Now that all Americans have reportedly been evacuated from Libya and the U.S. Embassy has been shut down in Tripoli, I'm glad that President Obama and his administration have proposed economic sanctions. Freezing the assets of Gaddafi is something I also agree with, obviously. I think it's interesting that in the 21st century, the fastest, and often times the simplest, way is to "attack" financially. Although Gaddafi has a reported amount of billions and billions of dollars, he's trapped in a corner, no?
He's doing everything he can to cling to his power, though the people have spoken. I feel like this is an accelerated version of the American Revolution inspiring the French Revolution. But I hope the Libyan Revolution is 10x more successful with positive long-term effects, than the French's in the 19th century. Anyways, it is like a good domino effect, where the corrupt and dogmatic regimes across the globe will slowly fall one by one. But how will the UN, the world, and the United States react? How much influence does the UN Security Council actually have, and how fast can they act? But of course, we have to think of the humanitarian aid that must be sent to Libya and protecting the foreigners in Libya who must be escorted safely out of the country.
My brain starts to hurt when I start to think about all the things that must be considered before taking any action, politically. I just hope the United States plays it smart and doesn't start something we can't finish and simply works with the international community as a whole to solve this crisis.
Friday, February 25, 2011
Monday, February 21, 2011
*Cue Secret Agent Music*
When I think CIA, I think of retinal scan security, laser technology weapons, hundreds of passports and identities, and whatever else the media feeds me. I'm a human being, what can I say?
But when I read news about anything CIA-related, it's big hype. Just like Raymond Davis, currently held in Pakistan - illegally or legally, I don't really know.
Apparently, he's not an agent, but a protector of U.S. officials. The U.S. government insists that he maintains diplomatic immunity because he is part of the "staff" at the United States Embassy in Islamabad. If, indeed, Davis works for the Embassy, in accordance with the Vienna Convention of 1961, he must be offered diplomatic immunity in order to perform his duty - which, supposedly, is to "protect case officers when they meet with sources," according to NPR. Of course, the United States is going to bring out the BIG GUNS...not literally. We're going to threaten Pakistan and say we'll cut off our billions of dollars of funding if Davis isn't released - that's how it always works, no?
All governments do shady things, and I, personally, believe that the United States government should do whatever it takes to put the safety of OUR nation first. (I'm reminded of the West Wing episode where the President approves a clandestine assassination of a foreign minister.) So, if Davis is actually an agent doing reconnaissance on militant groups, so be it. I won't hold that against him.
But when I read news about anything CIA-related, it's big hype. Just like Raymond Davis, currently held in Pakistan - illegally or legally, I don't really know.
Apparently, he's not an agent, but a protector of U.S. officials. The U.S. government insists that he maintains diplomatic immunity because he is part of the "staff" at the United States Embassy in Islamabad. If, indeed, Davis works for the Embassy, in accordance with the Vienna Convention of 1961, he must be offered diplomatic immunity in order to perform his duty - which, supposedly, is to "protect case officers when they meet with sources," according to NPR. Of course, the United States is going to bring out the BIG GUNS...not literally. We're going to threaten Pakistan and say we'll cut off our billions of dollars of funding if Davis isn't released - that's how it always works, no?
All governments do shady things, and I, personally, believe that the United States government should do whatever it takes to put the safety of OUR nation first. (I'm reminded of the West Wing episode where the President approves a clandestine assassination of a foreign minister.) So, if Davis is actually an agent doing reconnaissance on militant groups, so be it. I won't hold that against him.
Friday, February 18, 2011
Groups and Unions, What Role Should They Play?
We're all hearing about the protests in Wisconsin due to what President Obama calls "[the Republican] assault on unions", according to The New York Times. The Republican party is known for their general dislike of unions and the new Congressmen who have taken over the House are obviously aiming to limit the negotiating powers of union workers, such as teachers.
When I think unions, I think of my AP U.S. History learning and why labor unions were first established - to fight corrupt, large businesses. Of course, over time, the unions have been steadily gaining more clout; the benefits and such of being part of a union are something to take into consideration when first looking for a job, no? But all in all, what's wrong with having large groups of people band together to fight for (maybe) higher wages and more workers' rights! Well, I have no problem with it. My only concern is this: Where do you draw the line? How much power do you allow these unions to have?
