Hitler's Germany: Justified

After the first two weeks of blogging for this class, I started to get nervous. What if I run out of controversial things to talk about? I'm used to blogging about politics when things come up, not three times a week. But then International Forum went into full swing.

First, can I just say how absolutely ridiculous most of that class is? The people, not the curriculum (because -shocker- there is no curriculum!) They don't listen to anything the "other side" is saying, and they have absolutely no basis for most of their opinions.

And yesterday, they made a statement that is worth nothing short than being crowing "The Most Vacuous Opinion Evar".

Someone was giving a presentation about Uganda and the media, and one of their class discussion questions regarded the new Anti-Gay bill. I briefly discussed this in one of my previous blogs, but I'd like to respond to something further, after comments that were made yesterday.

The people in my class seem to be, again, under the impression that this is not our problem. "It's cultural." they argued. "We have no right to intervene." Normally, I would agree.

However, here is the biggest problem with their statement.

It's not cultural, because it was introduced by- here's a shocker- the US. From the San Fransisco Chronicle: "The Times notes that back in March, Scott Lively, Caleb Lee Brundidge, and Don Schmierer shared their "wisdom" on homosexuality with thousands at a conference in Kampala, Uganda. Specifically, the men told the audience:

... how to make gay people straight, how gay men often sodomized teenage boys and how 'the gay movement is an evil institution' whose goal is 'to defeat the marriage-based society and replace it with a culture of sexual promiscuity.'

A few weeks later, the Anti-Homosexuality Bill (PDF) was introduced."

But I promised that I would crown "The Most Vacuous Opinion Evar", so let's do that now.

I raised my hand to point out the glaring similarities between killing people because they're homosexual and WW2. "It was our problem then, so why isn't it our problem now?"

A boy promptly responded. "Hitler invaded our allies."

There it is, folks, "The Most Vacuous Opinion Evar". Apparently, the only reason we stopped Hitler's genocide of the Jews and the homosexuals was because he invaded our allies. If he hadn't, whatevs.

Not our problem.

What a world we live in.

The Race for Racial Relations

STOP THE PRESSES! This just in... Obama has not made all Americans turn from their racist ways! He's a failure to the country!

Reuters reported that "[A] poll, published on the U.S. holiday commemorating civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr., found 41 percent now say Obama's presidency has helped race relations, compared with 58 percent on the eve of Obama's inauguration a year ago who said his presidency would help race relations.

The decline was the sharpest among African Americans, with 51 percent now saying Obama has helped advance race relations, compared with 75 percent who, last January, said they expected Obama's presidency to help."

Really, America? Really? Just because the liberals and moderates and not-racist people voted in a black president doesn't mean that all citizens will renounce their racist ways. No matter what Obama does, there will always be racist people.

US News gave me a little more hope, with a quote from our president. "For all the symbolism of Obama's position in the White House, he has not yet used his bully pulpit to take on the issue of race. On several occasions, in fact, the president has seemed to deliberately shy away from the subject. When Attorney General Holder picked up the reins this winter, chiding Americans for being "a nation of cowards" on racial matters, Obama pushed back firmly. "I'm not somebody who believes that constantly talking about race somehow solves racial tensions," he said."

Here's a winger- he's right. There is really nothing that any of us can ever do to stop racial tensions, short of breeding out the racist bunch or isolating them on some remote island with angry natives and no guns. But that's un-American, so I guess we're just going to have to ignore them.

Talking about race to ease racial tensions works about as well as condemning dictator's rhetoric contains Communism. Huh.

This is your brain on drugs

According to NPR, "While opium production is not the only stream of income for the Taliban, it is one of the larger ones. According to the United Nations, the Taliban has earned an estimated annual income of $125 million from the opiate market since 2005."

Did you know that? Me either, until a couple days ago. And this seems like a fairly big issue. So why aren't we addressing it?

Oh. Right. Because "we're sending in young people to kill the Taliban" sounds more impressive.

But I don't think that impressive is what we need right now; to me, "effective" is looking pretty nice. Obviously, with the Durand Line, it's going to be next to impossible to stabilize Afghanistan with a mere 30,000 troops and brute force.

A case study on opium in Afghanistan by Jonathon Goodhand asserts that "Due to globalization and the development of trade, traditional ways of sustaining life for villagers has been forced to change. Before people relied on wheat farming and live stock whereas today poppy cultivation is the most prominent economic activity. This can be attributed due to higher profits from poppy cultivation and lack of opportunity for other farming practices due to land scarcity and more accessible loans from money providers for this activity."

The Taliban will never be fully eradicated if their funding remains. Sure, Saudi Arabia isn't helping, but we have less control over them than Afghaistan farmers. What we need to do is create incentives for these farmers to grow something other than opium.

