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 »

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 »

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 »

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 »

"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 »

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 »

Elizabeth Warren

Elizabeth Warren

The aspect of the banking regulatory bill that will benefit consumers most in the long term is, doubtlessly, the creation of a new consumer protection agency. Its critics can rant all they want about how the agency will be superfluous, that all it is adding is more paperwork, but perhaps they remember the international fraud cases, focused in America and Europe, last year. Or maybe they recall the US's experience with Bernie Madoff? Or even the shoddy business practices by Wall Street companies that abetted the recession. The agencies already in existence failed here, and they have failed in scores of other cases. The new organization can cover these gaps, protecting Americans from fraud and malpractice in an unprecedented way.

The only way, however, that this agency can operate effectively and not go the way of, for example, the Minerals Managment Service, is if the person heading up the agency truly is devoted to its purpose. The work of Elizabeth Warren, who has been deeply involved in the creation of the agency, puts her in the best position to lead the group.

If the agency is properly headed and effectively run, the regulations it enforces can truly protect Americans to a much further extent than any predecessors. And isn't that the most basic reason for progress in government for a functioning society?

[Photo credit: topnews.net]

Read more »

The West Bank

The West Bank

Without an Israeli extension of the building freeze at the West Bank, Palestinian compromise was somewhere between improbable and impossible. This was understood- or said to be understood- by pretty much everyone involved in peace talks early this month. And yet, the Israeli government did not continue the freeze. As American leaders attempt to compromise with the nations' leaders, construction is already underway on the West Bank.

General optimism for the talks was minimal, to be fair. But this new development doesn't necessarily destroy the proceedings. While a complete solution being reached during this next round of talks is unlikely, some progress is better than none. The US special envoy to the Middle East has already begun to restart talks with Israel to continue the freeze, at least until some compromise is reached by the Israeli and Palestinian governments.
And progress is still completely possible. The Obama Administration's new focus on Israel, combined with the newfound willingness of both parties to meet is conducive to some progress at least. The two-state solution, the plan most commonly discussed in connection to the conflict, has its supporters. In the plan, an independent state of Palestine would be created to coexist with a Jewish state of Israel. While this may be the most popular plan for the people- Palestinians are given their own nation to rule as they like, the Israelis do not have to accept Palestinians as a people, it may not be a solution to the violent conflicts that are currently going on. In fact, a two-state solution may cause violence to escalate.
In a practical sense, the one-state solution works best. However, the willingness for the Israelis to grant citizenship to the Palestinians is minimal, and the Palestinian leadership- if not the people at large- are less than interested in sharing power and land with the Israelis. So, that leaves a two-state solution. If the Obama Administration pursues a two-state solution during talks with the Israelis and Palestinians, they must work to bridge the gap between the two groups of leaders.
None of this will happen overnight. It may not happen for a long, long time. But some change in that area of the world is better than none, and progress- while no long-term substitute for a solution- could quell some of the violence and create an environment more conducive to the creation either of an independent state of Palestine or a nonviolent merge of the two peoples.

Photo via nytimes.com

Read more »

Filibustered!

Filibustered!

It is incomprehensible as to how a legislative body, faced with the necessity of repealing a law that is declared unconstitutional, does not do so. And yet, yesterday Senate Democrats were unable to gather enough support to break a Republican filibuster against a bill that includes a proviso to overturn Don't Ask Don't Tell, the military policy limiting the service of gay soldiers that was recently ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge. Though Democrats courted the support of Maine Republican Susan Collins, who, rhetorically, is in favor of Don't Ask Don't Tell's repeal, Collins did not vote for cloture in the end, along with a handful of Democrats.

However, this legislative battle is unnecessary. Don't Ask Don't Tell was originally created through a presidential edict during the Clinton administration. Therefore, President Obama, as Commander-in-Chief of the military, could simply dissolve the policy. At the very least, President Obama could place a stay on Don't Ask Don't Tell, stopping soldiers from being actively discharged from military service until Congress reaches a policy agreement. President Obama has declared his support for the revocation of the policy, as have a majority of his military advisors, including Secretary of Defense Robert Gates.
President Obama has the means to and the political climate conducive to repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell. Between the military and policial leaders condemning Don't Ask Don't Tell and socially prominent figures, like Lady Gaga, leading an offensive against the policy, President Obama should have no political reason not to repeal the policy.
This fight is not about how Republican- and some conservative Democrat- elected officials feel about gay marriage. It is not about any mislead fears they might have about soldiers spreading "the gay", as Rachel Maddow calls it. It isn't even about public opinion about gay marriage or Don't Ask Don't Tell. This is one of those issues where public opinion shouldn't have much weight. Don't Ask Don't Tell is a fight over the most basic of American principles, equality. It is about one party fighting for equality and the other blocking it. It is not just unequal to bar gay soldiers from service, it is against everything that any fight for equality in America has stood for. 

