SOCIAL VOX

My thoughts on the world around me

What Obama’s Cuba Policy Ought to Be

In the ebb and flow of politics, change is the ultimate catalyst for achieving better government. As in the market, where demand for an old and unattractive product wanes, an unsuccessful political leader or policy, too, can lose favor. It is only a question of time before people realize that while one path may lead to stagnation, there is another that leads to possibility. When that time comes, the superior concept rises to the top.

In the 50 years since Fidel Castro came to power in Cuba, the United States has primarily advanced protectionist policies. On February 7, 1962, following the expropriation of numerous U.S.-owned properties in Cuba, President John F. Kennedy signed an executive order imposing a trade embargo on Castro’s government. In 1963, following the Cuban Missile Crisis, the first of many travel restrictions went into effect. Most recently, the Helms-Burton Act was enacted in 1996 to penalize foreign companies that do business in Cuba by preventing them from doing business in the U.S.

What effects have these measures had?

The Cuban people live in poverty. They have little or no access to our medicines, products and other essential items. They are silenced by a repressive government that long ago erased their freedom of expression. And yet, while Cubans feel disdain for their leaders, they are equally scornful of the U.S. The trade embargo has crippled their economic opportunities, and the travel ban has kept families apart for decades.

After 50 years and 10 U.S. presidents, isn’t it time for the U.S. to rethink its position? It may help to look at a successful model.

In technology, the Internet is a powerful tool because it is open to everyone. Its emphasis on collaboration and integration allows people from all over the world to freely exchange ideas and solve complex issues.  The Internet’s openness is a strategy that breaks down barriers, physical or not, and empowers the individual who wields its awesome power.

When applied to Cuba, the key to reforming the communist nation is to bombard it with access and information. The U.S. must allow U.S. citizens to travel into Cuba and ignite the flow of commerce. It ought to lift the trade embargo, so that Americans may benefit from the sugar and tobacco industries, and Cubans may have access to medicine, Hollywood, and apple pie. The U.S. also needs to assign a special envoy to Cuba who will oversee this transformation and assure the Cuban people that the U.S. views its neighbor’s success as a priority.

But as with the Internet, these political measures require collaboration. Once the U.S. changes its policies, it will be up to the Cuban people to act. We will provide the tools, but they will have to take the courageous steps toward democracy and capitalism. Will Cubans prefer a repressive government, or one that denies them nothing? Will they side with the local government that rations what little food they have, or follow the global economy that rewards innovation and hard work? Only they can decide that.

Communism erected walls throughout the island and in the people’s minds. We should tear them down as we once did in Berlin. If the U.S. infuses the island with hope, then there is the possibility that the inhabitants will once again dream of something larger than themselves.

After 50 years of stagnation, a different path seems very attractive.

January 27, 2009 Posted by | Barack Obama, Cuba, Economics, Foreign Policy, International Trade, Law, Obama's First 100 Days, Politics | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

Earmark Ban Doesn’t Really Ban Anything

Interest groups, lawmakers and lobbyists will have to be a little more creative to get funding for their pet projects. With President Barack Obama imposing an earmark ban on the $825 billion-dollar stimulus bill, lobbyists and others will have to seek money through “ready to go” jobs eligible for the stimulus plan.

This brand of politics disgusts me. It’s the very reason why people become so disillusioned by their government and the K Street, fork-tongued crowd that compete for its power and wealth. Some will argue that lobbying is a necessary evil in politics, or perhaps not an evil at all. For every lobbyist seeking to help the “mom and pop” shops, though, there are a million Jack Abramoffs who suck the life and idealism right out of public service.

From his years in law school, Obama should know that if the four corners of a document are not absolutely airtight, clever people will have their way with the fine print. Mr. President, if you truly did not want any earmarks whatsoever, you and your staff should have chosen the stimulus bill’s words more carefully.