Yes, there are companies that labor unions fight against for better wages and work hours, and whatnot, but honestly, we all know that conditions now are a little bit better than oh, say, the early 1900s when Teddy Roosevelt went around as the big "trust-buster". Our economy is slowly getting back up on its feet, so people are suffering - a majority, if not all.
No matter how much you disagree, I don't think it's right for the Congressmen to simply "walk out" and leave the state to avoid having to confront the issue. This extreme act only displays their immaturity and inability to deal with these kinds of problems head-on, to fight for what they believe in. Same goes for the all the Republican legislators who have done so in the past, too, (click HERE to read about past walk-outs). Grow up, folks. Grow up.
When I think unions, I think of my AP U.S. History learning and why labor unions were first established - to fight corrupt, large businesses. Of course, over time, the unions have been steadily gaining more clout; the benefits and such of being part of a union are something to take into consideration when first looking for a job, no? But all in all, what's wrong with having large groups of people band together to fight for (maybe) higher wages and more workers' rights! Well, I have no problem with it. My only concern is this: Where do you draw the line? How much power do you allow these unions to have?
Yes, there are companies that labor unions fight against for better wages and work hours, and whatnot, but honestly, we all know that conditions now are a little bit better than oh, say, the early 1900s when Teddy Roosevelt went around as the big "trust-buster". Our economy is slowly getting back up on its feet, so people are suffering - a majority, if not all.
No matter how much you disagree, I don't think it's right for the Congressmen to simply "walk out" and leave the state to avoid having to confront the issue. This extreme act only displays their immaturity and inability to deal with these kinds of problems head-on, to fight for what they believe in. Same goes for the all the Republican legislators who have done so in the past, too, (click HERE to read about past walk-outs). Grow up, folks. Grow up.
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Who Are Our Allies?
Iran still has a nuclear missiles program in the works.
Israel is our supposed ally. But, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has gone on for too long.
Why do we have such issues in the Middle East all the time? The U.S. government wants to support a U.N. Security Council statement denying support to Israel's continued settlement. It's a political move, but I think that it's appropriate seeing that Israel continues to make illegal settlements onto Palestinian land. Israelis claim that they own this land after the Six-Day War in 1967, but nobody in the international community recognizes this land as Israel's. In fact, it's still considered illegal. Although Israel is an ally, the United States is making, what I believe to be, a right move towards international diplomacy. If we ever want peace between Israelis and Palestinians, these "settlements" and communities of Israeli civilians need to be dissipated.
On another note, it makes me a little more nervous with Israel's reports of Iranian's transporting of, what the U.S. government is saying is, "unknown" goods/products to Syria through the Suez Canal. Sketchy.
Israel is our supposed ally. But, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has gone on for too long.
Why do we have such issues in the Middle East all the time? The U.S. government wants to support a U.N. Security Council statement denying support to Israel's continued settlement. It's a political move, but I think that it's appropriate seeing that Israel continues to make illegal settlements onto Palestinian land. Israelis claim that they own this land after the Six-Day War in 1967, but nobody in the international community recognizes this land as Israel's. In fact, it's still considered illegal. Although Israel is an ally, the United States is making, what I believe to be, a right move towards international diplomacy. If we ever want peace between Israelis and Palestinians, these "settlements" and communities of Israeli civilians need to be dissipated.
On another note, it makes me a little more nervous with Israel's reports of Iranian's transporting of, what the U.S. government is saying is, "unknown" goods/products to Syria through the Suez Canal. Sketchy.
Friday, February 11, 2011
A Natural Right
Is every human being entitled to freedom and liberty? The United States was founded on the principles of "natural rights." We are entitled to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Former President George W. Bush had his Freedom Agenda, which is based on this idea of a natural right to liberty - every mean wants to have his own liberty. In this opinion piece, Lee Smith talks about how President Bush has the right to say he was right. Everyone judged the Freedom Agenda, because this policy towards the Middle East seemed doomed for failure after what happened in Iraq.
But, looking back, the former president wasn't so far off, was he? The people of Egypt have spoken and have been heard by the government, as evidenced by the former President Mubarak's addressing of the public and his resignation. Sure, we're not sure if this transition of power will remain within the confines of the legal restrictions of Egypt's constitution, but fundamentally, the people's outcries reflect this idea that every person wants liberty. I think each "man" is entitled to it, too.
