the best- if so, how can this be mitigated?
Yes, says psychologist Harris Cooper, in his article submitted for the debate. Too much homework is, well, too much. And while the other five intellectual contributors look at different aspects of the problem, they all are in general agreement with Cooper. That is, no one is contesting the idea the high school students are overworked.
But the comments on the series tell a different story, which is best framed by a reader going by ‘Russell Long’.
“I appreciate [the author’s] views, but am also concerned about the fact that the United States has fallen far behind other nations in global literacy, math and science scores,” he said. “The Times recently reported that the US is 26th in the new PISA scoring, with scores of countries better preparing their kids to compete in the global economy. How do we reduce the educational burdens upon our kids while also improving our languishing performance?”
And therein lies the problem. On the recent international testing, the US scores are an average of just over 90 points below the scores from Shanghai on a 600 point scale. Clearly, the Shanghai numbers are not representative of all of China or even necessarily the average for the city, but they are still astonishing.
Few high-achieving high school students would disagree that they are overworked, and, in all likelihood, they probably are. American society has an overwhelming obsession with being the best, and this focus bleeds into students’ already mounting stress. So the problem is not that top students are not working hard enough, it is that low achieving students are not getting the help they need.
American schools have too many failing students who get lost in the shuffle. Some of them just need a little extra attention, some have serious learning problems. But no matter what the solution is, it is the responsibility of the schools to help them to their best ability.
Reducing the stress of overworked, top-achieving students is a noble task. The student-stress reduction plans- reduce homework, strengthen homeschooling programs, etc- proposed by the New York Times contributors will certainly help. But the more pressing issue is that of American under-achievement. When all American students are achieving at a consistent level (and not on standardized tests like the ‘No Child Left Behind’ system, as it has been proven that teaching to the test actually lowers student learning and knowledge retention), only then will American world standing will improve. It cannot be improved, as the Times commentators seem to think, by forcing a small group of top students to work harder and harder.

Read more »

Finding Our Way Out

Finding Our Way Out

It is not inconceivable to think that the American military is struggling to define its aims in Afghanistan. After all, neither public releases nor media coverage has clarified military goals for the American people. There are three basic questions that apply to the US presence in Afghanistan: why did we enter? Have we achieved what we hoped we would? Why are we still there?
On September 11, 2001, the act of a concentrated group of religious extremist terrorists changed America forever. On a basic level, this attack is why the US enter Afghanistan and was the cause of the first of its goals there: to seek out and kill members of Al-Qaeda, especially leaders like Osama Bin Ladin and 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed. The 9/11 attack set defense facilities on high alert and sent panic through the nation. The repercussions of that day are still affecting daily life (like the new TSA body scanner). And in that respect, the terrorists achieved their goal: they spread terror. They caused American lifestyle to change based simply on random acts of violence. However, they also achieved something they probably didn't expect or want. They caused the United States forces to enter Afghanistan.
Of course, Al-Qaeda's actions on 9/11, while responsible for the US entering Afghanistan, were not entirely so. The US also had an active interest in ensuring that the Taliban were not the ruling party in the country for a few reasons. Firstly, any nation whose values and policies mirror those of the US is more likely to act as an ally of America, for the same reason that the US and the UK are support each other whereas the US and Iran do not. The US and the UK share government forms and policies, unlike the US and Iran. Therefore, a democratic Afghanistan not under Taliban rule is the most beneficial to US diplomacy both in the US and across the Middle East. Additionally, Afghanistan could not be guaranteed as a stable opponent to extremist terrorism nor a safe neighbor to nuclear power Pakistan. So, US motivation for entering Afghanistan was twofold, and American goals were equally as divided.
Originally, US forces entered Afghanistan to eliminate Al-Qaeda. Obviously, this didn't quite work as planned. Though some high-level Al-Qaeda and Taliban members were brought under custody of the United States, like Khalid Sheik Mohammed, there is still an existing and active terrorist network in both Afghanistan and Pakistan, as well in other lowly regulated countries across the Middle East. These terrorist networks have generally fled for Pakistan, where they face less government and military opposition and no retaliation from the US. Once it became unsustainable for the US to continue on its trajectory in Afghanistan and once President Obama took office, the aim in Afghanistan changed from the total elimination of terrorism (President Bush's "war on terror") to counter-insurgency. On June 28, we said of counter-insurgency:

Counter-insurgency, the policy McChrystal strongly advocated for as a tactical plan in Afganistan, is a system in which the military, in addition to normal behaviors, endeavors for the completion of traditionally non-military activities, like nation building or education of the public. These strategies are not normally military duty, so counter-insurgency relies heavily on the participation of civilian military leaders, like the President and his cabinet

The Obama Administration has found counter-insurgency to be, certainly, more effective than the old blanket goal of a "war on terror." Still, Afghanistan is ridden with social problems and crumbling systems. At the end of the day, there's only so much American troops can do, especially when they are not welcome to be interfering in local communities. So counter-insurgency had worked- to a point. It is clear that if social and political stability and Western-ness has become the goal of American leaders, they will not achieve what they wish to by the rapidly approaching date to leave Afghanistan.
In the end, Afghanistan's long-term political instability cannot be blamed on the United States. However, its current status can be, and the US has still an active interest in maintaining a stable ally in the Middle East. So, when it comes down to it, this is why we're still there. American troops remain in Afghanistan to bring it to stability and ensure human-rights protections. While the political leaders of the war may still hope that combat troops can eliminate terrorist threats while there, it is incredibly unlikely at this point. The viable American goal is to improve political and social stability. Though even this is too broad and, consequently, will probably not lead to fruition, it at least presents a scenario in which America can seriously impact Afghan stability if not solve all the sociopolitical problems.

Read more »

Don't Ask Don't Tell [Part One]

Don't Ask Don't Tell [Part One]

During the 2008 presidential campaign, Senator John McCain said he would support the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell, the military's ban on gay soldiers serving openly in the armed forces, when the Department of Defense said it was important to repeal the policy. Soon after, the Department of Defense announced that the policy was doing more harm than good but McCain, who has a lot of pull in the Senate Armed Services Committee as the ranking Republican member, continued to support the policy. McCain's rhetoric then changed and he began to say he would support the policy after the Pentagon produced an internal troop study gauging troop opinion, and only if the study came out against Don't Ask Don't Tell. Well, the Pentagon study has been released, and its results are incredibly in favor of repealing the decades-old policy. Troops overwhelmingly supported overturning Don't Ask Don't Tell with the singular and notable, though unsurprising exception of the Marines. And yet, John McCain's stance is yet to change.

It is the time to repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell. The fact that the military continues to enforce a policy that stops active and knowledgeable soldiers from serving their country simply because of their sexual orientation is not just reprehensible; it is unconscionable. More importantly, is tells something truly important about the leadership in this country: that they cling to old religious and cultural biases, that they are unable to let go of their own prejudices when doing so would help the nation, and that they, on some level at least, subscribe to the misled and dangerous philosophy that 'gay is wrong'.

[Photo credit: cvt.ca]

Read more »