January 26, 2009 Posted by | Barack Obama, Economics, Law, Obama's First 100 Days, Politics | , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Ex-Gitmo Detainee Joins al-Qaeda in Yemen

Said Ali Al-Shihri, a Saudi man who spent six years in the Guantanamo Bay prison, is now the No. 2 of the Yemen branch of al-Qaeda. Following President Barack Obama’s executive order to close down the Cuban prison within a year, this news only underscores the complexity of the issue.

Several experts have said that the detainees fall into three categories:

1. Those who can be tried in a U.S. court;

2. Those who can be returned to their home country, or a third country, and be tried there; and

3. Some detainees who cannot be tried in the U.S. or returned to their home or third country (the most difficult category)

Given the difficulty in resolving this issue, it’s no surprise that the Democrats and Republicans have conflicting views on yesterday’s executive order.

Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA), who heads the House Homeland Security subcommittee on intelligence, said that Guantanamo prison should still be closed in spite of today’s report:

What it tells me is that President Obama has to proceed extremely carefully. But there is really no justification and there was no justification for disappearing people in a place that was located offshore of America so it was outside the reach of U.S. law[.]

Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-MI), the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, criticized the executive order as it was “very short on specifics.” He went on to say that former Guantanamo detainees are “back on the battlefield. They are attacking American troops.”

Closing the prison is symbolic and essential to our foreign policy objectives. The prison had become a propaganda tool for insurgents throughout the Middle East. Obama also seems to be keenly aware that it will not be easy to adjudicate each and every one of these cases. Some prisoners are very dangerous, but the extent of the evidence against them is razor thin.

Giving himself a year to handle this issue was a prudent move. Obama will have to proceed cautiously, and be aware that what is at stake is allowing more people like Al-Shihri to take to the battlefield against American soldiers.

That would be an unforgivable mistake.

January 23, 2009 Posted by | Barack Obama, Foreign Policy, Law, Obama's First 100 Days, Politics, Terrorism | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

President Barack Obama’s Inaugural Speech

I was expecting Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” rhetoric of hope and unity. I was expecting President Abraham Lincoln’s second inaugural speech from 1865, a strike of subtle genius and poetry in the midst of the Civil War. All the media pundits had me thinking I was about to witness the greatest speech my generation would ever hear.

When Obama finished his speech, I asked myself, “that’s it?” My expectations had been much too lofty for anything that he could have conjured up.

But then I decided to watch it again.

We remain a young nation, but in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things. The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness.

Yes, we remain a young nation. A nation with youthful energy and curiosity. But we must not give in to irresponsibility. We have to show transparency, the good in each of us that strengthens all of us, and act justly upon our convictions.

With “all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness,” President Obama invoked The Declaration of Independence’s “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” But words are mere words without action. We have to break free of the shackles that constrict our spirits, limit the scope of our dreams.

In reaffirming the greatness of our nation, we understand that greatness is never a given. It must be earned. Our journey has never been one of short-cuts or settling for less. It has not been the path for the faint-hearted – for those who prefer leisure over work, or seek only the pleasures of riches and fame. Rather, it has been the risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things…

Do not sit back idly. When each brick of the crumbling economy falls upon us, we have to reach high and erect a wall once more. We do not cheat our fellow citizen, and exploit him to turn a profit. Instead, we must build and dig, create and redesign.

What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them – that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply. The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works – whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end. And those of us who manage the public’s dollars will be held to account – to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day – because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.

Nor is the question before us whether the market is a force for good or ill. Its power to generate wealth and expand freedom is unmatched, but this crisis has reminded us that without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control – and that a nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous. The success of our economy has always depended not just on the size of our Gross Domestic Product, but on the reach of our prosperity; on our ability to extend opportunity to every willing heart – not out of charity, but because it is the surest route to our common good.

The partisan bickering is futile. Gone are the Reagan days of debating whether the government is too big or too small. Does our government work? We must build upon everything based on that question. Where the government is effective, those measures will remain in place. Where the government goes wrong, it will be swiftly remedied. The reason why there is such little faith in government is because hypocritical lawmakers and politicians devote their energy and our tax dollars on arguing over petty matters. When the time comes to judge them, however, they are never accountable. To all politicians, from President Obama to the local school board official, focus on a solution to the problem, not on our differing ideologies.

