11/29/09

In the article I read in the previous post to discuss Obama's new Afghanistan War Plan I also stumbled upon this excerpt:

"McClatchy Newspapers reported last month, the Obama administration has been quietly working with U.S. allies and Afghan officials on an "Afghanistan Compact," a package of political reforms and anti-corruption measures that it hopes will boost popular support for Karzai and erase the doubts about his legitimacy raised by his fraud-tainted re-election."

This raises a lot of red flags in my mind and strikes me as very un-American. Why not investigate whether or not the election was legitimate? It seems to me the American government is just trying to brainwash the people of the Afghanistan rather than deal with the consequences of putting the allegedly corrupt leader and others into office. This is unacceptable, the American government has to live what it preaches. If we are trying to impose democracy into regions that have never had it as a part of their history and getting American citizens killed in the process why are we bastardizing ourselves by being undemocratic in the processes by which we maintain democracy? It's one huge paradox that won't stop unless the American people hold the government accountable for it's actions. I see that it is a form of damage control but it is about the principle of the thing.

11/29/09

bagley.jpg

Above is a link to a political cartoon depicting Obama using a U.S. Soldier as a shield against bullets. It appears Obama is pregnant with "Afghan War Plans". This is a visual representation of Obama's most recent plans to deploy 34,000 more troops into Afghanistan over the next nine months. The soldier is asking Obama to hurry up. This cartoon is stating that the deployment will not be effective because of the amount of time it will take for reinforcements to arrive. I have to agree. 34,000 troops over the next nine months is a bit more like giving the opposition more targets than it is an effective war plan. Obviously a "troop surge" is out of the question because Obama does not have the vote of the people or the resources for such a thing but to me the proposed plan is a very weak one.

Sources:

http://www.leadertelegram.com/news/front_page/article_7e3b0970-1342-586e-a010-9111827d656c.html

11/29/09

Confession of a Dove in Afghanistan

I was very interested in the piece we read in class about Code Pink's visit to Afghanistan. I think a lot of the time people will just say things like "we should get the hell out of there" or "It's all Bush's fault" like it is something that could be easily fixed. Even I have said things like this but the fact of the matter is there is no Win-Win situation. Now the responsibility is fallen on Obama and I hear the same comments that were directed at Bush just a few months ago. The Code Pink blog helped me realize that the American people cannot pass judgement on the situation because they have not been there and experienced firsthand the situations in Afghanistan. If the experience could change the hearts of some of the most extreme people what would it do to a person with balanced views? The blog was very thought provoking and I would like to read more on their trip.

11/4/09

Eminent Domain vs. Property Rights

Eminent domain is no longer relevant. In the beginning stages of the development of the country, eminent domain was important because road systems and things like this needed to link America together. America is very developed now and eminent domain should not have precedence over property rights. The potiential for abuse of eminent domain is huge and the American government has a history of it. Therefore, eminent domain should not ever be enforced.

11/4/09

What about the filibuster? Is this good or bad for democracy?

The filibuster is horrible for democracy and I really don't see why it is still in use. It is childish and immature to waste american tax

dollars stalling so a bill won't pass. The time spent talking about meaningless things should be used to talk about making a compromise.

Granted it doesn't typically last that long but particularly with this health care bill it is becoming a liability. Americans need some sort of healthcare

reform. That much can be agreed on by both parties. They need to find a compromised and get it passed quick before it is too late to fix anything.

Filibusters are bad for democracy and the closure rule makes it difficult to stop it. Something should be done to put an end to this archaic and

meaningless practice.

10/20/09

Term Limits?

I think term limits are a fine thing to have for congressmen. Generally, the incumbent will win the elections for Congress positions because of the lack of motivation the American people have towards voting. However, these short two-year terms allow for fresh blood to get into congress and also represents (sometimes) the ever changing interests of the American people. If anything not have term limits is undemocratic because in this republic we elect officials to represent our current interests. Term limits help this process and is just other way of limiting the governments power in Congress which is the strongest of the three branches.