From the Washington Post, "Drug traffickers have a symbiotic relationship with insurgents and terrorist groups such as the Taliban and al-Qaeda. Instability makes opium cultivation possible; opium buys protection and pays for weapons and foot soldiers, and these in turn create an environment in which drug lords, insurgents and terrorists can operate with impunity.”

"Opium is the glue that holds this murky relationship together. If profits fall, these sinister forces have the most to lose. I suspect that the big traffickers are hoarding surplus opium as a hedge against future price shocks and as a source of funding for future terrorist attacks, in Afghanistan or elsewhere."

Why are we focusing our efforts on shooting guns when a counter-insurgency war concentrating on this rising drug trade will actually be more beneficial? Sometimes I don't think our government pays attention to what's going on at all.

The Duct Tape of Equality

The McCain family, defying all Republican stereotypes, has come out against Proposition 8 in California, the "gay bill". And I, for one commend them.

Unfortunately, Papa McCain is the exception. While wife Cindy and daughter Meghan have been posing for pictures and speaking their support for equality, John has been decidedly silent.

According to the Washington Post, "John McCain's office said in a statement that the Arizona senator respects the views of members of his family but remains opposed to gay marriage."

I'm not even going to berate McCain for being a stuffy, old-fashioned, closed-minded ass. It's not worth it, and it won't help anything. But I would like to commend the women in his family, for being strong enough to break away from their powerful husband/father's beliefs and stand up for what's right.

"Country First" would imply listening to your country. Your country wants change. Your country wants fairness. Your country wants equality. So stop sitting complacent in your heterosexual, white, middle class homes and DO SOMETHING.

Durand Durand

Resolved: President Obama's plan for increasing troops in Afghanistan is in the United States' best interest.

We've been debating this resolution for two weeks, and the more I talk about it, the more I learn. One big issue I've discovered is the Durand Line. Now, last week, I thought the Durand Line was just a small little section of the AfPak border. Then I found this picture, and looked further into it.

The Durand Line is basically the entire AfPak border, and none of it is recognized by Afghanistan.

See that blue section of the map? That's all disputed territory. See the little red line in the middle? That's the internationally recognized border.

This, quite succinctly, is a problem.

According to President Obama during his speech at West Point, “The future of Afghanistan is inextricably linked to the future of its neighbor, Pakistan. In the nearly eight years since 9/11, al Qaeda and its extremist allies have moved across the border to the remote areas of the Pakistani frontier. This almost certainly includes al Qaeda's leadership: Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri. They have used this mountainous terrain as a safe haven to hide, to train terrorists, to communicate with followers, to plot attacks, and to send fighters to support the insurgency in Afghanistan. For the American people, this border region has become the most dangerous place in the world.”

Ok, that makes sense. But looking at this map, I see a significant issue. Exactly which border are we trying to stabilize? The edge of the blue area in Afghanistan? The international border? The edge of the blue area in Pakistan?

The only way I see that we can resolve this issue is to redraw the lines. It's like what's happening in Africa; we white people draw lines based on how much land we want and declare the separate sections as separate countries. But the consent of the people is not claimed, and because tribal areas are being shredded and split up, there is civil war and an entire continent of unrest.

This is what is going on in the Middle East. Because we keep forcing our Western ideals and our Western-drawn lines without the consent of anyone but ourselves and our Western allies, the people are angry. They want their people in one place, and other people in another.

Maybe we should work to redefine the lines to both the Afghani and the Pakistani people's consent. That would be more diplomatic than sending in a bunch of people to an area that is not recognized as a border. Sure, terrorism is still a problem, but because the countries they exist in are unsettled and angry, they have an easy job sneaking by and building their regimes. So once we stabilize the border and the countries, the terrorists won't have any public support. They won't be needed to stir the pot. The pot will be settled.

The Seat

After nearly 50 years of Kennedy monopolization of the Massachusetts Senate seat, the reign has come to an end. A close battle between Republican Scott Brown and Democrat Martha Coakley has ensued, spurring the creation of KennedySeat.com.

Mr. Coit brought up an interesting point today in class. If Brown wins, the Republicans will have 41 and the Democrats will have 59. This means that the Democrats would no longer have the amount of people needed to stop a filibuster. Thus, if they find it necessary, the Republicans could filibuster the health care bill, which is a definite possibility. However, Mr. Coit went on to say that they could stop the health care bill. With this statement, I disagree.

A filibuster is the "informal term for any attempt to block or delay Senate action on a bill or other matter by debating it at length, by offering numerous procedural motions, or by any other delaying or obstructive actions." The longest filibuster in history was 24 hours and 18 minutes against the Civil Rights Act of 1957, courtesy of Strom Thurmond.