As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our Founding Fathers, faced with perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience’s sake.

We will not sacrifice our morals and values in the name of national security. We shall not torture and dehumanize the enemy in exchange for a false sense of safety. For over two hundred years, the United States has been viewed abroad as a nation of laws and ideals, of principled men and an unwavering belief in personal freedom. We must close Guantanamo and take our troops out of Iraq to restore our image abroad, to show that the United States has not forgotten the meaning of justice or spurned the world’s trust.

America. In the face of our common dangers, in this winter of our hardship, let us remember these timeless words. With hope and virtue, let us brave once more the icy currents, and endure what storms may come. Let it be said by our children’s children that when we were tested we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back nor did we falter; and with eyes fixed on the horizon and God’s grace upon us, we carried forth that great gift of freedom and delivered it safely to future generations.

Mr. President, that was one heck of a speech.

January 21, 2009 Posted by | Barack Obama, Foreign Policy, Law, Media, Politics | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

America, Be Not Afraid to Look Behind You

Appearing in a New York Times op-ed column, Slate Magazine’s Dahlia Lithwick says Americans would rather turn the page than prosecute top Bush officials for war crimes and other atrocities. The crux of her argument is that this hope of “rebooting” the government, of preferring to recover, is not found in the language of law. There is no legal justification for not investigating or prosecuting senior officials who have authorized torture and warrant-less surveillance.

Americans want to focus on the brighter future that hopefully lies ahead, not dwell on our dark past. As Ms. Lithwick notes, however, that would be a mistake:

Nobody is looking for a series of public floggings. The blueprints for government accountability look nothing like witch hunts. They look like legal processes that have served us for centuries. And, as the Armed Services Committee report makes clear, we already know an enormous amount about what happened to take us down the road to torture and eavesdropping. The military has commissioned at least three investigative reports about the descent into abusive interrogation. Michael Ratner, the president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, has compiled what he believes to be sufficient evidence to try senior Bush administration officials for war crimes…

It’s not a witch hunt simply because political actors are under investigation. The process of investigating and prosecuting crimes makes up the bricks and mortar of our prosecutorial system. We don’t immunize drug dealers, pickpockets or car thieves because holding them to account is uncomfortable, difficult or divisive. We don’t protest that “it’s all behind us now” when a bank robber is brought to trial.

And America tends to survive the ugliness of public reckonings, from Nixon to Whitewater to the impeachment hearings, because for all our cheerful optimism, Americans fundamentally understand that nobody should be above the law. As the chief prosecutor for the United States at the Nuremberg trials, Robert Jackson, warned: “Law shall not stop with the punishment of petty crimes by little people. It must also reach men who possess themselves of great power.”

At the Senate confirmation hearing, Eric Holder said that “waterboarding is torture.” Is Holder and the Obama administration prepared to bring these people to justice? Can the American people stomach the potentially difficult process? We must all remember that, as Mr. Holder said at his confirmation hearing, “no one is above the law.” To not investigate or prosecute these officials to the full extent of the law is to establish a dangerous precedent.

There is no immunity for war crimes, even when allegedly done for the sake of national security.

January 15, 2009 Posted by | Foreign Policy, Law, Politics | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

All Eyes on Holder

Since the days of Alberto Gonzales, the Department of Justice, and particularly the Office of the Attorney General, has tainted, to say the very least, the United States judicial process. In the Bush years, torture and CIA black sites have become somewhat synonymous with the war on terror.

That’s why today’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Eric Holder’s nomination for US Attorney General is so significant. Immediately, Holder’s responses established a position, both a legal and a philosophical one.

These were Chairman Leahy’s first two questions, and Holder’s answers to them:

Is waterboarding torture?

“Waterboarding is torture.”

Can the commander-in-chief override a law, in the name of national security, to allow this form of torture?

“No one is above the law.”

Hopefully this is the beginning of the cleansing process. Hopefully we will reconstruct our image as a nation of laws.

Mr. Holder, our eyes are on you.