[photo credit: cnn.com]

Read more »

[Don't Forget the] Recovery

[Don't Forget the] Recovery

In March, we said:

In order to stimulate the economy, the US government must fund programs to provide jobs to American people, with a heavy focus on infrastructure spending. Infrastructure spending, or government funding of the building of roads, bridges, schools, etc, provides structure to America's crumbling infrastructure.
American buildings are falling apart. Destruction from natural disasters and simple age still ravage America's infrastructure, and the repair of roads and the like has become one of the most important issues today on a local level. America's buildings affect nearly every American every day, as they go to school, work, or home. The long term maintenance of failing infrastructure will result in incredibly high cost for the American taxpayer. If the problems are not immediately fixed, the financial consequences of quite literally rebuilding America will be great.
Additionally, infrastructure spending provides simple, viable jobs to US workers. In the current economy, with the shockingly high unemployment, workers are in desperate need of work that projects created by infrastructure spending will easily provide.
Often, the government will also hire small businesses to restructure the roads and buildings that must be repaired. Not only does that provide jobs, infrastructure spending funds small business, and, by extension, stimulates the economy on a national level.

Monday, President Obama proposed a 50 billion dollar transit spending plan, which is comprised mostly of infrastructure spending. Certainly, the plan is an important step in cementing the economy as President Obama's continued focus into the midterms, but also to confirm Obama's devotion to providing jobs for Americans. The plan includes an "infrastructure bank," which would be developed and run by the federal government but financed by both public and private investments.
This is the sort of plan that would pay dividends to the American people quickly and in large numbers, so the question arises as to why the plan is so small. Obama, as a senator, was a big proponent of plans like this one, so it isn't a policy-based trepidation on the part of the administration. The package was most likely set at a smaller size in hopes of gaining Republican votes, but didn't the President learn anything from the health care debate? Maybe if he set a higher goal, any 'compromise' set in Congress would be closer to what he actually wanted. Also, the administration was able to pass one of their main (if little-understood) policy goals, banking regulation, with a Republican filibuster and without conservative support. If there's anything that Republican congressmen are possibly inclined to support, it is a package like this one that will provide many jobs in their districts, even though conservative support for infrastructure spending is infrequent.
"1. It’s a good idea 2. It’s much too small 3. It won’t pass anyway — which makes you wonder why the administration didn’t propose a bigger plan, so as to at least make the point that the other party is standing in the way of much needed repair to our roads, ports, sewers, and more– not to mention creating jobs. Once again, they’re striking right at the capillaries," economist Paul Krugman wrote on his New York Times blog, Conscience of a Liberal on Tuesday.
Krugman is right. If only because of obstruction for obstruction's sake, passage- at least of this version- of the plan is unlikely. But this doesn't change the fact that the administration essentially threw away a good chance to appear completely in support of and devoted to creating jobs. Now, if the Obama administration wishes to use this economic focus to their advantage come November, they ought to try their hardest to get the new proposal passed.

[Photo credit: nytimes.com]

Read more »

Face to Face

Face to Face

As the combat mission in Iraq comes to a halt and the many recent Afghan controversies seem to have cooled off, the administration, in an effort spearheaded by the State Department, has taken up the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as the new international focus leading into the midterms. Which, without a doubt, is a noble task- many a president before Obama has tried and failed to aid these two parties to make a peaceful settlement, without any luck. By hosting a series of peace negotiations between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, Obama, as well as America, at least symbolically, is expressing commitment to a cease in the volatile relations seen between not only the groups militarily and politically, but also in the people personally. If the president and Ms. Clinton are able to work with Israeli and and Palestinian leaders and help them conclude their sparring and agree on a viable solution, the Obama administration will have taken a huge and notable step forward for peace across the Middle East. However, try though the president might- and, doubtlessly, will- any outcome other than the sort of stale noncommittal ending that is shoved aside later when shots are fired once again is unlikely, simply based on the past. This isn't to say that the president and Secretary of State Clinton have no chance, it's just that they can't- and won't, according to recent statements- force peace upon anyone. No matter how committed America is or becomes to peace in the world, it is the Israelis and the Palestinians who must choose peace. America cannot choose it for them. Last time talks were held, they led to the death of over a thousand Palestinians as well as many Israelis. That being said, the tentatively optimistic tone being taken by administration leaders bodes well for the talks, as no one has more politically to lose from this than the Obama administration. And the commitment given by all parties to meet again, soon, can only be a good thing.
There is no way that any talks can succeed, however, unless all parties understand a few key points. There must be some solution reached regarding Hamas, as Israel's main concern is its security, the underlying theme in all of the Israeli rhetoric this week. If Israeli security is strengthened, the Israeli leaders must accept the creation of a Palestinian state. There is currently no real Palestine, forcing huge numbers of people to lived displaced in remote communities, movement controlled by Israel. This is not a long-term solution, nor is this helpful in any way to Israeli security. Soon, a state of Palestine must coexist with Israel.
As with most issues, the ramifications of an agreement reached-or lack thereof- do not simply affect Israel or the Palestinian people, nor even just the groups in attendance at the talks. The conflict, as well as any two-state solution, causes tremors far outside the Israeli boarders. This is why the issue cannot afford to wait any longer or disintegrate once again. It is imperative, for the future of the Middle East, that something is done.

