Who Wouldn't Want To Show Off The White House?

If I were President, I know all my friends would be asking: "So when's the party?" You could just imagine a kegger on the Rose Garden right?

The White House released a list of some of the visitors that have come since President Obama has taken office? It didn't get a lot of attention with Afghanistan, the economy, and healthcare taking up most of the news time, but some of the people who visited kinda worry me.

The first one was Michael Jordan. Now I know the president likes basketball, played for the Chicago Bulls, and is the greatest that ever played. But did you see his speech when he was inducted into the hall of fame? It's hard to say that I actually ever liked Michael Jordan considering all the times he came into MSG and trounced the Knicks. But I was a fan and to see how much of a douchebag he really is, is really shocking.

Who the hell tells their kids he would hate to be them?

My concern is that his douchbaginess will infect the White House, and all of a sudden Obama will quit being President and try a career as a day time talk show host. I know he's capable of doing it because he's a great speaker, and when people ask him questions he always knows exactly what to say. Plus I'm sure his ratings will be high if no one has a job.

Another name that stood out to me was former Presidential candidate John Edwards. It's safe to say this guy is on everyone's a-hole list right now. But according to the list, he's been to the White House four times.

Is this the guy Obama really wants to listen to? Forget all the stuff about the affair. Edwards was saying there were two different America's when then candidate Obama was telling people there's one and brought everyone together. There was an article about how the strategy Obama used to get this far in the health care debate has worked. Why, all of a sudden, would he want to be taking advice from someone who had no leadership position and didn't pass a single piece of legislation when he was in the Senate?

I guess having a blowout with all my friends wouldn't really be a good idea. But if Stevie Wonder wants to perform at my house he's more then welcome. And in the end these people are just visitors, and who wouldn't want to show off the White House?

Doing Business With The Enemy

I am a Giants fan. I have been really happy the way the teams been playing this year, and as I'm sure anyone who follows football knows there is a big game against the Saints tomorrow. Well here's my confession, my friends got me into fantasy football this season. I've never played in any fantasy league before and in all honestly didn't completely understand how it worked. But now, for better or worse, I am addicted.

I need to win every week. I know every Tuesday I am the first one looking to see which player I can get off waivers, who did well the past week, and figuring out if there are any trades I should propose. So this week a few of the players on my team have the week off, most notably Ronnie Brown so I needed a running back. So I'm looking to see who I can get, and guess who is projected to do well, Mike Bell on the New Orleans Saints.

Mind you, Brandon Jacobs and Steve Smith are both on my team. I do not want Mike Bell to have a good game against the Giants, not one bit. So now when he scores a touchdown I will not boo, but will not cheer either. I will sit on my couch stoic.

Now the point of the story is this: Sometimes, you have to do business with people we don't like. The New York Times had an article in today's paper about why the stock market reached 10,000 this week. It talked about all the bailouts (excuse me, TARP) and how using tax payer money to replenish the system, banks were given room to give out and invest in areas where they could possibly recoup their losses. The program also had to be initiated because if they did not, credit cards would have been useless and the entire economy would have crashed.

Then of course came the fallback. While some banks paid back the money the government gave them, most still have not, but did decide to pay their CEO's their multi-million dollar bonuses. Oh, and yeah, unemployment is probably going to reach 10% this year.

So there was another headline that read "Obama Drops Plan to Isolate Sudan Leaders." When campaigning, the President said he would try and use economic tools such as sanctions and divestment against Sudan's government to stop the violence in the region. Now, he has changed his mind and will instead:

make use of a mix of “incentives and pressure” to seek an end to the human rights abuses that have left millions of people dead or displaced while burning Darfur into the American conscience.

General Gration said the administration would set strict time lines for President Omar al Bashir of Sudan to fulfill the conditions of a 2005 peace agreement that his government signed with rebels in southern Sudan.

The fact of the matter though is that the situation in the Darfur region has changed. In May of 2006, the Sudanese government signed a peace accord with one of the rebel groups in the region. But there are two other groups still causing violence and millions of people are still displaced from their homes. Not to mention that President Omar al Bashir has been indicted on crimes against humanity.