January 15, 2009 Posted by | Law, Politics | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

U.S. Selling Bomb Parts to Iran

Yes, your eyes have not deceived you. The United States is selling bomb parts to Iran. How?

According to Joby Warrick, Iran is using several front companies, from the United Arab Emirates to Malaysia, to acquire weapons parts. Since Iran cannot buy directly from the US due to strict exporting laws, it’s using dummy corporations, littered throughout the globe, in order to bring western technology into Tehran.

The article notes how complex the issue has become:

While illegal trafficking in weapons technology has occurred for decades — most notably in the case of the nuclear smuggling ring operated by Pakistani scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan — the new documents suggest that recent trading is nearly all Internet-based and increasingly sophisticated.

Many of the schemes unknowingly involve U.S. companies that typically have no clue where their products are actually going, the records show.

“The schemes are so elaborate, even the most scrupulous companies can be deceived,” said David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) and co-author of a forthcoming study of black markets for weapons components.

Albright said the deceptions can be even more elaborate when the target is nuclear technology. “That’s where the stakes are the highest,” he said. “If Iran is successful, it ends up not with an IED but with a nuclear weapon.”

This issue has a sad, dramatic flair to it:

Iran in the past two years has acquired numerous banned items — including circuit boards, software and Global Positioning System devices — that are used to make sophisticated versions of the improvised explosive devices, or IEDs, that continue to kill U.S. troops in Iraq[.]

American technology is killing American soldiers.

As I read the article, two things struck me in particular:

1. How much research is going into finding out where these parts are going?

2. Weapons trade is a monster that the US has no control over.

First, do US companies know who they are selling these sensitive materials to? It does not seem as though much research is going into it. The article notes this very same point:

Typically, the new front companies will not be discovered until long after crucial technology has left American shores aboard ships ultimately bound for Iran, Albright said.

Based on the above statement, US companies apparently do discover, at some point, that Iran is the end-user. How long does that process take? Couldn’t they just hold on to the technology until they are absolutely certain where the parts are headed?

Second, the US has no control over their weapons market. According to the article, they’re selling parts out of “California, Florida, Georgia and New Jersey.” Are these plants all operating under the US government, or are they separate private entities. I think that’s an important distinction that needs clarifying.

I find the distinction important because, presumably, the US would be looking out for US interests. The US would have to think in terms of national security, wouldn’t it? On the other hand, a private company is ultimately looking to turn a profit. A private engineering firm will be focused on the bottom line, and not take the risk of losing potential buyers if their turn-around proves too slow.

Ultimately, the article points out the difficulty the US is having in reigning this issue in:

“The current system of export controls doesn’t do enough to stop illicit trade before the item is shipped,” he said. “Having a law on the books is not the same as having a law enforced.”

The article makes a dangerous revelation: the war on terror is escalating, not just in intensity but in complexity. Worst of all, the US is being outmaneuvered.

January 11, 2009 Posted by | Economics, Foreign Policy, International Trade, Law, Politics | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

The Bailout and the Media: A Circus Coming to a Town Near You

Arianna Huffington’s latest blog post was a slap in the face. Directing her scathing remarks at the media, she wonders why reporters are so enamored by the Blago-Burris and Kennedy-Paterson-Cuomo stories, yet have put such limited effort into uncovering the colossal mystery that is the nearly trillion-dollar bailout.

I give Ms. Huffington high marks for her compelling argument. Here’s a sample on display:

“[T]he bailout is a fascinating story. Not so much a whodunit as a who’s-doing-it. This mystery is unfolding right in front of us, and the size of the victim pool could very well depend on whether we unravel the mystery in flashback or while it’s still in progress.”

Here’s a quote that blew my mind:

“As a GAO report last month dryly concluded: ‘The rapid pace of implementation and evolving nature of the program have hampered efforts to put a comprehensive system of internal control in place. Until such a system is fully developed and implemented, there is heightened risk that the interests of the government and taxpayers may not be adequately protected and that the program objectives may not be achieved in an efficient and effective manner.’ In other words, the money is flying out the door but no one is watching where it’s going.”