The UK: Doing What We Should Have Done

The UK: Doing What We Should Have Done

In a somewhat surprising turn of events, Britain has agreed to financially compensate former Gitmo prison at Guantanamo Bay detainees who alleged that the British intelligence agency M16 was involved in their torture and detainment. Just recently, the head of the M16 confirmed that its operatives were not involved in the collusion or enactment of illegal acts of torture. Yet, a statement from Prime Minister David Cameron's office asserted that a multi-million dollar settlement had been reached with formerly detained British residents who sued in a civil case over illegal acts of torture committed against them while at the American prison.
It is great that these former detainees- who were obviously considered not to be guilty since they were released by American officials- are being compensated for the crimes that intelligence-gatherers committed against them. But why is it that the British have to fix the United States' problem? President Obama signed a memorandum just after taking office to close Gitmo. One would expect that, nearly two years later, something would have been done about the controversy lightning-rod that is Guantanamo Bay.
Just this week, the first detainee was tried in the American judicial system, an action that was the result of an Obama Administration decision to move prosecution from the military tribunal system to the US criminal courts. The detainee in question was charged with over 240 crimes, and he was acquitted on all but one case of conspiracy, for which he faces a minimum of 20 years in prison. His acquittal reignited the controversy over the Obama decision to try the detainees in the American courts.
But here's the thing: this reaction to the use of the courts doesn't make any sense. If one has a problem with legally charging these detainees, then the issue is with the century-old right to due process. If one has a problem with this man being acquitted, then the implication is that men and women should be locked up for crimes they didn't commit. Thinking that the man should be jailed for the other 240-odd charges goes against the foundation of the American judicial system and is the same as saying that the burden of evidence should lie with the charged and that people should be presumed guilty, not innocent.
There is a legitimate reason as to why the federal government will face difficulties in federal criminal courts, though it is not a reason to return to tribunals. Intelligence-gatherers' actions that were internationally illegal and face serious repercussions as acts of torture will annul some real charges against detainees. These court cases will force the executive government to own up to its actions and face the consequences for them. Unfortunately, some of the consequences may be severe, especially in removing real charges against detainees.

Read more »

This is Countdown

This is Countdown

This is Countdown; the third day since Keith Olbermann has been suspended indefinitely by MSNBC.
Olbermann got caught by Politico, in a story published late last week, donating the maximum amount of 2,400 dollars to three different Democratic candidates. Shortly thereafter, by midday on Friday, it was announced that Olbermann had been indefinitely suspended without pay from MSNBC. The resulting internet uproar was deafening. Senator Bernie Sanders wrote an irate entry for The Huffington Post, demanding MSNBC return Olbermann; his sentiments were echoed by journalists and talking heads, liberals and conservatives alike.

NBC news policy prohibits journalists from donating to political campaigns. The policy- at least insofar as the public knows- was never officially extended to the whole of MSNBC, though insiders claim that the policy was understood to apply to the network.
This sort of policy is put in place to ensure the public non-opinion, transparency, and lack of conflicts of interest of journalists. It is arguable that straight-news reporters ought not to donate to political campaigns (though they should not be either explicitly or implicitly banned from doing so), but one would be hard-pressed to find anyone who believes Olbermann is a straight-news reporter. Olbermann's biases are clear, well-publicized, and completely disclosed. Is anyone surprised that Olbermann donated to Democratic candidates? Not really.
Perhaps Rachel Maddow put it best on her Friday, November 5 show:

I understand the rule. I understand what it means to break it. I believe everyone should face the same treatment under that rule. I also personally believe that the point has been made and we should have Keith back hosting Countdown.
Here's the larger point, though, that's going mysteriously missing from the right-wing cackling and old media cluck-cluck-clucking: I know everyone likes to say, "Oh, cable news, it's all the same. Fox and MSNBC -- mirror images of each other. But if you look at the long history of Fox hosts not just giving money to candidates, but actively endorsing campaigns and raising millions of dollars for politicians and political parties... They can do that because there's no rule against that at Fox. Their network is run as a political operation. Ours isn't. Yeah, Keith's a liberal, and so am I. But we're not a political operation -- Fox is. We're a news operation. The rules around here are part of how you know that.
Back before it was politically safe to do it, Keith Olbermann attracted the ire of the right-wing and a lot of others besides when he brought to light and raged against what he saw as the errors and sins of the previous presidential administration. Keith was also the one who brought to light Fox News's water-carrying for the Bush Administration; he was the one whose point-of-view journalism exposed and put exclamation points on the problems of disguising a political operation as a news one, the model embraced by the guys across Sixth Avenue, at Fox.
Now, weirdly, it is Keith who is once again illustrating the difference between what he does at MSNBC -- what we do here -- and what goes on across the street.

