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.