As Ms. Huffington points out, the bailout is a poorly-hatched plan that is spiraling wildly out of control. Worse yet, we don’t know anything about it because the government won’t tell us.

That’s where the journalists should come in. You see, the media ought to be America’s watchdog. It’s supposed to represent what Thomas L. Friedman, in The Lexus and the Olive Tree, has coined the “democratization of technology” and the “democratization of information”: innovations in computerization and telecommunications that have made it possible for hundreds of millions of people around the world to get connected and exchange information, news, knowledge, money, etc.

Now, a second news article is reporting that the soon-to-be Obama administration, and senior Democrats, are talking to the current administration about requesting the remaining rescue funds ($350 billion).

According to the article, U.S. Rep. Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Service Committee, will soon be proposing legislation that would overhaul the remaining funds.

Here are some important points to the overhaul:

1. Treasury must develop foreclosure relief plans for owner-occupied homes by March 15 and start committing TARP funds to it by April 1. The plans can include government guarantees for modified loans, paying down second liens and outright loan purchases to bring down payments.

2. Toughen executive compensation rules and make some of them retroactive for banks that have already received funds.

3. Give smaller banks access to TARP funds and set benchmarks for institutions to meet in expanding their lending.

Will there be greater oversight and accountability over how the second half of the bailout package is utilized?

Ms. Huffington notes in her post:

“There is an all-too-real economic drama playing out behind the drawn curtain — a mystery waiting to be unraveled. And journalistic careers to be made by those doing the unraveling. So what are the media waiting for?”

Hopefully this post helped to pull the curtain back just a little bit.

January 10, 2009 Posted by | Economics, Law, Politics | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 5 Comments

The Washington Post’s Ann Telnaes’ Cartoon

The Washington Post recently published one of Ann Telnaes’ cartoons. In it, George H.W. Bush, with George W. sitting on his lap, tells the world how he would love for Jeb Bush to run for the US Senate seat being vacated by Mel Martinez, and to later run for president. At the news of this, George W. lets out a shriek, ultimately shattering the picture frame of Jeb in the background.

This cartoon, while simple, reveals quite a lot. George H.W. Bush plotting to have three generations of Bushes in the White House reminds me of “Manifest Destiny.”

Manifest Destiny was the historical belief that the United States was divinely ordained and destined to expand across the North American continent, from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific. Under this belief, not only was it good to expand, but it was both obvious (“manifest”) and certain (“destiny”).

I found this painting on Wikipedia. Painted by John Gast circa 1872, and titled “American Progress,” it’s an allegorical representation of Manifest Destiny. Columbia, a personification of the United States, leads the American settlers westward, stringing telegraph wire as she travels. She’s also holding a school book. The painting, then, highlights the various economic activities of the pioneers, as well as the changing forms of transportation. As you’ll notice to the left, the Native Americans and wild animals flee.

George H.W. Bush saying “I’d like to see [Jeb Bush] be president some day” suggests that he thinks that it’s his family’s destiny to control the most powerful office in the world.

Well, Papa Bush, thankfully we live in a society with elections. I certainly would hate having to flee as our native brethren did in centuries past. Granted, we’re not above making a mockery of elections (Bush v. Gore), now are we? With that said, though, I truly hope America has had enough of this family.

January 5, 2009 Posted by | Art, Fine Art, Humor, Law, Politics | , , , , , , , , , , , , | 5 Comments

Slavery in the 21st Century

New York Times op-ed columnist, Nicholas Kristof, traveled to Cambodia to report on the sex trafficking of girls into brothels.

Reading the article, I was reminded of a feature documentary film that will be coming out — “Call + Response.”

Here’s a fact: In 2007, slave traders made more money than Google, Nike and Starbucks combined.

Toward the end of Mr. Kristof’s article, he notes that President-Elect Obama will have a new tool to combat traffickers: the Wilbeforce Act. Just passed by Congress, the Act strengthens sanctions on countries that allow sex slavery to take place within their borders. For details on the Wilbeforce Act, please see this detailed summary.

