The Reemergence of Real Leadership

Tuesday evening at 8pm President Obama took a great step in his evolution toward becoming one of the greatest leaders our country has ever seen. Like many presidents before him, Obama argued his case for war, this time against against Al Qaeda. Unlike others however, he did so standing in front of West Point students—many of whom will see deployment in Afghanistan and may indeed lose their lives.

In his address to the American people, the President carefully outlined a point by point strategy for attacking the al Qaeda insurgents in Afghanistan and Pakistan. He made it crystal clear that victory would happen with the support of NATO forces, with the United States acting as a beacon of hope and liberty. This was what many people, myself included, hoped to hear former President Bush say after 9/11, but that unity was squandered amongst endless vendettas against Iraq and Saddam Hussein specifically. In his speech, President Obama pledged to finally unite the world under the flag of liberty and security.

The additional 30,000 United States troops will not stand on the front lines alone, that the President made abundantly clear. Obama meant two things through that promise. First, the troops will be standing side by side with our allies, in particular Pakistani soldiers who have seldom cooperated with United States peace efforts. Secondly, and most importantly the President made a plea to the American people to support the troops and this effort to preserve peace and democracy.

Some people watched this address with immediate skepticism. Some said that Obama made a critical error by setting a firm deadline for troop withdrawal from the area (2011). For those interested in that argument, tune into C-Span or CNN and listen to Senator McCain argue against the preservation of liberty and safety of America. The majority of Republicans support Obama on this issue however.

Democrats are now the ones rushing to oppose military action. To these Senators and Congressmen, all I can say is that the damage has already been done. Obama is simply willing and able to stop the bloodshed in a very volatile and dangerous area of the world. Is the United States responsible for much of the current turmoil? Yes. But Obama opposed every single measure which led us to this point. Make no mistake, the President’s actions in this situation is that of a Commander and Chief and not of a timid little man who somehow weaseled his way out of serving in Vietnam in order to become this Nation’s worst president of the modern era.

President Obama has acted decisively and prudently. He is arguing for peace, standing up for the rights of all Afghans and even those Taliban forces that are willing to accept that freedom is the correct course for the Afghan people.

Numerous times I have stated that the President is arguing for something. This implies that he somehow needs to persuade the American public as well as the legislative branch to support his effort; all the while our troops look westward and see nothing but political squabbling and citizen unrest. This is unacceptable.

The truth is simple: President Obama is doing exactly what he was elected to do. Our Commander and Chief is bringing an end to open-ended war, unifying the world’s countries, and in the process repairing America’s image abroad. He is also fulfilling a greater promise to the American people, which is that he will do what is necessary to preserve our safety even against popular opposition. This is what America has lacked for eight long years; real leadership in the face of adversity.

Enslaved Journalists, Nuclear Proliferation: The Fight Betwean Values in the Conflict With North Korea

Several intriguing and disturbing events have been reported on over the past twenty-hour hours, each raising questions regarding the United States willingness to uphold human rights of its citizens and its overall commitment to promoting just acts world-wide.

Laura Ling and Euna Lee, two journalists and citizens of the United States were sentenced to twelve years in a North Korean labor camp by the North Korean High Court. The basis for this decision is that these two women committed crimes against the North Korean state simply be being close to its borders; Officials also claim that they entered North Korean territory illegally (a questionable charge at the very least).

Being held prisoner since March 17^th, the United States government has done surprisingly little to secure the freedom of their citizens, except to say that their capture and subsequent sentencing is against human rights standards. As reported by the New York Times, Ian C.  Kelly, a state department representative, the United States government has all but acknowledged this sentencing as a political move meant to provide the North Korean government leverage in negotiations and hostilities with the United States.

This understanding is accompanied with the knowledge of the harsh conditions of the labor camps and that horrible things could (and with all likelihood will) happen to these journalists.

In an era where terrorism is the talk of the day, no one seems to consider the unjust and terrible torture being conducted by North Korea an act of terrorism, even if it is against one of its enemies. Such an oversight is wrong. The imprisonment of Ms. Ling and Ms. Lee is an act of terrorism and cannot be tolerated any more than nuclear proliferation.

Of course, in the midst of this humanitarian travesty, the United States continues to lobby the United Nations Security Council to sanction an embargo on all North Korean exports, claiming that they are in the business of promoting terrorism and possibly enticing a massive arms race in Northern Asia through nuclear proliferation.

The United States has sought support from China in an effort to curb North Korean aggression. According to Chinese Law, military intervention against North Korea would be acceptable. However with North Korea already promising to conduct additional weapons tests of short, medium, and long-range missiles, the results of such a threat could be devastating to South Korea and even go as far as to provoke Japan into beginning its own weapons projects. Such an action would destabilize the region and spark a war that’s far less containable than what the United States has already begun in the Middle East.

President Obama should be applauded for his hard-line stance against North Korea, pledging that the United States was through “rewarding provocation.” At the same time, the President has expressed a willingness to re-open the six-party talks with North Korea in an attempt to come to a peaceful resolution to this nuclear threat.

There is however legitimate reasons to be concerned about the United States motivations in this conflict. The United States seems willing to sacrifice the safety of its own citizens trapped unjustly in North Korean prison camps in favor of military posturing. Also President Obama is treating this conflict as if he is dealing with a rationale government. All indications show that the North Korean government would rather engage in war than acquiesce to Western compromises.