Over the weekend, over 250000 people signed a major online petition for Olbermann to return. Well, the petition worked. Olbermann's suspension has been lifted, starting with tonight's show. It's a little incongruous for the network executives at MSNBC to suspend Olbermann on principle of the rule and to return him this quickly, but his ratings power makes it unsurprising.
Here's the other piece of Olbermann's suspension: he's not the only one who donated. Joe Scarborough, host of 'Morning Joe', donated at least 9,000 dollars to Republican candidates in recent elections. Apparently, though, Scarborough asked the network for permission first. And as you may note, Scarborough is still on the air.

[Photo credit: The Huffington Post]

Read more »

"All Politics is Local" or How the Republicans Won the Midterms

"All Politics is Local" or How the Republicans Won the Midterms

One of the best-known political sayings, especially for Congressional campaigns, is the oft-quoted "all politics is local"- meaning that running on an individual candidate basis and on each incumbent's personal record is always more effective than running as a group of candidates with a national party platform. Well, here's the biggest lesson Democrats can learn from Tuesday night: all politics is not local. The Democrats ran very, very local campaigns- every ad, every speech was about the race-specific candidates and the local issues. But if there can ever be an all-or-none winner in politics, the Democrats lost this year. The Republicans, on the other hand, commanded a 'wave' election; their nationally-minded campaigns energized voters and turned independents against Democrats they had supported just two years earlier.
The Republican strategy was hardly surprising. For months- ever since a several page document on Republican talking points was leaked to Politico- it has been understood how the Republicans would run for the midterms. Essentially, each Republican candidate this year ran a miniature piece of a national campaign against Barack Obama, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and the National Democratic Party. They effectively set the national vocabulary (Obamacare), the national agenda, and demonized the Democratic leadership, most notably Nancy Pelosi.
And for the Republicans, it worked. If this had been a presidential election, Obama would have been defeated rather swiftly. For some reason, the Democrats seemed to have forgotten how to win an election cycle, a skill they had mastered only two years ago, and this new inability to participate in politics in mirrored in Democratic actions in Congress. For a group of people who run on platforms where the individual issues are incredibly popular and have passed reforms of all types- health care, banking regulation, credit, pay equality, student loan- the Democrats are completely unable to sell their platform. If the Democrats cannot sell their agenda, they will be hard-pressed to find Republicans who want to compromise with them. If Democrats cannot sell their agenda, they had best look forward to another election just like this one- or worse.
So, Democrats, learn to partake in real politics. It may not always be the most graceful way to pass your far-reaching plans, but with a new Republican majority in the house, it may be the only way to do so.

Read more »

Midterms 2010: Biggest Wins and Losses

Midterms 2010: Biggest Wins and Losses

Billed as the most exciting and cutthroat midterms in a long time, yesterday's election panned out essentially how the pundits said it would. The Democrat's losses were monumental, costing some serious, moderate candidates office because of the wave-style of the Republican wins.

The Democrats' Biggest Losses
The party in power barely hung onto the Senate two nights ago, and the House was cleanly called for the former minority early on. Some of the most important races for Democrats became the easiest for the Republicans to win.
Joe Sestak in Pennsylvania- Sestak is a Democratic Pennsylvanian Congressman who beat Senator Arlen Specter in the Democratic primary for Senate (Specter was a Republican senator until last year, when he switched parties). Sestak was a promising candidate who had the potential to be a real ally for President Obama in the Senate, but he was unable to win the seat.
Florida Senate- In probably one of the strangest races this year, the independent candidate- Florida Governor Charlie Christ- had a much better chance than the democrat, Kendrick Meek. Christ, though he is traditionally a Republican, would have been a much better compromiser in the Senate than the Senator-to-be, Marco Rubio. Christ is much more moderate and undeniably more ready to work with the Democrats.
The House of Representatives- The absolutely least surprising of the Democratic losses, but it is the most monumental in what it means for the entire country. This loss changes the entire leadership in the House (most notably unseating Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House) and creates a split-party majority in Congress.