It was passed through Congress and signed by President Eisenhower in September of the same year.

Filibusters obviously don't work too well. Sure, it might annoy some congressmen, but health care reform of this caliber has been debated since President Clinton. The Democrats have passed it through both houses already. They're all on board, and as of now, public support is still with Obama.

I don't think, even if Brown does pull out a win today, that a Republican filibuster is going to stop the momentum of this health care bill. At least, not by itself.

Transparency or National Security?

International forum, which is a joke of a class, actually made me think last week. Shocking, I know.

We were given the task to come up with an "essential question" to present to the class, on the topic of media and war. This "EQ" had to have no clear answer, and was meant to encourage class debate.

My question: Should Obama give in to media pressure and give specifics about the troop surge in Afghanistan?

On one hand, Obama promised, and we deserve, more transparency. How can the American people be expected to agree with a policy that they know nothing about? Especially with only 24% of people strongly agreeing with how Obama is performing his role as president, he can't politically afford to be vague. America wants specifics.

On the other hand, is Obama's promise of transparency more important than national security? There are potential dangers to making the specifics of this troop surge open for public debate. Obama and his supporters among military generals have been very ambiguous about the placement of troops, the troops expected from other countries, and the withdrawal time line. From the LA Times, "These troops are going to help us counter Taliban territorial advances, deny safe havens and create security for Afghan civilians," said a senior Obama administration official, speaking on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly."

Obama has been reported to have gone to foreign governments and NATO with more specifics, but publicly, much of the proposed surge is a mystery.

See, the problem with specifics of military strategy being public knowledge is that American news does not stay in America. How safe can we expect to be if the Taliban knows our playbook, along with the rest of the world?

I lean to the side of national security, personally. Trusting our Commander in Chief is vital in a time of war, so until Obama really screws up, let's keep our secret military strategies... secret.

Mandatory

Last weekend during mock Congress, we were debating whether of not to pass a bill requiring mandatory health insurance. I rarely read the docket beforehand, so I hadn't really prepared anything. But after a few people gave their speeches, I had plenty to say.

One of the biggest proponent arguments was that as of now, we, the tax payers, pay for the emergency care for the uninsured. They reasoned that mandatory health insurance would remedy this growing issue. "Why should we pay for someone else being ill-prepared?" They asserted. And I agreed; it's not fair.

But they kept going. According to them, mandatory health insurance works like this:

Everyone pays a little bit of money into a "pot". When you require emergency care, you take what you need out of the "pot". That way, everyone is prepared. Problem solved!

Or... not.

What if you never end up taking money out of the "pot" because you're healthy and responsible? Then wouldn't you still end up paying for the people who don't take care of themselves? And what about the people who still won't be able to afford putting money in the "pot"? They'll still get to use its resources. Because here in America, we believe in FAIRNESS and EQUALITY.

Problem not solved.

After I gave a speech expressing the above concerns, someone stood up to ask me a question.

"What about car insurance?" he asked. "That's mandatory. Are you against that too?"

A fair question, but there is a logic flaw. Car insurance is, in fact, not mandatory.

Before you write me an irate comment down below, let me explain. You don't have to buy a car, thus, you don't have to get car insurance. It's only mandatory if you choose to have a car. In this sense, it is actually quite voluntary.

In contrast, you don't really have a choice in having a life.

Bonus argument: mandatory health insurance doesn't even work.

Massachusetts has implemented a mandatory health insurance plan, and it is failing miserably.

"State government spending on health-care programs in Massachusetts has increased by 42 percent since the plan was adopted in 2006 and currently is 33 percent above the national average." Additionally, the mandatory plan includes unnecessary portions like alcohol therapy and artificial insemination for people who aren't alcoholics or who aren't women.

That sounds silly to me.

I'm asking

I'm not one of those people who is angry that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan aren't over and the world isn't united as one people, holding hands and singing "Kumbaya". Those things take time; a lot of it. And Obama hasn't even been in office a year.

But there are some things that don't take so long. Things that just take a quick little executive order. Take, for example, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

This policy was put into effect December 1993, by an executive order from former President Clinton. It was an attempted compromise, because Clinton had promised during his campaigning that he would allow soldiers of all sexualities to serve openly in the military. It had to be passed through executive order because Congress rejected it. Before this policy, non-heterosexuals were completely barred from service.

Since 1993, the military has discharged over 13,000 LBGT troops.

Our army is strained beyond belief. According to the St. Petersburg Times, "The troop surge Obama proposed would have to come mostly from the stressed ranks of U.S. forces, including many now serving in Iraq." If that doesn't demonstrate our need for recruits, I don't know what will.

Sexual orientation, in addition to not being a choice, should not determine whether or not you willingly sacrifice your life for the safety for your country.

