Last Updated: 7:28 am, August 27, 2010

Tag Archives: Obama

Published:

10/21
2009

Posted In:

Forum

Tagged:



No Comments

Does Obama talk too much?

By Jacqueline Leong

Let’s cut to the chase. Does Obama talk too much?

I’d like to rephrase. Can he talk too much? After all, this is President Obama. But it’s true; if he’s not talking too much, then he’s talking in mostly the wrong places; namely, places abroad. True, diplomatic relations are always ideal, compared to war. But when do we admit that we’re pushing in the wrong spots?

Which of those charming diplomatic get-togethers has led to any real changes? I don’t see anything much changing. Just talk.

Thing is, we have more pressing internal problems to deal with right now. It’s a nice thing to reach out to other countries; it’s even nicer to go and do it personally, and more importantly, civilly, rather than literally jumping the gun. But there comes a time when it becomes pointless.

So let me ask: does Obama really nurse a legitimate hope that, given enough lecturing, Iran or North Korea will simply say, “You know, O Wise One, you’re right. We’re not being nice, are we? Let’s all be friends”? What are the chances of that?

Whether we poke the likes of Ahmadinejad with ten or a million olive branches, there will be no difference in outcome. It’ll only annoy them. Besides, nice was never any politico’s choice vocabulary. And, sadly, when someone’s insane and there are nukes involved, they are far beyond being reasoned with.

Plus, in case anyone forgot, we do have actual diplomats to do this sort of thing.

When Obama does focus on internal affairs, it’s obviously well meant. But the press tends to jump towards any possible controversy. Anything Obama says, on- or off-record, will be taken the same way: newsworthy. In some cases, such as his speech to America’s unemployed, or its schoolchildren on their first day of school (well, most people’s first day of school), his words will be legitimately newsworthy, and thus squarely in the territory of his duties as president. There’s nothing wrong with trying to pick up the progress here in the domestic realm.

But, as said before, the media are the hindering factor, intent on picking up small things and blowing them out of proportion. Occasionally, Obama can forget himself, like his comment that the Cambridge police “acted stupidly” in the events leading up to the Beer Summit. The media zoomed in on it in a heartbeat.

I do love the media. But—bless their hearts—they do have this way of littering the news every time Obama drops some new pearl of wisdom or other. How long did we focus on Obama’s choice of dogs? Too long. How fast was Obama’s opinion of Kanye West made public? Much too quickly.

These are just a few instances where the media, originally intended to spread the goodwill of our leader, goes too far. We hear that he’s speaking to children and we immediately jump to the conclusion that he must be brainwashing them. We cheer—and gasp—at his insult to Kanye West, forgetting that the comment was technically off record.

It’s amusing, but when the top quoted Obama line becomes “He’s a jackass” and not “Yes we can”—well, there’s a problem.

Therefore, though we know Obama is only human, and has his own views too, he once again has to remember his role. He is a president. And as such, he must watch what he says, knowing this special attention he will be getting. What he says is taken as what America says, putting extra weight on every word he speaks.

Obama is indeed a great speaker and diplomat. In fact, he was recently awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for… talking. I believe the committee’s reasoning was something along the lines of “becoming the world’s leading spokesman”—specifically, in the realm of international diplomacy. Which means what, exactly? The fact that the Nobel Committee is convinced that all this talking will somehow magically convert into doing—well, it’s a stretch, to put it bluntly. So what does it mean right now? Simply that he’s a symbol of hope?

We need more than hope. Yes, Obama has talked a great deal already, and he’s not going to stop anytime soon, especially with a Nobel Peace Prize under his belt. But he is not solely a diplomat. He is the president of this country, and, human or not, must act, and speak (or not speak) accordingly. In short: he should apply those magical oratory skills to where they’re needed most: not abroad—where the ratio of words to action is much too high, but at home, to the some 300 million people that he charmed with the creed of “change”.