Scholars of United States foreign policy should also be concerned that through its requests to intercept North Korean ships in transit via the sea is a clear violation of international law and could very well be considered a legitimate act of war. While President Kennedy got away with this act when he blockaded Cuba in the 1960s, it should be hoped that the United States could act with greater prudence in regards to this matter.

President Obama is a fair and just man who undoubtedly is acting in a manner consistent with his predecessors (even though Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s involvement may prove problematic given her husband’s former military stance). The threats against South Korea and Japan are important and very real. But so is the atrocity of North Korea’s desire to harm United States citizens.

Neither nuclear development, continental threat, or the imprisonment and torture of United States citizens can be condoned here; steps must be taken to stop these dangers. The political process is ideal but the right thing to do, the just thing to do, is for President Obama to consider all options in these scenarios.

It is difficult to stomach any mistreatment or pain being inflicted on others, but having faith in one’s government is important even if it’s sometimes difficult. In the mean time all Americans should hope for quick and decisive action to preserve the well-being of every individual affected by these atrocities and not give in to hate, fear, or political propaganda.

Volunteering Amongst Economic Collapse: Some Troubling Observations

The news, whether it be broadcast or print media have focused so much on the failing of banks, the auto industry, and the general distress of the stock market, that one simple fact has escaped their notice. While nearly 9% of the population are unemployed and looking for work, there is a population actively searching for any type of work, most notably volunteerism. Ironically this is one of President Obama’s pledges to America—that volunteering is one of the greatest things an American citizen can do for his/her country. With that in mind, why is it so hard to find a volunteer position that caters to those people who continue to look for work…say programs requiring 3 months of service?

Volunteerism is great but you can’t make a living off it; it has to be one component of a person’s life, a companion to everything else in order to really matter.

I’ve been searching for a volunteer position for nearly 6 months. I have a BA in Social Work and a MS in Journalism plus a resume that should count for something. Instead I am brushed aside. The most notable case involved a veterans’ care center in central Connecticut. I had contacted them, sent them my resume and was greeted with a great deal of enthusiasm. Of course that was back in January and despite numerous attempts to reach the organization, my efforts have failed. And for those of you unfamiliar with the current situation with returning soldiers, the need for volunteers is only growing. One notion here that was handed down to me was that these types of clinics prefer ex-veterans, regardless of qualifications. of course that is their perogative and I impose no judgment on them.

I have a very logical theory as to why my situation is really anything but unique. It’s not meant as an indictment on non-profit organizations, but it should serve as a wakeup call.

With so many individuals out of work some non-profits may feel as if they are being used as a stepping stone, a way for people to bolster their resumes as they search for full-time work. Another theory is that some agencies are afraid that by bringing someone on as a volunteer may result in the expectation that it should turn into a permanent job. Unfortunately in both these scenarios it is the people in need that suffer. Individual care should always take priority.

Another thing I’ve noticed while searching the internet for potential volunteer opportunities is that they often stipulate that any volunteer must commit to at least 1 year of service. In another economy I would whole-heartedly endorse this idea: it is a way to make sure volunteers are committed and sincere in regards to their desire to make a meaningful contribution to that particular organization. However, as I pointed out earlier in this piece, the very notion of volunteering has changed. In the wake of losing one’s job a person may seek contentment in helping others and in the process feeling less helpless and isolated. But these men and women are still looking for work so non-profits would benefit by being more flexible in their requirements for bringing on volunteers.

In addition to being a constructive critique of the volunteer system, this article should present another, very distinct message, perhaps lost in my discussion. By limiting the types of people who can volunteer, say as a Big Brother or Sister, non-profits may be doing a disservice to both parties involved.

Social Work and all forms of social service are based on the notion that the community and welfare of others is paramount to all else.

It’s time for all community organizations to recognize that times have changed and to accept their responsibilities as stewards of the greater good. If they act fast enough, perhaps fewer children will be left alone, elderly men and women will be more properly cared for, and society can begin to really re-balance itself. I know I would be very grateful to be part of it and others would too.

A Decision Comprised of Indecision

Less than an hour ago the California Supreme Court rejected that Same-Sex marriages are considered equal under constitutional law, however sanctioned the marriages that have already taken place. This decision not only restricts the rights of homosexuals, it undermines the very notion of the Rule of Law.

This decision creates two classes of homosexuals, those who are privileged to have obtained marriages and those who cannot. In essence, the California Supreme Court is rewarding gay couples who got married inside a legal window of time, validating the rights afforded to conventional married men and women, and restricting the rights of everyone else.

In the midst of debating the constitution, it is a modern day marvel that the constitution ceased to be upheld. However when one considers the populace stance on same-sex marriage, this court decision makes more sense. There are two basic premises involved here: 1) that a large segment of the population is afraid of either losing the rights they have already obtained or of being denied those rights entirely and 2) There is an equally large population pushing a religious argument against same-sex marriage. Instead of basing their argument on legal rights, these men and women chose to construct a religious-based offensive, putting individual rights one step below that of religious dogma.

The Court’s decision reflects the contradictions posed in these premises. On one hand, this ruling respects the legality of same-sex marriage but at the same time prevents any further marriages and deems that some homosexuals have fewer rights than the rest of the men and women in this country. The Rule of Law is clear: no man or women can be excused from the law, regardless of their sex, race, political standing, etc.

At best this decision is one based upon fear and popular demand. The ruling is sure to be debated and deconstructed.

But when all the smoke clears from this battle for rights, it must be determined that law cannot be made on a casual basis in order to pacify people for the moment. The welfare of all the people must be taken into account when interpreting the constitution and when creating law.