10/4/09

Is America giving up it's freedom in exchange for safety? Whether or not we are officially at war the protection of our domestic freedoms is much less passionate. This is because people are living in fear. Fear created mostly by the media and the government. Since the government cracked down on security there hasn't been another terrorist attack on US soil and that is a good thing. But at what cost does safety come? The governments domestic spying policies are unacceptable and unconstitutional. There should at least be a warrant process involved if the government is going to search through a one's personal records. The government is throwing procedure out of the window and using fear to cover up the fact that it is missing. Obama is trying now to renew the patriot act which I view as an offense. He should be drafting another piece of legislation that will keep everyone safe and minimize the violation of personal rights to American citizens. Why would he want to renew a terrible unpopular Bush-era policy? This spells trouble for the new presidency in my opinion.

9/26/09

Should Voters have to take a literacy test to register to vote?

Absolutely. Not to discriminate against those terribly unfortunate to have not received basic education but literacy is essential to making an informed decision. If one did not read about the issues and candidates and just believed everything they heard on the news, they would be making a compromised decision. America has a public school system and many organizations dedicated to eradicating illiteracy so if someone who is illiterate really cared about making an informed decision they would probably learn to read. Some may say that this is discriminating against those who were unable to learn. However, in this modern day and age I feel that there are enough resources for someone to learn.

9/21/09

Should political parties have open primaries or closed primaries?

Personally, I believe in more closed primaries. The pros far outweigh the cons. Closed primaries ensure the "integrity" of the primary and make sure that the votes counted are in the parties best interest. It may be convenient for some to have open primaries because they want to support the particularly person who they think would be a good candidate. However, primaries are held to elect who will best represent the party and who best to do that than actual party members. It may be that the party is encouraging a population to vote for a certain candidate in order to ensure he is popular with many different groups by the time the general election comes around. However, the general election pretty much satisfies this requirement. The worry of open primaries is that the opposing party with in essence rig the vote so that a unlikable, less popular candidate is chosen. This, to me, is a real concern because they are not doing what is best for the people and more importantly America.

9/13/09

Would we be better or worse off with a system where more parties were represented such as a parliament?

I personally think we would be worse off. Not because the government shouldn't represent the people to the fullest extent as I believe a parliamentary system more or less does. But the political mentality of America wouldn't never cooperate for a common cause. The current two party system creates so much animosity that at this point a multi-party system would only further fragment the government. Excess and selfishness and ingrained in the political structure and the overall mentality of many Americans. That's not to say Americans are fat and stupid because we all know we produce some brilliant minds but as a whole the assumption is that Americans only want what's best for themselves. This is why a multi-party system would fail. Everyone would have little concern for the American people as a whole because they would feel entitled only to represent their specific interests. Thats why it wouldn't work as much as I like the sound of the idea.

9/6/09

I believe no one is truly objective in their political views. In modern-day America we are bombarded by media in every possible format, that tells us to think a certain way. In my own experience, as with many teens, my parents help shape some of my views. This is because your parents help shape your moral values and background that direct your political beliefs. That is not to say that morals should affect political decisions because in many cases they should not, but like I said no one is truly objective. My parents are moderate, but a little more to the left than the right. I would consider myself this as well but I tend to side with the left much more if anything. My attitudes about poverty and the environment come from my uncle who owns a non-profit and travels around the world setting up sustainable projects to create income for the impoverished. This has made my think on a more global level which puts the frivolity of partisanship into perspective.

Should the Federal Government do more to save the environment?

The short answer- yes. The environment issue has often been sidelined by "bigger" issues, particularly in times of economic crisis. But one can't throw away resources on the short term and not think about the effect it is going to have down the road. We need to be doing more. Yes we are making more fuel efficient cars and offset carbon emissions but we need to make conservation a lifestyle. The best thing to ever happen to the environment is the fact that "going green" is becoming trendy. But trends fade and then what are we left with. The environment is an investment and the US Government, as a world power, should be able to do more than it is currently. That is not to say that other countries wouldn't need to cooperate but any change is good change.