Obama: War President

On Tuesday, President Obama gave his long anticipated Afghanistan speech at the West Point Military Academy. The speech contained no real surprises, including the 30,000 more troops he will be sending into the country to help stabilize the country.

Obama's strategy contains three main goals. First, to "break the Taliban's momentum." Insurgents in Afghanistan have become more brazen in their attacks on NATO troops, and Obama hopes that by adding these troops in early 2010, and possibly those from other allied countries, we will be able to focus on protecting the Afghan people and training Afghan security forces. Second, to enhance Afghan civilian leadership, through a series of carrots and sticks, and infrastructure and to reduce corruption, violence, and trafficking. Third, to partner with Pakistan in order to remove the "cancer" of Al-Qeada in the region. Although this has always been a goal of US foreign policy, recent attacks by Al-Qeada on government facilities in Pakistan has made this goal much more plausible. These goals are by no means revolutionary, but they do set goalpost for our occupation of Afghanistan to end.

Obama went on to answer critics, on both the left and right, by saying that he is not willing to continue pouring resources into Afghanistan endlessly, but is also not willing to pack up and leave. He quoted President Eisenhower, saying we have a "need to maintain balance among national programs," and managed to link the cost of the war to the present state of the economy.

Obama is the commander in chief, and he has made it clear that he does not want to abandon the war that he called "the central front in the war on terror." However, he also acknowledge that Al-Qeada is a global ideology. He supports strengthening our national defenses and intelligence networks. He said that, in the future, our military must be "nimble and precise."

Obama has done what Obama does best. He has found a middle way. Actually, he found both ways. Obama has committed to winning the war in Afghanistan, at least to the extent that such a thing is possible, and he has expanded our radar to Somalia and Yemen, and other places where Al-Qeada is gaining support. Remember that before the surge in Iraq, when most Americans wanted our troops to come home, Republicans successfully argued that we owed Iraq "one last best chance," meaning that instead of abandoning that country, we should shift strategy and go all in, at least for one more hand. And what happened? Well, Iraq, while not a paradise, is in much better shape then it was in 2006. And that is basically what Obama is doing in Afghanistan. Although the situation there has deteriorated, Obama, and most Americans, believe in finishing what you start. We have not given Afghanistan our full attention at any point in the last eight years, and isn't it about time? To paraphrase Colin Powell, "we broke it, we bought it." There are no good answers left in Afghanistan, but Obama has put us on the best possible road, one equipped with plenty of off ramps.

Underdog RSL Riegns MLS

On Sunday, Major League Soccer contested the 14th MLS Cup Final. The game was played at Rio Tinto Stadium, home of the expansion Seattle Sounders, who have quickly established one of the top atmospheres in the league. LA Galaxy, with stars David Beckham and Landon Donovan, were heavy favorites over Real Salt Lake, whose best player is defensive midfielder Kyle Beckerman.

Although the game was close, LA Galaxy looked to make good on expectations, attacks were coming in from all sides and RSL was on the back foot. Then in the 41st minute, it was Beckham to Donovan who played a perfect cross to Mike Magee. LA would take that lead into halftime, when Salt Lake manager, Jason Kries, made his second forced substitution.

Perhaps the turning point came less than three minutes into the second half. When RSL forward, and US hopeful, Robbie Findley broke the offsides trap down the right wing and into the LA area, A bad touch led to a fifty/fifty ball with Jamaican keeper Donovan Ricketts, and then to a bad collision. Both players were down, but neither immediately left the game. Yet, fifteen minutes later, with the ball ricocheting around the area, Findley drove the ball past Ricketts to even the score. Then, fifteen minutes and one goal after the incident, Ricketts was to hurt to play, and backup Josh Saunders was brought in.

The score remained the same for the next hour of play, leading to penalties for Sauders and the rest. The first four penalty-takers made theirs, including Beckham. Then the next three takers missed, including Donovan, who promptly ripped off this captain's arm band. Los Angeles needed a goal and a save going into the final round, and they got it. The lifeline was short-lived, however, when in round seven Edson Buddle was saved, and Robbie Russell was not. Real Salt Lake had won their first MLS Cup.

Next, the MLS attention turns to Philadelphia. This week, the next MLS franchise will choose their first players in the expansion draft. Soon, it will be the MLS 2010 season, and then the World Cup.

Terrorism Or PTSD?

On Thursday, a massive tragedy unfolded at one of the United States largest army bases. At Ford Hood, Texas, Major Nidal Malik Hasan opened fire on his fellow troops, killing 12 and injuring more than 30. Hasan was finally stopped by a civilian police officer, who shot him four times. Hasan is currently in a coma, alive but unable to speak to authorities.

Although he was born in Virginia, Hasan is of Palestinian decent and a Muslim. Interestingly, he was also an army psychiatrist. His job was to counsel soldiers who had returned from Iraq and Afghanistan who were dealing with PTSD. Reportedly, he was expected to ship off to Afghanistan himself, and was very concerned about fighting other Muslims.

Hasan has claimed that he was discriminated against because of his ethnicity and religion. Others say that, instead, he made a "lightning rod" of himself with his "anti-American" rhetoric and his opposition to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Some on the right have been quick to label him a terrorist, and yes, he is a Muslim and what he did is horrific. But he does not appear to be part of a network of other international terrorist, instead he is more of a "lone wolf. " Also, some on the left have been quick to make the point that, after dealing with the trauma suffered by other soldiers, Hasan was affected by some kind of "pre-tramatic stress disorder," and this is a consequence of an unjust war. It is unfortunate that such a tragedy can offer no recess from partisan bickering.