So, when everyone was bashing President George W. Bush for his ridiculous notions of being idealistic and wanting democracy everywhere, think about right now, this very moment. It won't' happen over night, but it's happening. The repressed will rise up, some day.
But, looking back, the former president wasn't so far off, was he? The people of Egypt have spoken and have been heard by the government, as evidenced by the former President Mubarak's addressing of the public and his resignation. Sure, we're not sure if this transition of power will remain within the confines of the legal restrictions of Egypt's constitution, but fundamentally, the people's outcries reflect this idea that every person wants liberty. I think each "man" is entitled to it, too.
So, when everyone was bashing President George W. Bush for his ridiculous notions of being idealistic and wanting democracy everywhere, think about right now, this very moment. It won't' happen over night, but it's happening. The repressed will rise up, some day.
Monday, February 7, 2011
O'Reilly vs. Obama
From what I saw online of the discussion between Fox News Bill O'Reilly and President Obama, it's obvious where O'Reilly stands - no doubt. But we already knew that O'Reilly leans towards the "right" end of the political spectrum.
Overall, I think the conversation went much better than a conversation between Sean Hannity or Glenn Beck and the President would have went. However, I still don't like this whole "let's-interrupt-the-other-person" thing. If you ask a question, even if you're having a debate of sorts, you have to let the other person finish. Whenever I watch the news and the news anchor asks a liberal and a conservative questions, the two representatives of their political parties start going at it. Nobody lets the other finish. You just look like a fool who can't control yourself if you just start talking and talking and try to talk OVER the other person.
But I think that O'Reilly did a good job representing Fox News, putting them perhaps in a more moderate light, since Obama's administration did say that Fox News wasn't a real news network - ouch.
Overall, I think the conversation went much better than a conversation between Sean Hannity or Glenn Beck and the President would have went. However, I still don't like this whole "let's-interrupt-the-other-person" thing. If you ask a question, even if you're having a debate of sorts, you have to let the other person finish. Whenever I watch the news and the news anchor asks a liberal and a conservative questions, the two representatives of their political parties start going at it. Nobody lets the other finish. You just look like a fool who can't control yourself if you just start talking and talking and try to talk OVER the other person.
But I think that O'Reilly did a good job representing Fox News, putting them perhaps in a more moderate light, since Obama's administration did say that Fox News wasn't a real news network - ouch.
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Under Age
There are a lot of laws that have to do with age in the United States - drinking, smoking, federal punishment, etc.
When I heard about the 13-year-old boy who was viciously attacked in Philadelphia, I just feel sick to the stomach. He was kicked, dragged around through the snow, hung upside down from a tree, thrown upon a fence, and even more, by 7 teens. These teens, by the way, go to an alternative school because they have reported behavioral issues - GEE, I wonder why?
I hear about bullying, but I've never actually witnessed something like this. Seeing the images caught on videotape by one of the attackers' cellphone makes it just that more real and personal. How could nobody have seen this happen? Do communities not pay attention to their fellow citizens anymore like they used to? Is everybody just too busy to look around, look outside, and check up on his/her neighbors?
This boy is right though - the friends of the attackers will continue to bully him. What can he do? Realistically. Change schools? The attackers are minors and will thus go to juvenile hall or some other correction facility. In federal prison, they would serve something around 20 years, but no - they're only in juvy.
When I heard about the 13-year-old boy who was viciously attacked in Philadelphia, I just feel sick to the stomach. He was kicked, dragged around through the snow, hung upside down from a tree, thrown upon a fence, and even more, by 7 teens. These teens, by the way, go to an alternative school because they have reported behavioral issues - GEE, I wonder why?
I hear about bullying, but I've never actually witnessed something like this. Seeing the images caught on videotape by one of the attackers' cellphone makes it just that more real and personal. How could nobody have seen this happen? Do communities not pay attention to their fellow citizens anymore like they used to? Is everybody just too busy to look around, look outside, and check up on his/her neighbors?
This boy is right though - the friends of the attackers will continue to bully him. What can he do? Realistically. Change schools? The attackers are minors and will thus go to juvenile hall or some other correction facility. In federal prison, they would serve something around 20 years, but no - they're only in juvy.