And though the media likes to wander, don’t let them. Obama could comment on some reporter’s hat and the press would run with it. But do we really want to hang with his every word? Are we that desperate?

People of America: Obama is not your friend. He is your president, and he could care less about what you think about his calling Kanye West a jackass, or his kung-fu skills on flies, or his dog. He cares about this country. I suggest you turn your priorities around and do the same. No matter how much he talks, it’s up to the people to come halfway as well. After all, diplomacy that goes nowhere is undesirable, but it’s even worse if the only thing the masses back home bother to do is Twitter about it. The least anyone (including the president) can do is think about what they’re actually saying.

Published:

10/8
2009

Posted In:

Forum

Tagged:




No Comments

Obama should authorize troop surge in Afghanistan

By Noah Eby

Every great presidency has a defining event. For Lincoln it was the Civil War, for FDR the Great Depression, and for Kennedy the Cuban Missile Crisis. Barrack Obama’s defining event remains to be seen as he nears the end of his first year in office. Among the possibilities are an economic recovery and a healthcare overhaul. But there is another situation waiting to be resolved that Obama can and should make his project: the war in Afghanistan.

As of Oct. 7, Operation Enduring Freedom is eight years young. Young because in those eight years American forces, with the war in Iraq overshadowing them for much of the time, have managed to achieve few of their goals. We removed the Taliban from power, set up a democratic government, and temporarily quelled Al Qaeda’s terrible storm of violence and murder. Yet Osama bin Laden still enjoys freedom, the Taliban is making political and military advances in the tribal areas of Afghanistan, and Al Qaeda is continuing its slaughter of civilians and American soldiers. We have quite a ways to go.

Obama is now faced with a most important decision: do we stay or do we go? Do we continue to occupy a country that has seen the deaths of over 1400 American soldiers and thousands more civilians, or do we quit while we can and leave the Afghan people to govern and protect themselves? The answer is not as simple as peace over war or life over death. No, it is more a question of whether we are willing to go through the events of 9/11 again. The answer is obvious.

First of all, it is extremely clear that we must defeat Al Qaeda as best we can. The memory of 2753 civilians buried in the rubble of a tragedy on 9/11 demands it. Since 2001, U.S. authorities have foiled plot after plot, including a plan to detonate liquid explosives on planes and a plan to blow up a New York City tunnel.  Authorities also recently arrested a man in Dallas in connection with a terror plot. The terrorists and murderers of this world will not stop unless we force them too, that much is certain.

If the United States pulls out of Afghanistan immediately, the already weak democratic government will probably not last. Even if it does, it will be unable to extend its authority to the outer regions of the country without the aid of about 40,000 American troops. The Taliban will return, Al Qaeda will build support and control in the rural areas, and terrorists will once again use the mountains of Afghanistan as a hideout while planning attacks against the U.S.

Perhaps an eight year drought from a tragedy like 9/11 has allowed us to forget what terrorism can do.  Or maybe it is the fact that the wars in the Middle East are so distant and casualties relatively few so that most of us don’t feel the pain of terrorism.  But with Iran and North Korea seeking nuclear weapons, it is likely that the next terrorist attack will be even more catastrophic than the last. Thus, we cannot provide a safe haven for Al Qaeda and others in Afghanistan — we do not want to see the consequences.

Success in Afghanistan is a vague term. Real success would be the elimination of Al Qaeda and the Taliban, but this, like defeating the Vietcong in Vietnam, seems impossible. To defeat the insurgency, we must seek and destroy militants and eliminate Al Qaeda’s recruitment base. Easier said than done, though. It will require immense force over a long period of time, and in the near future, it is our job.

Afghanistan is not our country, however, and it is not our duty to police it forever. That is why Obama needs to authorize a sharp surge of troops to about 100,000  in Afghanistan for the time being. This added force would temporarily help suppress the insurgency while training Afghan forces so that they can eventually take over. The Afghan people have seen the blood of their neighbors and the wreckage of their cities, and this is their fight as much as it is ours.

