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.

Finding Justice After Torture

There was always something that bothered me on the show 24, Jack Bauer never eats. He is running all around the world killing, torturing, defending America all in one day. It’s incredible really, and because the show is so dramatic it has a huge following. No one who watches the show though cares when Bauer tortures people because it’s just part of the show. When it’s real though, the people have a different response.

Attorney General Eric Holder has decided to investigate the torture methods that have recently been documented in reports released by the Justice Department. Some of which included holding electric drills to detainee’s head, and threatening to kill their children.

In what seems like a response to the Justice Department, the CIA released reports written in 2004 and 2005 detailing information they received from Khalid Shaik Mohammed (planner of the attacks on 9/11), which says the information “dramatically expanded our universe of knowledge on Al Qaeda plots.”

All American’s (whether you watch 24 or not) were shocked at the methods being used on detainees. This was especially seen when photos of the methods came out in 2004 from Abu Ghraib prison. The balance between keeping American’s safe and not violating the laws and morals, which are trying to be defended, can sometimes be difficult. In this case though, torture was being used not to find out information on attacks on the country, but finding out where other members of Al Qaeda were and how they could be found.
The reason why there has not been another terrorist attack since 9/11 in America is because of the great police work put in place after that horrific day.

In polls, the people show they do not want our government to torture (58%), and they also want the Obama administration to investigate if the treatment of prisoners (50%) by the Bush administration.

In his statement on issuing a special prosecutor the Attorney General said “my duty is to examine the facts and to follow the law. In this case, given all the information currently available, it is clear to me that this review is the only responsible course of action…” The law is what we are trying to defend against the terrorists, and when the founding fathers decided that all men should be created free and equal, they too wanted to defend what they were fighting for. People are shocked at what has happened at Abu Gharib and other secret prisons across the world, not because it is a new concept, but because it is un-American.

Stop Being Afraid

President Obama’s campaign ran on one word: Change. It was quick, easy to remember, and resonated with a lot of people. Obama was a great candidate who also kept his cool and always knew exactly what to say. But the big question in the media was whether or not people would vote for a black man. While he tried not to make race an issue, the press kept asking him about it even before the controversy with Reverend Wright. But it didn’t matter. He had a strong message, and the people voted for him because they felt he was the stronger candidate to lead the country.

This time though, he’s losing the media game which he played so well during the campaign.

It recently came out that Conservatives for Patients Rights put out a misleading advertisement about England’s health care system. Republican members of Congress are telling people to be afraid of a government run health care system. Democrats have started a “war room” so they can fend off attacks on the proposals they’re putting out there. All in all, both sides have spent over $57 million dollars on advertisements.

Whether you are for or against what President Obama is proposing on health care, I think most American’s would agree that the rhetoric which has been put out there has disenfranchised our country. Personal freedom relies on being able to collect information in order to make a decision which they feel can improve their quality of life. That is a fundamental truth in democracy and it is not being practiced.

This has been seen in the town hall meetings. So far my favorite has been where a women asked Senator Specter a loud but pointed question, and later admitted on FOX News she didn’t even listen to the answer. Not to mention all the screaming which has drowned out any debate which is of course the point of town hall style meetings. These circuses and the media rhetoric which has taken place around the healthcare debate has boiled up so many emotions it has been hard for people to sit down and think about the issue.

In the fast paced media, and the thirty-second sound bites that fill up their time, it’s always hard to cut through the ridiculousness that is out there. The news channels that are supposed to give people their information have only been talking about the disinformation that is being put out to the public.

There has been nothing on the actual problem. Hardly any talk that while the reforms being proposed will cost one trillion dollars, doing nothing would cost three times that. Or that if insurance rates keep rising, hardly anyone will be able to afford any sort of health care.

When I was at Muhlenberg College I worked at the school’s polling center and every year we did a quality of life survey. One year we asked the question about how Route 22 (a major state highway) should be taken care of. The overwhelming majority said they wanted the state government to deal directly with the problem instead of handing it off to a private company. American’s aren’t afraid of government, but unfortunately the media is focusing on the people who are. That focus has infused the debate with false information that has scared more people about the reforms which need to take place.

So now, politicians are trying to save political capitol. It’s looking like anything that passes in Congress which is called “health care reform” will be considered a victory for Obama; Whether it is actually real reform or not.

So to the press: Get your act together. Politicians: Do your job. People: Stop being afraid.

It's the people stupid!

So, officially, the Obama administration is saying that getting the two journalists (Laura Ling and Euna Lee) was strictly a humanitarian mission by President Clinton and they had nothing to do with it. They only, you know, talked to North Korea for several weeks through back channels, made sure Kim Jong il would like to meet Mr. Clinton, and then asked the former President to go to North Korea. And yes, the administration knew the reporters would be coming back with Clinton because that’s what they agreed to even before President Clinton left.

This is not to take away anything that has happened. I’m happy for the journalists and their families, as I’m sure all American’s were when we saw them come off the plane. But while people have suggested that separating this humanitarian issue with North Korea’s nuclear ambitions was a good idea, I think they forgot what country we’re talking about.

The reason why Lara Ling and Euna Lee were on the border (or not) of Korea was to report the human trafficking that takes place there. North Korea spends a lot of money on its military, when in fact they should be spending it on helping their people. Since 2007 there have been extreme floods that have lead to a food shortage because there’s not enough land to farm on. On top of that, in October of 2005 Kim Jong il prohibited private sales of grain and re-instituted a centralized food rationing system. By December of the same year, he also stopped all international assistance operations.