Read more »

Distance Makes the Heart Grow Fonder

Distance Makes the Heart Grow Fonder

It is traditional in America for a former president’s mistakes to be essentially forgiven the moment he leaves office, mostly out of respect for the position but also from a slight inclination to forget bad sections in American history. From Hoover to Clinton to Bush Sr. to even Nixon, once the president is out of office and is writing their nearly guaranteed book deal and doing PSAs for whatever the day’s crisis is, Americans tend to forgive whatever discrepancies- moral or political- happened under the prior administration. The same is true for the George W. Bush administration. As with many other previous presidents, the Bush administration has been essentially romanticized in the mind of Americans. Once considered an abject failure by most of left-wing America, the media and moderates in the country and a mild embarrassment by right-wing America, who worked throughout the 2008 campaign to keep Bush out of the public eye as much as possible, the actions of the Bush administration are becoming generally accepted, if not lauded.

But we are forgetting the reasons the Bush administration was considered a failure in the first place- and not for the reasons usually mentioned. Yes, the post-Hurricane Katrina cleanup and rescue was a complete disaster and a disgusting example of federal irresponsibility. Yes, the lies told to the American people after 9/11 about the situation in Iraq were truly heinous and led to shocking overreach by the executive branch, including the disregard for the rule of law seen throughout the presidency. Yes, the international relations that had taken years and many administrations to carefully build were essentially destroyed- but these are not the only major, crippling shortfalls of the Bush administration, nor are they the oversights that impacted the nation most in the long term.
The Bush administration set a reckless and shocking precedent for executive power in America. From the overwhelmingly political motivations of the Bush advisors to the president’s increasing trust in and funding of corporations and special interests, the entire presidency was political in a way that had never been seen in the White House before. Although plenty of past administrations have been political and made political deals- as it is nearly impossible to operate in Washington without being political to some measure- never before had a presidency dealt so much in politics instead of ideology. The administration was very conservative except when that ideology conflicted with the special interests they had financially promised to protect.
While it may seem superfluous to dwell on past mistakes of a former president, it is actually important that these trials are remembered and used as a lesson. The quicker that the bloating of executive power that occurred under George W. Bush is forgotten, the more likely any future president will be able to return to such unprecedented power. President Obama seems to have taken a very expected ‘forgive and forget’ policy when it comes to dealing with the prior president. However, Bush’s policies that last today are, therefore, being ignored rather than repudiated. President Obama needs to gain the political courage to take firm stances against Bush administration policies- both politically and legally. If he cannot or does not do this, there is nothing, no precedent to stop future administrations from acting in the dangerously unbalanced manner of the executively control-crazed former administration.
(Photo credit: newsone.com) 

Read more »

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 »

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 »

You've Been MacArthured!

You've Been MacArthured!

According to military law, an officer may not "use[...] contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present [or he or she] shall be punished as a court-martial may direct." Beyond the simple inappropriateness of General Stanley McChrystal's comments to Rolling Stone magazine, they undermine the very strategy he lauded in Afganistan.

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.
By treating the President and other civilian leaders, especially the Vice-President, as uninterested and incompetent, McChrystal served to undermine his own strategy for Afganistan. Without the complete trust of civilian leaders, counter-insurgency is pointless and will not achieve the results he wishes for. Perhaps if McChrystal had show a bit more respect for the civilian leaders, he would have been more successful in Afganistan over the past year.