So why do I think President Obama should engage talks with Mr. Bashir? Well Sudan's unemployment rate is 18.7% with 40% of the population under the poverty line. The country does have oil though, and has gained billions from it. Still, 80% of the countries economy relies on agriculture and the Darfur region in particular is known for droughts.

Imposing sanctions would not do any good to help the people in that country. President Bashir is in a weak position, and if that can be taken advantage of to get him to actually do something good for his country, I think it's worth a shot.

And for the moment I'm still able to use my credit card, and most economists are predicting a recovery starting next year. So yeah, we bailed out people who we didn't like, but it was necessary.

In the mean time I'm still projected to lose fantasy football this week by more then 40 points. But those projections have been wrong before. If Mike Bell has a good game and I win this week that would be good. If he has a good game and the Giants win that would be great. The only thing I know right now is that either way Bell helps me win. And if it means working with him, so be it.

Debt, Schmebt

So I'm watching CNN the other day, and all of a sudden I see this ad by an organization called Defeat the Debt. Pure shock value. I'm sure it hasn't gotten the attention as much as they would have liked though (except of course for this), since when I searched for it on YouTube I had to type in the full name of the video to find it. Plus it has less then 50,000 viewings.

After I saw this ad, I was surprised more people weren't talking about it. After the whole uproar about a school in New Jersey singing songs about President Obama, isn't just as ludicrous to have children discredit the pledge of allegiance? And get paid for it.

Not to mention the fact that the policies they are promoting are wrong. But before I get into that, let me premise it by saying Defeat the Debt is a front group for Employment Policies Institute (EPI) which is lead by Rick Berman. He is a lobbyist who has been hired by the resturaunt and tobbaco industries to promote libertarian (keep government out of my pocket) views. Now if you've ever had a conversation with a libertarian, you know there's never any winning because they will just tell you you're wrong and leave it as a fact.

Here's an example:

Liberal: Man, I really hope Congress passes a public option for health care.

Libertarian: No, let the market do it's thing. It always works itself out.

Liberal: No it dosen't, look what just happened to the stock market and what the federal government had to do. Plus prices are rising so fast no one will be able to afford health insurance in a open market soon.

Libertarian: You're wrong.

See, you just can't win with these guys!

So anyway, on the "Understanding The Danger" page, Defeat the Debt says:

Other countries buy our debt because it is a good investment — they trust us to pay them back, with interest. The most recent figures show we owe about $3.3 trillion to the governments of other countries, including nearly $800 billion to China alone.

All true. But this will only happen if China asks for their money back, which they won't. Why? Because it would freeze up the credit markets and no one would have any money to buy the exports China is sending into the country. There was just a huge shock to the system, if China does ask for their loans back it would only start another one.

At the G-20 summit in Pittsburgh, emerging markets and developed countries decided that the only way the world economy would be fixed is if they worked together.

So yeah, it really dosen't feel good to owe so much money to other countries. But one of the reasons why China decided to take on our debt was because (as Defeat the Debt mentioned) they saw it as a good investment. America isn't going anywhere. If China really does want that money back, they'll enact policies to help America's economy so they can get thier money back in the future.

The worst thing about places like EPI is that they use scare/shock tactics only to get people excited over something they may or may not have a full understanding of (See: Death Panels).

Part of the reason we have debt now is because of the stimulous package (to create jobs) and the TARP program (or better known as bailouts) which most economists now agree helped calm the crisis. But anyone who's trying to look for a job right now can tell you the economy is still struggling. And the last thing those people need is something else to worry about.

Reform The System, Not The Principles

Immigrants have a soft spot in American politics. Our country was founded on people who were escaping religious persecution and wanted to start a new life for them and their families. Growing up in New York City I went to the Tenement Museum and saw the conditions people were willing to live in so they could achieve their dreams. You cannot teach American history without learning about these people and their courageous stories.

It was announced today that there are plans being made to make obtaining a legal status in the United States easier. Actual legislation is being put off though because health care reform is taking up so much time. This is a good first step in achieving real reform, and it is expected that a lot of illegal immigrants will be taking advantage of the new rules when they come into effect. I have worked in a few congressional offices and helping people get visas, green cards, etc., is always one of the top issues that is being dealt with. The current system we have now just is not efficient. Those who come to the country illegally are sending billions of dollars back to their home countries, and running up costs at hospitals by going to the emergency room.