Also, the U.S. needs to educate and modernize the Afghan population so that they can, as a people, develop a self-sustaining and prosperous economy. This means a larger middle class and more jobs, which will lead to greater stability. Furthermore, if the people have jobs and opportunity, their desire to join radical groups will dwindle and Afghanistan will enjoy the prosperity of a modern democratic nation.

None of this is possible, though, without a surge in U.S. troop levels. It will cost lives, no doubt, but we must not let 1400 Americans die for nothing. As Macbeth said, we are “in blood, stepped in so far that, should [we] wade no more, returning were as tedious as go o’er.” We have killed and been killed and, should we pack our bags and return home now, what would we have to show for the sacrifices we have made? Nothing but grief and defeat.

In all, abandoning Afghanistan is simply not an option. It would jeopardize American safety, stability in the region, and the security of the Afghan people. Operation Enduring Freedom must continue until the Afghan police, military, and government are capable of patrolling and ensuring the safety of their country.

Until then, we must keep in mind what we are fighting for. We are not fighting for the Afghan people, we are not fighting for imperialistic goals; we are fighting to ensure that the United States will never again be the victim of a terrorist attack like the one we experienced eight years ago.  Our soldiers risk their lives for our safety, our freedom, and our lives. It is our war as much as it is the Afghan people’s war, and with our security at stake, we must not give up.  We simply cannot afford to do so.

Published:

9/28
2009

Posted In:

World

Tagged:





No Comments

Iran flexes military muscles with recent missile test, economic sanctions ensue

By Schuyler Longmore

The Obama administration has pressed more economic sanctions on Iran after a newly disclosed nuclear site and short range missile testing. Cutoffs to oil and gas industries and Iranian banks already exist, but a movement for a more extensive bank blacklist and sanctions on energy sectors are in the works.

Iran test-fired three short range missiles on Sunday, despite existing sanctions on Iranian economic factors and worldwide criticism raining down on Tehran for military defiance. A recently revealed nuclear site has added to the existing tactics being pressed by the Obama administration.

Any sanctions put into effect have two clashing goals: forcing Iran back into negotiations regarding their nuclear program, and receiving support from Russia and China, who have strong economic ties to Iran.

President Dmitri A. Medvedev of Russia met with President Obama last week, and no agreements were made on sanctions against Iran. China is reported to be even more unmoving given its oil ties with Iran according to senior Obama administrators.

Other countries are getting in on the mix. Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has urged prominent U.S. lawmakers into pursuing, “crippling sanctions” according to Israeli officials.

Sunday’s missile test was one of Iran’s first international showings since a shady re-election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on June 12.

With a stalemate on plans for negotiations with Russia and China, the Obama administration will be looking for cooperation from Britain, France and other cooperating nations.

Published:

9/17
2009

Posted In:

Forum

Tagged:



No Comments

Obama’s Health Care: Pro

By Apoorva Sharma

The phrase “health care” is seen and heard everywhere these days, and rightly so. The current situation of health care in the United States is dire, to say the least.

The United States census reports that in 2007, 18 percent of the population under 65 was lacking health insurance. Although a thorough census report of these figures is not available at a more recent date, the National Coalition on Health Care reports that by next year, more than 19 percent of the entire population will lack health insurance.

This loss of insurance has serious effects on the United States’ overall health. First, it is one of the reasons why the U.S. ranks 50th in terms of life expectancy. Also, in our current system, in order to get medical attention, the uninsured are forced to go into the emergency room, even for something as small as a rash. These people delay the care of those who have real emergencies and end up putting the financial burden of their emergency care on the shoulders of everyone else.

The current system of health care is not only inefficient at keeping America healthy, but also at managing its cost. According to the University of California, Santa Cruz, the countries which have a higher life expectancy than the United States are achieving this feat with around half as much money per capita. To make the situation worse, the current system is eating up a larger share of government budgets each year. Insurance premiums are growing at an average rate of 12 percent annually, while the rate of inflation is only 2.5 percent.