1. We need soldiers. If you're really worried about the performance of "girly men", remember that you also let women into the army and they do stuff like this. Also, you're an ass.

2. This is plain and simple discrimination. If black, Indian, and Hispanic can fight along side white, native American, and European people, then gay people can fight alongside straight people.

Come on, Obama. Your country awaits.

Fruit Salad

The "fishbowl" seminar we had today got me thinking. I agree with Logan (shock!). Regardless of the offense, President Clinton should not have lied under oath. That is grounds for impeachment. Who wants a president that can't be trusted, even under oath?

However, Logan also believes that the offense was impeachable as well. I disagree.

First, as the article we read asserted, impeachable offenses fall under "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors". Adultery is disgusting and wrong, of course, but it's not a high crime or misdemeanor.

With that in mind, let's move on to reason #2. I researched the punishment for adultery in the United States, and found that it varies state by state. Virginia's maximum penalty is a $250 fine. In Maryland, it is also a small monetary fine. Reading further, I found that Washington DC actually repealed all of their sodomy and adultery laws in 2004, and prior to that, it was again only an offense to be fined. There is NO reason to kick a man out of office for having sex with someone else. Which leads us to reason...

Three. Was President Clinton's leadership ability curtailed by his sexual relations with Monika Lewinsky? No. In fact, according to our textbook, he enjoyed a fairly constant, positive approval rating during his time in office, which is more than we can say for many of the presidents who did not commit adultery.

Finally, not only did Clinton's adultery NOT affect his presidential duties, but it also doesn't fall under what the article we read considered "offenses...which so seriously threaten the order of political society as to make pestilent and dangerous the continuance in power of their perpetrator." The only person who should really be affected is Hillary.

The Underwear Bomber

On Christmas Day, America got a present. More airport regulations. All thanks to a particularly angry young Nigerian man who tried to light his underwear on fire to blow up an airplane.

President Obama was heavily criticized for not responding fast enough. MMorning.com reported that "critics charge his Administration is too soft on terrorism and slow to act after the attack". I believe it took him around 48 hours to make a statement about the incident.

Really? This is what we're getting angry at the President about? Not talking about something fast enough?

I think there are plenty of other things we could be angry about. Even Doonesbury has turned. So I decided to look at the issues that should really be focused on. I found this great website that tracks the progress of all the promises Obama made on the campaign trail. Let's have a look, shall we?

This is how it breaks down:
Promises kept: 90
Compromises: 29
Promises broken: 11
Stalled: 66
In Progress: 244
Not yet started: 68

Personally, this seems pretty good. Out of 508 promises, he has a 17% kept promises percentage. But compared to the 2% failure percentage, that's really good.

So stop ragging on him for not canceling his family's Christmas celebration to say, "A guy tried and failed to light his underwear on fire to kill people. The TSA is now going to be racially profiling passengers. Merry Christmas."

Counter-Productive

During his address to the students at West Point, President Obama stated this: “The future of Afghanistan is inextricably linked to the future of its neighbor, Pakistan. In the nearly eight years since 9/11, al Qaeda and its extremist allies have moved across the border to the remote areas of the Pakistani frontier. This almost certainly includes al Qaeda's leadership: Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri. They have used this mountainous terrain as a safe haven to hide, to train terrorists, to communicate with followers, to plot attacks, and to send fighters to support the insurgency in Afghanistan. For the American people, this border region has become the most dangerous place in the world.”

Basically, our president is stating that Pakistan is currently harboring most of the terrorists we wish to be fighting, and the border region between Pakistan and Afghanistan is important to protect because of this.

With this in mind, Zaid Hamid, head of Brass Tacks, a think-tank based in Pakistan, said in February of 2009, "The troops surge is what I would call, a historical and military fallacy. It is not going to work [...] The stationing of additional troops on the Pak-Afghan border is expected to create further instability in Pakistan’s border areas. The AfPak doctrine that lays the blame for the ongoing conflict in Afghanistan on Pakistan’s tribal areas would create further destabilization. It is bound to increase friction with the Pakistani security forces as the expected incursions across the border into Pakistan by coalition troops are likely to result in an open confrontation."

Hamid goes on to say that by considering the AfPak border dangerous, we are setting up Pakistan as an enemy, not an ally, and this could create further friction. We have a low enough approval rating over there. The surge is not going to help. A poll of Afghan public opinion released last week by ABC News, the BBC, and ARD said that a slight majority of Afghans view the U.S. unfavorably. In 2005, by comparison, the U.S. garnered an 83 percent favorable rating.

The most pivotal border that our president hopes to protect with this troop surge is actually going to be further weakened. Thus, President Obama's plan for increasing troops in Afghanistan will not only fail, but actually be counter-productive to our goals.