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.

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.

North Korea Rocket Launch a Signal for Aid & the Lifting of Ill-Advised Sanctions

So North Korea has attempted yet another failed rocket launch. This would have to be the third in recent memory and each time the international community has responded, by enlarge, with great negativity, almost as if they didn’t expect this from a nation that has willing barricaded itself from outside influence. President Barack Obama has condemned this act as an overt show of force meant to intimidate neighboring nations. My question is who is there to intimidate?

South Korea is firmly backed by the United States, Japan, and the rest of the National Security Council. In the middle of this is of course China, which has no interest in war or conflict in the region (and has the troops and resources to prevent said conflict). The Western approach to this launch is predicated on a very old notion: that it is acceptable for some nations to exercises strength as long as the United States agrees with their politics. I had hoped that President Obama would show a bit more prudence in his response.

The reality is that North Korea is an impoverished nation.Completely over-populated almost to the point of not being sustainable, North Korea has been forced to fend for themselves in terms of securing limited trading partners for food and electricity; this is because of a long standing United Nations-backed set of sanctions being levied against them. These sanctions have adversely affected the entire North Korean population. Granted the elite suffer less, but they are still accountable to their population and as a result President Kim Jong-il has been in a sense forced to develop nuclear facilities; this is the only way to sustain their population–something even the Bush administration understood. Despite President Bush’s emphatic claims of North Korea being part of an axis of evil he still allowed political envoys to broker deals with North Korea to stave off potential conflicts. Part of that deal was for North Korea to submit to nuclear inspections and to cease the development of nuclear weapons. This rocket launch does not seem to violate either of those provisions.

If one chooses to believe the public relations trickling from North Korea the rocket launch was an attempt to send a satellite into orbit–a practice that is consistent with other developing nations. And to that end, any rocket used would have to contain enough fuel to clear the distance say between North Korea and Japan. It is hard for me to believe that any intelligent government would intentionally attack Japan or think another nation, especially one that is barely hanging on domesticly, would do the same.

My take on all of this is that at the worst, North Korea is pressing the international community to acknowledge them once again, maybe even try and coerce some additional aid. If this launch was an attempt to send a satellite into orbit I would like to see evidence presented to confirm it. Still, I feel this is a mute point. North Korea poses no threat to anyone and is doing whatever it can to gain the attention of more prosperous nations, probably to lift some sanctions that are decimating their nation.

It is time the UN Security Council come to grips with what security really means, which is not just to debate weapons and their development but also to ensure that countries such as North Korea are not left to last resorts, which unfortunately tend to be military-related. Then perhaps the world powers can take a step back and see the real foes facing the world, which are a bit harder to see when stuck in a cloud of suspicion regarding nations that simply pose no direct threat to any country.

Hoping for a Depression

Since 2007 a lot of numbers have been thrown about in the news. Well here is a new one: 8.5%. Yup, that’s the new unemployment rate in the United States, up .4% from its last measurement. It may sound crazy, but this is exactly what America needs; In fact I am hoping unemployment reaches that critical figure of 12.5%. Only then will it truly hit home to every politician, every CEO, and all those in America who claim the economy can simply fix itself.

I have said before that I support President Obama’s economic policy, shifting money to infrastructure and changing the way business is conducted nationwide. But I have also been critical of the President so when I write this please realize that my desire is to see a balanced and secure America.

Government over-site can only do so much. Bailouts have their limits (and quite frankly I am, not exactly crazy about taking loans from China…which we will likely default on anyway). President Obama, for all his promises, which I believe to be genuine, is also just a man. He is a voice of change but a voice too often muffled by the rich in the United States–unfortunately this includes many in our government, both democrats and republicans and so-called independents.

I am not suggesting that the entire political system of the United States needs to change but I am suggesting that it will take drastic problems to shake the government into consensus. Apparently 8.1% unemployment was insufficient and I doubt the new figure will change the opinions of those in the Senate or Congress.

By entering into a new Depression, American politicians will be forced to come together and act in a completely bi-partisan way and swallow their pride. After all their jobs are dependent upon the American peoples’ satisfaction.  It is sad to think this, but maybe all it will take to spark changes in this country–education, health care, and business reform, may be a number and a label.

Maybe the G20 Summit will produce results and the American economy will rebound in an actual sustainable way. Focus seems to be supporting developing countries that are suffering from this economic crisis–hence the 1.1 trillion dollar pledge by the G20 to help them survive. I can only hope that the leaders and people of those nations are viewing the words and actions of the G20 with a bit of smart skepticism.

When President Obama assumed the office of the Presidency he said that there would be many challenges and that people will have to make sacrifices. I believe the American people have suffered enough and that the President concurs; Republican members of Congress and the Senate however seem to think prolonged debate and “business as usual” is still acceptable in an era where the number of homeless families, people losing health benefits and their jobs continues to skyrocket.

In the end there is no debate over one simple fact: this is the worst economic crisis in 6 decades.  But it might take until the percent of unemployment reaches 12.5% for government officials to finally understand their failure; I hope by then they will still be able to correct it.