As Mr. Kristof’s article states, Mr. Obama, an African-American, ought to be at the forefront of this abolitionist movement toward ending all 21st century forms of slavery. In doing so, he truly would become a transformative figure, a modern day Frederick Douglas.

“Never forget, justice is what love looks like in public.” — Dr. Cornel West

January 4, 2009 Posted by | Art, Film, Law, Media, Politics, Protests, Travel | , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Richardson Withdraws Bid, Possible “Pay-to-Play” Scandal

Richardson withdraws bid to be commerce secretary – Yahoo! News.

Man, Obama just can’t catch a break. Multiple bailouts, the corruption scandal in Illinois (we still really don’t know the extent of his transition staff’s involvement), the Israeli-Palestinian escalating conflict, and now Bill Richardson’s possible “pay-to-play” situation — all before he even takes office.

It seems a California-based company that contributed to Richardson’s political activities was later granted a state contract worth over $1 billion.

Secretary of Commerce was a mere consolation prize for Mr. Richardson, at one time thought to be the next Secretary of State. Now, that’s all a moot point. Mr. Richardson has withdrawn his candidacy so that the new administration doesn’t “delay for one day the important work that needs to be done.”

Mr. Richardson, I hope you and your staff have some good attorneys.

January 4, 2009 Posted by | Law, Politics | , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Israel, Watch Your Step

According to this NY Times article, Israel is facing a political quagmire: how far should it take this military campaign against Hamas?

Israel’s main concern is addressing the rockets being fired into southern Israel. So the question becomes: can the rockets be stopped for any length of time while Hamas remains in power? If not, then is the operation to remove Hamas entirely, at any cost?

In 2006, Israel was unable to defeat Hezbollah in southern Lebanon, and the terrorist organization was legitimized. Here, it seems that Israel is facing a very similar problem. Aluf Benn, a political analyst for Haaretz, contends that if the war ends in a draw, then Hamas will be legitimized and grow stronger.

Most people, including many Israelis, would prefer that a truce be brokered. Any potential truce would likely have to include an end to the economic boycott that Israel has imposed on Gaza. However, such a result would build up Hamas. If the boycott remains in place, though, 1.5 million Gazans will remain living in poverty.

The article goes on to say that Israel can only achieve victory if it were to once again occupy Gaza.

As several political insiders point out, though, removing Hamas would be unrealistic. Hamas won a democratic majority four years ago, and the group has 15,000-20,000 armed men.

What about the Fatah party? Couldn’t it just take the place of Hamas, as it once did? The article points out that Fatah is likely too disorganized to take over. Complicating this matter further, the longer Israel retains a military presence in Gaza, the weaker Fatah becomes. In the minds of Gazans, it would appear as though Fatah were collaborating with Israel.

Ultimately, the article notes that the destruction of Hamas’ infrastructure would likely result in chaos. With no influx of capital, and no political party to maintain order, Gazans won’t know which way is north.

If Israel’s goal is to reach a peaceful accord with its surrounding enemies, it had better calculate its moves very, very carefully.

January 3, 2009 Posted by | Economics, Law, Politics | , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Protesters glued inside BBC HQ

If the media is to be objective, it should show the different sides of any argument. Here, the protesters contend that the BBC is offering a one-sided, pro-Israel angle.

Vodpod videos no longer available.

One thing I found interesting was how the woman called for the BBC to give equal coverage to Palestinian government officials. Isn’t Hamas the leading political party in Palestine (In January 2006, Hamas took 76 of 132 seats in the Palestinian parliamentary elections)? Hamas…the known terrorist organization? In essence, then, the woman is calling for BBC to share the limelight between Israel and Hamas.

Should the BBC air whatever Hamas has to say? There does seem to be something inherently wrong with handing the podium over to a terrorist organization whenever it feels like spouting off its religious/political agenda. As far as the western media is concerned, wouldn’t it be enabling or legitimizing the organization were it to chronicle every spoken word or action?

My feeling is that, even though the Palestinians have democratically given Hamas the right to speak on their behalf, Hamas should not be entitled to equal air time.