But lest we forget, they are helping to keep wages low. Since they are doing the jobs most Americans do not want to do such as food manufacturing, farming, and construction. Some economists predicted a 1% decrease in GDP if there were no people to do these jobs.

By cutting the red tape for immigrants, it will be easier to keep track of how many there are in the country and where they are. And when you consider the current deficit, people coming into the country can be taxed on all levels of government so services won't have to be cut.

There's a tricky balance when it comes to immigration reform. No one wants to say people are not allowed to come to America, that's a total contradiction to what this country was founded on. But you also want to keep Americans safe. The best way to do that though would be to make it so people coming into this country are easier to track. It's how we caught Najibullah Zazi.

So reform the system, not the principles. We're lucky to be living in a place where people want to come to start a new life, and are a symbol and a place to do just that. History teaches us important lessons when it comes to immigration. So when President Obama does introduce legislation for immigration reform, I hope he focuses on the system itself and not make it crisis. Unfortunately people in the media try to make everything into a crisis, but after health care I think we can all use a break from one.

Show, Not Tell

The title is something we've all heard. Probably in third grade when we start learning how to write stories. It's kinda funny though how such a simple phraze can also help in creating foreign policy.

We already have big news coming out of the UN Summit in Pittsburgh: Iran has a secret (or tried to have) nuclear plant where it can develop the material it needs to build a nuclear weapon. Should we really be surprised though?

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been trying to build up the countries nuclear proficiency since he's taken office. While he claims it is for the development of nuclear fuel for his own country, most people are a little skeptic. I mean, he is a denier of the holocaust, has been called one of the leading sponsors of terrorism around the world, and (as we have seen with his recent "re-election" Iran's human rights record isn't too great either.

This is all known, but what concerns me most is what could lead if Iran does become capable of creating a nuclear weapon. Carlos Pascual and Steven Pifer of the Brookings Institution wrote in a column that:

Over 30 countries have declared an intent to develop new nuclear programs – 14 in the Middle East and North Africa. Should Iran acquire a nuclear weapon, there is little doubt that others in the region will follow suit. Now is the time for the United States and Russia to revitalize the framework for nuclear security, not after countries acquire a nuclear weapon.

President Obama has made very clear, and did so again at his speech at the U.N., that this is a time for action and America is willing to lead. When Obama first met with Russian President Demitri Medvedev the two men set the ground work for re-establishing talks and signing a new Non-Proliferation Treaty. This was a important step on two fronts. The first (and yes, obvious point) is that it will cease the creation of new nuclear weapons which have the potential to destroy the Earth. The second is that by taking these steps, Iran and other countries that are trying to build a nuclear weapon will have less of an incentive to do so. If the two leading countries start to take apart their weapons, other countries won't have a reason to build there's because they will not see themselves vulnerable by not having one.

Former Russian President Mihhail Gorbachev wrote an op-ed in today's New York Times. He promotes nuclear non-proliferation for similar reasons and writes:

Unless they show the world they are serious, the two major nuclear powers will be accused, again and again, of not keeping their word and told that if it is acceptable for 5 or 10 countries to have nuclear weapons as their “ultimate security guarantee,” why should it not be the case for 20 or 30 others?

It is vital that the two presidents themselves monitor the negotiations closely, sometimes plunging into minute details. I know from experience how difficult it is to deal with such technical details on top of constant political pressures, but it is necessary to avoid misunderstandings that could undermine trust.

No one wants Iran to have a nuclear weapon. It's in no one's interest except Iran.

There has been talk of puting more sanctions on Iran, but what good would that do? This is a country whose unemployment rate was 12.5% in 2008. It's important to note that officials don't believe Iran has the materials to actually make a nuclear bomb. That's exactly why it's important to show Iran, not tell, that it dosen't need one.

Think Of The Future

Between the start of the football season, Serena Williams, healthcare, and the economy, there are so many things to write about I really didn't know where to start.