Living conditions are so bad in the North that thousands of the countries residents try and cross into China. Women and children are lured by the promise of freedom. But if they get into China they are either forced to become prostitutes, get married, or work hard labor.

Now you may ask: How did the country get in such bad shape? Let me tell you. North Korea is ruled by a dictatorship, and when Kim il Song (Kim Jon il’s father) was President he was influenced by the Soviet Union to attack South Korea in order to expand communism which lead to the Korean War. The United States took the South’s side, helped them fight back, and in 1945 (as part of the surrender of Japan) the United States agreed with the Soviet Union to to divide the Korean peninsula into two occupation zones. After this, Kim il Song adopted a policy of self-reliance in order to make sure there won’t be outside influence involving the countries future endeavors.

In 1994 President Clinton signed an accord with North Korea where the U.S. would give them oil to stop developing nuclear technology. This worked until President George W. Bush invaded Iraq and kicked the remaining weapons inspectors from the accord out of the country. Kim Jong il moved enough plutonium that could produce five or six nuclear weapons. In 2006 Kim Jong il tested a nuclear weapon and it has been reported that he is giving this technology to Myanmar.

President Obama cannot only deal with the nuclear issue though. By doing so he still leaves a situation of instability that will lead to a deterioration in a area of the world whose economy is becoming increasingly important. Their economy (and ours) can only grow and prosper if trade is open and the two countries work together to create a reciprocal relationship. Multinational corporations don’t mind investing in a country that has poor labor laws, but they can’t do it if the country does not invest in its infrastructure. The jobs that will come when the corporations move into the country will help the people, in time, reach a better quality of life.

By dealing with the human rights abuses in North Korea, President Obama can gain a new ally in the east, help the American economy, and Kim Jong il or future leaders of the country will think twice before launching or testing a nuclear weapon. They will not want to upset the international community, and risk sanctions that can hurt their economy or deter companies from investing within their country.
Sending President Clinton to North Korea was throwing Kim Jong il a bone. More importantly though, it shows that he is willing to negotiate. President Obama should take this opportunity to keep the dialogue going and work toward a positive and prosperous new beginning between the two countries.

Keep The Trains Rolling

These last couple of weeks I’ve been pretty annoyed with the DC Metro system. When I moved here, I liked the fact you could see how much time you had before the next train came. That was until I saw there were times you had to wait twenty minutes. I’m on the Red Line and there was a major accident going up toward Maryland, so DC Metro has been very cautious (and rightly so) in running the train. This past weekend another accident occurred in San Francisco on their light-rail system. This is all after a report was issued by The American Society of Civil Engineers that graded America’s infrastructure a D. The report said the main problem was that the current infrastructure is getting old, and there hadn’t been the leadership necessary to push for changes in the system.

We all know the deficit and economic climate that America is facing has put certain constraints on what states can spend money on. This is particularly true for the nations transportation system. Even though ridership is at a fifty year high, ninety-percent of America’s transit agencies have had to cut services or raise fares. The stimulus package set money aside to make improvements for transit infrastructure, but if you talk to the people who run the agencies, they will tell you they also need more money for their operating costs. Past spending measures did not allow funds to be used for operating subways or buses, and the stimulus package originally did not allow for this either. But when Congress had passed the war-funding bill this year, a provision was put in to allow some money from the stimulus to be used to pay for operating costs. While the economy has shrunk, tax collections that agencies rely on have been lower, and current fares that metro agencies charge still only cover a fifth the cost of a ride.

So despite my frustrations, I digress. Public transportation is extremely important to the way people function in their every day lives. Elderly and disabled people rely on these systems to get to the doctor, go food shopping, and allow them to be social and active in their communities. People also rely on this system to go to work. Major cities are already congested with traffic (no one likes rush hour) and not only does public transportation get cars off the road, it has a double impact of cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

While Congress has allowed for recent funding to be used for operating costs, this should be done for future transportation spending bills as well. Operating costs are just as important as it is to maintain the system. One cannot be done without the other. Some members of Congress are afraid that transportation agencies will become reliant on the money that will be used for operations. But given the importance of public transportation (not to mention the fact it would save jobs) it is crucial for the federal government to step in order to make sure the nation can operate efficiently.

Something that the transportation agencies themselves can do, is to start to charge their riders fee at the pace of inflation. Now, before you say don’t raise my rates, remember what inflation is. It is the rise of general prices of goods and services. As I mentioned before, one of the problems agencies have is not raising enough revenues to operate. New York just had to raise their rates from $2.00 to $2.50. Having grown up there, I know it has been a few years since they had done so and because of that they lost more money since the amount they were charging was not equal to what the current purchasing power of the dollar is. This means consumers are still paying the same rate it only feels like they are paying more.

So I won’t tweet anymore about how annoyed I was taking the Metro these past couple of weeks. Clearly, important steps need to be taken to make our transportation networks better. Some of these steps can be taken now which will also help the economy. By making infrastructure improvements, people will need to be hired to make the improvements, and then build them on the aging tracks. While the momentum to fight global warming and rely less on foreign oil is high, making the nations transportation system should be a high priority. If it is done correctly, it can be something that America can proudly announce they gave to future generations that will help them run the country.