Has The Government Gone Too Far With General Motors?

While listening to NPR’s Planet Money the other day an interesting notion was presented. While disguised in slight economic language, the question posed was whether or not the United States, through its actions with GM, be considered a private sector owner and therefore be entitled to all rights pertaining to that group?

This is a new idea, at least to me. The most common assertion I have heard people say is that President Obama is ushering in a new era of socialism (such cynics fail to point out that President Roosevelt initiated similar government control over private industry during the Great Depression). My view is that the government has a right to step in and be in control of private industry (acting as an investor) if the industry involved is essential to the nation’s economic infrastructure.

President Obama has made no secret regarding his economic and energy plans, which are intertwined. Clearly he as well as his economics advisers and Treasury Secretary thought General Motors and Chrysler were making substandard efforts to justify government loans and as a result new leadership was needed and consequently initiated by the government.

To be clear to everyone, I want to point out one very important thing: NO JOBS WILL BE LOST as a result of Chrysler merging with Fiat nor will the firing of GM’s CEO cause layoffs of blue-collar laborers.

In actuality, the government’s decision to force GM’s CEO to resign was a very direct measure to hasten positive change and correct significant dysfunction in the auto industry.

Some people have asked why the government is being so direct with its actions against the auto industry and not Wallstreet of Banks. The answer to that is in two parts: 1) Both the Banking companies and Wallstreet have provide adequate justification for the funds they are requesting from the government to save their businesses. 2) The banks are already under tremendous governmental oversight.

After all is said and done, Obama cannot be called a socialist. Rather he is a pragmatist who understands that the role of any government is to help stabilize its country’s economic and social catastrophes. Turning a blind eye and allowing billions of dollars to be spent recklessly or with no regard for fostering positive change is wrong. Doing so would only harm the American people, exploiting their dependence upon CEOs and the corporate institutions that employ them.

If anything, President Obama’s actions are anti-socialist and I challenge anyone to prove my argument wrong.

Falling Housing Costs Offer False Hopes

The price of buying a home in the United States continues to drop. According to the New York Times, “Standard & Poor’s Case-Shiller Home Price Index, a widely watched measure of 20 metropolitan areas, fell 19 percent in January from January 2008.” On the surface this might seem like good news to those Americans trying to secure a fresh start as the economy continues to disintegrate before our eyes. On the other hand, this cost decline is a frightening indicator of just how bad the American economy is fairing.

Of course I could spend forever discussing the economy and housing. the reality is that the figure presented by the New York Times is meaningless because the people who most need a home are still without work and likely end up in debt again if they tried to purchase a home. Also, four walls are hardly a comfort for men, women, and children in need of health care and work.

I lost my job in December 2008. At that time I was looking to purchase my first home at the age of 25. I had hoped to build roots in a suburban community where I could make a family and live a comfortable life…and bear in mind I was not making much money, scarcely more than twebty thousand per year. That dream evaporated in a single moment. This is not a unique story, except to say that I am fortunate. I do not have a family to support and I can pursue advanced education that will overtime prove beneficial even in this economy. Too many people cannot say that.

President Obama understands this crisis. He hears and more importantly sees the effects of this recession. He recognizes that housing is only one aspect of improving the economy and he preaches patience. While I respect him for this desire to remain connected to the American people, I am frusterated that there are those in congress and the senate that would look to block the president’s reforms that will clearly benefit the the lower and middle-class population.

So allow me to offer a message of caution. Housing prices mean nothing on this economy. What we need is drastic reform, not a list of falling costs. Numbers do not put food on the table or help an ailing child.

As upsetting as it may be, people need to keep and open mind and remain skeptical of the news being presented regarding the economy, recognizing potential false hopes.

Link to the NY Times Story:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/01/business/economy/01econ.html?_r=1&hp

AIG Revisited: Can America Lead Again?

Great news! The AIG employees and ex-employees alike are not all keeping their ill-begotten funds. It is a sad state of things when the United States government will settle for the literal theft of fifty million dollars right out out of the taxpayer’s pockets.

While I stated in a previous entry that the one-hundred million dollars being debated over was actually quite small, the fifty million paid back is important. It is a symbol that men and women can be motivated to alter their actions, even if it means days of government bickering and threats from the Treasury Department.  However what remains a concern is how the President will close the very loopholes that allowed AIG to take advantage of the American people.

After all, free enterprise is the cornorstone not only of America’s economic policy, but is also tied into the country’s very belief structure. America is supposed to be the beacon for change, the light that which ships at sea could follow home.

AIG’s actions and the government’s subsequent inability to effectively craft legislation in a fast manner to prevent this crime, shows that these ships (now countries), while following America’s light, may wind up shattered against the rocks.

And make no mistake, what AIG has done is a crime, even if they were to pay back all the money and say they are sorry. Such a statement is meant to sound pathetic because that’s exactly what such a gesture would be.