These growing premiums are forcing more and more small businesses to make insurance harder to afford for their employees, or to stop offering it all together.

All this amounts to a huge vicious cycle, one that eats more and more money each year, while causing more people to lose their insurance.

Clearly, reform is needed. Those who support the status quo are either misinformed or uninformed, as all the statistics show that the current plan is extremely inefficient, regarding both money and the quality of care.

However, the question arises: What path should we take? In order to find the optimal path, we should create a policy that not only fixes all these problems, but stabilizes the system, making sure it will work in the future. I believe that President Obama’s suggested policies, including the creation of a public insurance option and making sure that all people have access to quality care, meet the criteria for the optimal path.

However, many are against the idea of such a public option. Generally, those who are against it argue that it is against the ideals of the United States of America. They argue that a public plan will put too much control under the hands of the federal government. Also, they believe the availability of this plan will cause private insurers to fail, resulting in socialized health care.

President Abraham Lincoln expressed that the U.S. government should be a “government of the people, by the people, and for the people.” Those who argue that making sure people have health insurance is against U.S. ideals are forgetting that it is government’s responsibility to care for its citizens as well.

Also, the existence of a public option would not cause private insurers to go out of business, as many claim. Instead, it would compete constructively, forcing private insurers to offer better services of better value, further benefiting the public. Proof of this can be seen by looking at the United States Postal Service (USPS). Although, like a public health care option, the USPS is regulated by the federal government, it still allows other postal companies, such as FedEx, to do well in the market.

Another problem that opponents cite with a government controlled plan is that in trying to expand coverage, the federal government will start rationing care. However, even if the government does ration care, it won’t be any worse than the status quo, as private insurers do it all the time, when they don’t cover certain things, or deny insurance based on previous medical conditions.

Those opposed to Obama’s proposals also argue that it would hurt low income workers by instating an employer mandate, forcing all but the smallest employer to provide health insurance options to their employees. They argue that workers with low wages would then be forced to buy plans that would be hard to afford. However, this argument is void, since the availability of a public plan would make everyone be able to afford health care

Another major argument against Obama’s plan is the large estimated addition to the already imposing deficit. Some cite that the plan will add up to 10 trillion dollars to the debt in 10 years. However, these reports are false. In his speech to a joint session of congress on September 9, Obama said outright, “I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits — either now or in the future.” He argued that the government could pay for this plan by simply finding savings in the current health systems, such as Medicare and Medicaid.

This is not to say that these programs will offer less support, but simply that they would use their funding appropriately.

The benefits of the policies supported by Obama greatly outweigh all of the above questionable problems. The proposed policies will successfully solve the current problems with health care. They stabilize cost, and lower the number of uninsured by offering a quality, affordable, public health insurance plan. They also aim to reform current private insurance plans through the creation of a National Health Insurance Exchange, which would set standards for care, including fair premiums for all applicants, regardless of medical history.

This exchange would also make it easier for individuals to find and buy private plans as well.

Obama also proposes to provide funding for hospitals and other health care providers to shift to electronic health information technology, which would computerize medical records, helping reduce medical errors, increase quality of care, and save time.

Another way these policies aim to increase the quality and cost effectiveness of care is by requiring health care providers to publicly report cost and quality measures, so all providers can see what works well and what doesn’t. The plan also makes sure that children have health insurance, which in effect, insures the future of America.

Overall, Obama’s proposed policies solve all the problems that exist in the current system. First, it stabilizes the exponentially growth of health care costs. Also, for those who have health insurance, the policies will simply make the insurance better. Most importantly, for those who aren’t able to get insurance, the policies will create an affordable public option as well as an exchange, allowing consumers to easily buy private health insurance. For these reasons, I believe that enacting Obama’s policies will solve one of the greatest issues facing us today, and in doing so benefit our nation as a whole.