The Democrats' Biggest Wins
So it wasn't the Democrats' night. However, there were some important gains and retainment of seats by the Democrats.
Harry Reid- Senator Reid faced a tough, if highly criticized, opponent in Republican Sharron Angle. Reid's win, in addition to the Democrat's recapture of the Senate, secured him the majority leader spot, the highest legislative position in the Senate.
Christine O'Donnell- The Delaware Senate race was the least surprising wins for Democrats (O'Donnell was declared the loser quickly after the polls closed in Delaware) but an important one nonetheless because of its huge national visibility, most of which can be attributed to the Saturday Night Live sketches about O'Donnell.
Barbara Boxer- In the closing weeks of the midterm campaigns, it became common knowledge that Boxer was going to have trouble winning the California Senate seat. She was facing a career businesswoman, and many in the media saw the race as a voter vindication of either politicians or businesspeople. Boxer sailed through her race on election night, however, securing one more seat for the Democratic party.

Read more »

Photo Story: Restoring Sanity

Photo Story: Restoring Sanity

Saturday's 'Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear' packed the National Mall, all the way from Capitol Hill for 16 blocks back. The rally, a relatively apolitical event in terms of the rhetoric of the notoriously political Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart, was full of sign-holders of all types- funny, serious, political. (Click to make larger)

Read more »

Siding with Big Business

Siding with Big Business

Wiretapping. By the very nature of it, we are putting national security over indvidual privacy rights, putting the governement over the people. Last week, officials from the Obama administration pushed for greater enforcement of wiretapping laws, forcing corporations including AT&T to reestablish means for the government to wiretap their lines even if it means downgrading their technology, according to the New York Times.
In America, government is usually well-meaning. Ronald Reagan's 'government is the problem' is simply not true. Government has a real role in the economy. It can protect, insure, and provide for the struggling. It can stop the crushing of the individual by giant corporations. But wiretapping goes beyond regulations and tariffs, past what is beneficial and infringes on individual's rights to an extreme extent.
Sure, there are real national security reasons for wiretapping. But given the history in America of warrantless wiretapping, it shouldn't be so easy for the government to trample on privacy rights.
It is the role and responsibility of the government to protect the people. It is not the role of the government to destruct privacy rights. So, maybe, being against the expansion of wiretapping programs is, for once, siding with big business. But maybe it's just siding with the individual.
It is imperative that the Obama administration does not venture down the warrantless wiretapping path forged by its predecessors. Any feasible national security benefits by listening though phone lines without a warrant are seriously outweighed by the destruction of rights it causes.
Assuming any activities would be done with a warrant, there are other cons. Wiretapping is expensive and becomes even more so with changing technology. In order for phone service companies to comply with the government wiretapping abilities, they will have to downgrade their systems. With the current programs, the government simply cannot keep up.
There were no public, tangible results from Bush wiretapping. The Obama administration must act legally and with great thought as to the program's actual benefits if they truly plan to pursue wiretapping.

Read more »

Graph of the Week: Big Government Spending

Graph of the Week: Big Government Spending

Featured by Paul Krugman, this graph shows the overall growth in government spending in the past four years, growing from a cold number of just over 4,000 billion dollars to just over 5,000 billion. So, yeah, the government spending has increased, though not dramatically. Notably, the rate of increase since the Obama administration took office has remained largely unchanged. We can talk all we want about the increase of government spending, but it hasn't really changed all that much. And let's not forget why spending has increased.
We were fighting two wars actively- and though the combat mission has since ended in Iraq, America is still acting as a strong financial support in the area. The recession is still in full swing, and the only way to pull ourselves out of the hole we've dug ourselves is to spend. Tax cuts are great, but they are the definition of blind populism. Sometimes, just sometimes, what Americans want and what the economy needs do not match up. And for the good of all America, the economy needs to see a major increase in monetary circulation.
While spending hasn't increased much, in general, what has is good spending. Good for America, good for the economy, and really the only way a recovery will be successful. Next time, before rants about 'big government' and too much spending become the politically acceptable narrative, it is important that why and what spending has become prevalent is examined.

Read more »