No. I stand by my initial critique that AIG must refund the entire one hundred million dollars it used for bonuses in addition to the billions it received in government aid.  Some may argue that what has happened is indeed great news. That people are finally taking responsibility for their actions. What I see, however, is another round of political maneuvering meant to simulate progress.

The government must act and it must act now. I will not sit idly by and watch my money be paid to people who fly around in private jets and have perhaps too many homes to count.

As a citizen of the United States, I demand that the government propose and pass legislation that is in the best interest of the people and one that will yet again show that America is worthy to be the world’s guiding light.

To read more about this, please visit the New york Times Website:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/24/business/24bonus.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

AIG Bonuses: Questions Loom Ever Larger as Assigning Blame Accomplishes Nothing

I wrote previously about the AIG bonuses fiasco. What amazes me now is how people, whether it be journalists, politicians, economists, or businessmen and businesswoman are more concerned with who is to blame for the lack of oversight in terms of how the taxpayer money has been dispersed than resolving the issue.

On National Public Radio’s Planet Money, economist Adam Davidson suggested that the primary issue regarding the AIG payouts involves the question of government regulation and whether or not it has jurisdiction to invalidate the contracts which AIG is allegedly paying off with the bailout funds.

Even with a 75% ownership, the government’s actual influence seems limited. Politicians are shying away, many of them rather vehemently, from taking responsibility for the misappropriation of funds, claiming that AIG acted unethicly. Conversely, those on Wallstreet are blaming the government for not recognizing that the bailout funds were always intended to satisfy pre-existing contracts that would have sunk the company.

As an aside, these contracts involve a simple agreement: AIG agreed that if the housing market were to fall, its investors would not see a drop in their shares’ worth. Personally I question the legal legitimacy of such a contract as well as the logic employed when it was constructed; this seems like a recipe for debt since the economy is generally very dynamic.

Mr. Davidson also made a point to explain just how insignificant $100 million dollars is within the context of the national bailout plan. AIG’s actions in themselves are not the problem; what they symbolized is.

Why should taxpayers support bailout plans to reward those men and women who helped crash the American economy? Doesn’t the American citizenry deserve some sort of regulation to safeguard their money, making sure it is used to actually stabalize the economy?

Regardless of who is to blame for AIG’ s misuse of funds, these are questions President Obama and his economic team need to answer because as of this moment there is nothing preventing other companies from taking direct disadvantage of the funds delegated to them through the government bailouts.

Right now the government’s economic credibility is at risk. And as I mentioned before, this affects the welfare of all Americans. Fear is a powerful motivator and it is further strengthened by these failed stimulus deals…this perception is something that the United States cannot afford.

A Time to Listen

It was reported by the New York Times this past week that President Obama has given the go-ahead on pursuing potential negotiations with different sects of the former Taliban Regime. This is in response to Pakistan’s truce with the terrorist network that controls a large section of Northern Pakistan. There is no question that even hinting at such a suggestion would anger countless Americans or at the very least confuse them. However this is no different than what President Clinton orchestrated during the Bosnian Conflict. Over ten years ago two factions in Bosnia were effectively committing genocide on one another. In an effort to quell the bloodshed the United States brokered a deal that ultimately led to a peace accord. Even though it remains a tenuous peace, the quality of life in the region has stabilized. That seems to be the goal again, however this time the President must choose whether or not to reach out his hand to an enemy that harbored Bin Laden.

Make no mistake, to support the Taliban is to support a regime which lacks any sort of moral compass recognized in the West.  This is a former gorverning body which preached intolerance of woman and those whom they considered non-believers. So why should the United States, which considers itself a beacon of liberty consider peace in this situation?

I believe in freedom and helping all people; it is why I am becoming a social worker. But I am not an idealist when it comes to politics. I understand that short term sacrafices can mean lasting peace. Pakistan is an important Ally to the West and civil war is not preferable, not only because we do not have the troops to spare but also because noone in modern history has ever successfully defeated Afgahns on their own land.  This isn’t even to mention the attrocities the people of Pakistan and Afganistan would suffer if an all out civil war were to occur. We cannot impose our desires on a sovereign nation. President Obama uderstands this.

Whether or not the United States supports the beliefs and actions of the Taliban are in this case irrelavent. President Obama promised to talk with our enemies, if indeed that is an appropriate term any longer. That does mean stomaching some bad feelings. But it must be noted that Bin Laden and the Taliban did not necessarily work in conjunction with the Taliban government was being assailed by President Bush even before the attacks on 9/11.

Change has always come slowly in the Middle East, if it comes at all. And if an alliance with even a fraction of the Taliban can help promote change than it is worth exploring. When i say change I mean change that comes about naturally, without political or monetary gain for the United States. Such selfless actions have happened before.

To those who would argue that to make alliances with those who harmed us, I would ask you to remember Pearl Harbor and the atom bomb. And I offer you a quote from The American President as to what it means to be an American:

“let’s see you listen to a person argue at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a life time arguing in opposition of.”

In a nutshell that is what President Obama is asking each and every American. He is asking us to listen. And as frustrating and even downright upsetting as it is, I will do just that.