Read more »

Getting Mad

Getting Mad

President Obama's speech last week, if nothing else, conveyed how he truly cares about the people living around the Gulf of Mexico and his serious desire to stop the leak and begin cleanup. However, while President Obama's words may have been emotion-filled, the entire speech felt very much like 'the President's Weekly Adress' to be released for internet hounds and podcast subscribers; it was very informal. President Obama was not angry. He was not furious with BP. He needs to be.
Sure, BP is not entirely at fault. Lackadaisical federal regulators did not do their job, and Congress did not do its job. None of this, however, excuses BP for their horrific business practices.

BP's rescue plan in the case of an oil disaster was the equivalent of a seventh grader's semi-plagiarized term paper. BP has threatened to fire any and all employees who wear pertinent protective gear while working on the cleanup, presumably for PR reasons. This goes beyond terrible regulation. This is disgusting. Why aren't congressmen- why isn't President Obama- mad about this? The righteous, populous anger America so desperately needs right now was glimpsed when Rep. Joe Barton apologized to BP. The remarkable unity seen in response to Barton's comments needs to be channeled, and channeled towards getting something done. 
In a time when an endless swarm of indistinguishable voices dictates the personality of the internet, when rant-like, all-caps comments are posted on extremist sites, providing the textual equivalent of screaming at your idealogical twin, it may seem that instigating more anger is not the solution. However, it is the responsibility of Congress to get angry at corporations that hurt the American public and precious American environment, to get angry at regulators who fail to even basically protect Americans, and even to get angry with themselves and their institution for doing nothing. The solution is not instigating more anger; the solution is instigating the right anger.

Read more »

Elena Kagan's Nomination

Elena Kagan's Nomination

Late Chief Justice William Rehnquist had not judicial experience prior to joining the Supreme Court, of which he was a member of until his death in 2005. Rehnquist's lack of time as judge is a unusual trait for a judicial nominee, certainly, but hardly unique. Plenty of excellent justices have been chosen who have no or minimal prior judicial experience- in fact, nearly a third of all past justices had never served as a judge before being nominated. Still, it is a helpful, even a desirable trait for a judicial nominee to have served as a judge previously.  The true criticism presented by those who feel judicial experience is an important and accurate measure of a nominee is the lack of an attainable record for the nominee's rulings or potential rulings. In all truth, this information could be ascertained from questioning during the Senate confirmation hearing for any nominee, but a nominee's rulings on contentious political issues should not have any effect on their confirmation, except insofar as it demonstrates their devotion to the law.

Late Sunday night, rumors began to float that President Obama had finally chosen a nominee to replace retiring Justice John-Paul Stevens. The next day, Obama announced Elena Kagan, current Solicitor General and first female dean of Harvard Law School. Kagan, like Rehnquist, has no experience as a judge, though she has copious qualifications as an educator and as the primary legal advocate for the federal government.  If Kagan is confirmed by the Senate, it will mark the first time three female justices (Sotomayor, Ginsberg, and, potentially, Kagan) will have served on the court at one time.
If a nominee is qualified, devoted to the law, and shows strong moral and decision-based qualities, judicial experience should be superflous. Many years of judicial experience does not necessarily lead to a good justice, and a good justice does not require previous time as a judge. A phenomenal justice differs from a poor nominee based on character, not on irrelevant past decisions.  

Read more »

Times Square

Times Square

It is a favorite hypothetical of theorizers: a bomb is in New York City, but you only have one hour to disable it before it goes off. Its location is unknown, and whoever planted the bomb is being detained by the police. What do you do?

This hypothetical became dangerously close to reality last weekend, when a S.U.V. packed with explosives was detected in Times Square. The suspect, though not yet arrested, was caught on a security tape by the police; the car's owner has been identified. Times Square and the surrounding area were evacuated; the bomb was disarmed. This time, at least, our nations first lines of domestic defenses worked perfectly. 

But, inevitably, this is not always true. Due to human error, poor information, or otherwise, mistakes- fatal, often, when dealing with national security- will be made. Surely the Christmas (underwear) bomber's ability to get so far as to be lighting an explosive on an in-air plane indicates an error in the system. It was not the first domestic security error of the Obama Administration, nor will it be the last. The best the Administration- any administration, for that matter- and the country can hope for is that the errors are not titanic and that all can be and are quickly fixed. 

Current Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano is charged with the huge task of assisting President Obama with protecting the nation in an age where, because of the technology readily available and polarization between racial, ethic, and geographical groups throughout the world, protecting America is an increasingly difficult thing to do. Surely, from time to time, our security will be breached. The best we can do is to have a strong reactionary system, just like the one that reacted to this weekend's bomb in New York. Luckily, no damage occurred, as the bomb did not go off. However, it is important to remember that, as mistakes are inevitable, even when dealing with national security, next time, we might not be so lucky.  

[photo via New York Times]

Read more »