So thank you Senator Levin for giving a speech about sending more U.S. troops to the middle east. If you remember though, the United States already has been using UAV's to attack the terrorists hiding on the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan. Also, if President Obama does choose to send more troops to the region I highly dought (if history has anything to say about it) Congress will not give him the money.

While most members of Congress have come out against another troop surge, Senators Lieberman, Graham, and McCain wrote an Op-Ed in today's WSJ about why they think President Obama should send more troops. They say:

We went to war there because the 9/11 attacks were a direct consequence of the safe haven given to al Qaeda in that country under the Taliban. We remain at war because a resurgent Taliban, still allied with al Qaeda, is trying to restore its brutal regime and re-establish that country as a terrorist safe haven.

It remains a clear, vital national interest of the United States to prevent this from happening. Yet an increasing number of commentators, including some of the very same individuals who opposed the surge in Iraq and called for withdrawal there, now declare Afghanistan essentially unwinnable. Had their view prevailed with respect to Iraq in 2006 and 2007, the consequences of our failure there would have been catastrophic.

There's an important difference though between Iraq and Afghanistan. The Taliban relies on Afghanistan for funding its operation through the poppy fields growing in the country and are willing to defend it at any cost. We have already seen the intensity of the fighting increase over the months since President Obama originally sent additional troops to Afghanistan. The Taliban are also in areas where they have an advantage because of those tall poppy plants and mud walls in the area which can be used for defense and surprise attacks.

The New York Times reported today that Zbigniew Brezinki said American and allied forces are being preceived as invaders (not liberators) which give more political capitol to the Taliban and enable the organization to recruit more members.

Some people are arguing that there is no reason for American forces to be their anymore. But the fact remains America went in their with a declaration that we would help the Afghan people recover from the regime America and its allies took out. Leaving them now would be irresponsible and only create more terrorists in the future. Since the Taliban is so reliant on Afghanistan there's a realy good chance to do important damage to its infrastructure.

The fact still remains though if the terrorists are going to be defeated, it will not only be won on the military front but also the political. It's starting to look like the elections were tampered with in favor of President Karzai.

The best thing the allied forces can do right now is put pressure on the Afghan government to take care of its people, or the troops will be pulled out. Also, to show (not tell) the Afghans we are on their side, the State Department should help them build schools and other facilities that are needed for their society to thrive.

So as healthcare is something that needs to be reformed for America's future, so does the war in Afghanistan. People remember how you treat them, and if we leave the Afghans stranded, there will be consequences in the future.

Stay In School

With the recent town hall meetings that were broadcast on TV, some people might think that people had always listened to politicians. Let me tell you, I’ve been to enough political debates, forums and what have you, to know that’s not the case. Usually people are talking, eating, basically doing anything except listen to their elected official. It’s sad but true.

What’s worse right now is the uproar over President Obama talking to schoolchildren.
Let’s be clear, it’s a back to school speech. He’s going to tell these children to stay in school because education is important to succeed. I like this message, and who knows, the children may actually pay attention.

Apparently, some parent’s are afraid that the President will try to influence their children into believing in his political ideology. But this is not a policy speech, and as I’m sure most people know (and will hopefully be watching) he will be giving one Wednesday night. If staying in school is a controversial issue in this country, we have some serious issues.

My friend (a Republican) sent me a link to the Heritage Foundation explaining why having the President talk to school children is a bad idea. Apparently it’s not just because parent’s don’t like the President, it’s also because there are lesson plans being released by the Department of Education which asks questions about the speech the President will give. Heritage believes this goes over the mandate by the Education Department and the federal government is getting too involved in local schools. But while the release makes it seem like the lesson is mandatory, it’s not.

As I recall though, there was a little bill called No Child Left Behind which required all States to make sure their schools were being held accountable. And I know it was a long time ago, but I believe it was signed by Republican President George W. Bush.

No Child Left Behind was passed on bipartisan consensus. We don’t get a whole lot of that today and unfortunately it makes it harder for politicians to get good things done for the American people. The debate on health care is so heated that it has become hard for even the non-controversial parts of the plan to come to a vote.

I guess what I am trying to say is: get a grip. Relax. It’s Labor Day weekend. Go to the beach, spend time with family and friends. The last thing anyone has to worry about is the President giving a speech talking about the importance in education.