January 1, 2009 Posted by | Law, Media, Politics, Protests | , , , , , , | 5 Comments

World Economic Forum and YouTube: Make Your Voice Heard

World leaders and thinkers, from Bill Gates to Bono, will be attending the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland on January 29, 2009. They will be meeting to address some of the key issues facing our planet: the economy, ethics, environment, and politics. The theme for the forum is “Shaping the Post-Crisis World.”

Through YouTube.com, you can submit a video weighing in on these contentious issues, and possibly win an opportunity to attend the forum in Davos:

Here are the FOUR questions you can respond to…

1. The Economy:

Want to see how others answered that question? Click HERE

2. Corporate Ethics:

Want to see how others answered that question? Click HERE

3. The Environment:

Want to see how others answered that question? Click HERE

4. Politics:

Want to see how others answered that question? Click HERE

This is our chance. Let’s make our voices heard.

December 31, 2008 Posted by | Economics, Education, Law, Politics | , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Bush Wins Rulings on Gitmo Detainees

Very quietly, an important case was passed on Tuesday.

Richard Leon, a federal district judge for the US District Court for the District of Columbia, ruled Tuesday that the government was properly holding two Guantánamo detainees as enemy combatants. This was the first clear-cut victory for the Bush administration in what are expected to be more than 200 similar cases.

Rulings such as these are significant, among other reasons, because the Obama administration may use them to justify continuing to hold certain detainees even if they’ve already closed the Cuban prison down.

This is only a district court case that is likely to be appealed, so the extent of its impact is likely yet to be determined. The lawyer of one of the detainees said several issues were appealable, including the fact that the government was allowed to rely on classified evidence which her client was not permitted to see.

December 31, 2008 Posted by | Law, Politics | , , , , | 1 Comment

Roland W. Burris? The Plot Thickens

Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich sure loves to create scandal. In his most recent move, the Ill. governor appointed Roland W. Burris to replace President-Elect Obama in the US Senate.

In a New York Times article, Don Rose, a former Democratic political consultant in Chicago, described Mr. Burris as “not a terribly exciting figure,” and that “there’s never been a breath of scandal about [Mr. Burris].”

However, another Times article suggests that the political waters surrounding Burris’ relationship with Blagojevich may be a bit murkier. Following the 2002 primary for governor, Mr. Burris encouraged Mr. Obama to endorse Mr. Blagojevich. At one point, Mr. Burris served as the vice chairman of the governor’s transition team.

Moreover, Mr. Burris and his consulting firm have made several contributions to Mr. Blagojevich’s campaign. State records show that the consulting firm has given more than $9,000 in cash and in-kind contributions, and Mr. Burris has personally handed out at least $4,500. In June of this year, Mr. Burris contributed $1,000 to Mr. Blagojevich’s campaign. The article also notes, though, that Mr. Burris is not someone believed to be mentioned in the conversations prosecutors recorded of Mr. Blagojevich’s apparent negotiations over the seat.

Can the Senate now exclude Mr. Burris from taking the seat? Not so fast. A Wall Street Journal law blog noted the effect that the US Supreme Court’s decision in Powell v. McCormick could have on this issue.

In Powell, Adam Clayton Powell, a Harlem representative facing some legal issues, won reelection in 1966. The House of Representatives voted to exclude him. The US Supreme Court’s decision was that the proceedings against Powell were intended to exclude him rather than expel him, and that the House did not constitutionally possess the power to exclude a duly elected member.

How does this affect Mr. Burris? Well, it seems that the Senate would have to wait for him to be seated as a new member of Congress, and only then could they force a vote to have him expelled. Removing Mr. Burris from the Senate would require a two-thirds vote, however. Will two-thirds of the Senate vote in favor of his removal? Only time will tell.

Regardless of how this political game plays out, Mr. Rose thinks Mr. Burris will “run again,” that this is what “[Mr. Burris has] always wanted.”

December 31, 2008 Posted by | Law, Politics | , , , , , | Leave a comment