What is also unfortunate is the distrust of Arab-American soldiers that will inevitably result from this incident. President Obama has tried to make this point, saying, "They reflect the diversity that makes this America. But what they share is patriotism like no other." In the immediate aftermath of this tragedy there are few easy answers. More disconcertingly, there are even fewer easy questions.

Culture Shock Leads To Tragedy

On Monday, twenty year-old Noor Faleh Almaleki died from injuries suffered on October 20th when she was run down by her own father outside a Phoenix, Arizona. Almaleki's father has admitted to the act, saying that his daughter had become too westernized. According to county prosecutor Stephanie Low, "This was an attempt at an honor killing." Amal Edan Khalaf, a friend of the daughter, was also injured in the incident. Low is charging Faleh Hassan Almaleki with aggravated assault.
While there is no doubt that this is a tragic story, it is interesting to observe the story of immigration and culture shock. In the 21st century, immigration has become the norm in the west. While a few countries are still struggling to come to terms with what immigration is doing to their national identity, most notably Russia, the United States has embraced (legal) immigration. However, most people, even immigrants, fail to realize the trauma that can occur in relation to their own identity. Obviously, Faleh Hassan Almaleki thought that he would have more influence over his own daughter than the society she lived in.
While there has been much discussion in this country about immigration, and the necessity for immigrants to conform to our society, it is often missed that, really, they have no choice. While first generation immigrants can choose not to learn the native language, even choose not to teach that language to their children, eventually their children, and their children's children, will adapt to their surroundings. When one thinks about the society that the west has built for itself, there can be no doubt about the adaptability of the human condition.

Election Day May Have No Answers

Today is election day 2009. The two biggest races in the country are for the governor's mansions in Virginia and New Jersey. There are also mayoral races in Atlanta, Detroit, Houston, and other cities. Perhaps the most anticipated race in the country is for a rural congressional district in upstate New York.
New York's 23rd district is considered a very conservative district. It has been held by a Republican since 1993, but has been empty since September 21st when President Obama choose John McHugh to serve as Secretary of the Army. However, the split between traditional Republicans and the more conservative members of the party, the "tea-party" crowd, has manifested itself in upstate New York. Dede Scozzafava had been picked by state party leaders to run against Democrat Bill Owens, but the conservative voters of New York threw their support behind Doug Hoffman, who was running on the Conservative Party ticket. Consequently, Owens was polling above the more conservative candidates in the race. Then, shockingly, Scozzafava withdrew from the race this weekend and voiced her support for Owens, the Democrat.
This race has been touted by many as a litmus test for the tea-party movement. Do they have support of the majority of the Republican base, or are they more likely to cost traditional Republicans elections than they are to win them? Perhaps too much has been made of this one congressional seat, but it is a symbol of the shift that is occurring in American politics. Are these the natural growing pains that a conservative party must go through in a country that is moving left, as many people have claimed since the election of Barack Obama? Or are the tea-partiers right to say that the Republican party has lost it's way, and the way back to power is through a dramatic rightward shift? Honestly, tonight's result will not answer that question.
Let's say that the Conservative candidate, Doug Hoffman,wins. Will this lead to more conservative candidates being run in places that are traditionally considered center-right? Will this take-no-prisoners conservatism play nationwide? Probably not. Meaning that, much like Democrats have done for the last thirty years, the Republican party will have to be a big tent. Some districts may vote for more libertarian representatives, like Ron Paul. While others, like in the southeast, may favor more social conservatives, candidates who are pro-life, but also support social programs, like Welfare and Medicaid. This would certainly give them more of a chance with under-privileged African-American voters, who need those social programs, but who often do not agree with the more socially liberal attitudes of, say, northeast liberals who favor pro-choice and pro-homosexual policies.
Liberals also face a dilemma in this "conservative civil war." What if Hoffman wins? The Republican party could shift drastically rightward. Will Democrats do the same in order to win independents? Or will they move the other way, become more liberal, and widen the party divide that has already turned Washington into a partisan gridlock where good ideas go to die?
Or maybe this is good for the country. If both parties are more willing to accept views that don't conform to one national identity, then bi-partisanship may actually be possible. One thing is for sure, we need some kind of re-alignment in order to change the dynamic in Washington, to end 65 years of war-making and corporatism and 3o years of run away spending.

King Khan & BBQ Show Rock New Venue

On Sunday, OTB went to Philadelphia to witness the King Khan & BBQ Show. The show was at KungFu Necktie, which is a small venue/pub that has been opened for a little over a year. This was the first time we were at KFN. Dum Dum Girls opened for KK n BBQ, who are supporting their fourth album, Invisible Girl.

Dum Dum girls have just signed to legendary alternative label Sub-Pop. They have been around a few years and are reliable all-girl pop/punk outfit. They are reminiscent of Tegan & Sara, who were much better when we saw them at Bonnaroo, but DDG are a good opening act.

King Khan & BBQ Show are a garage rock duo from Montreal, Canada. They represent two of the members of 90's act, Spaceshits. King Khan, who is of South-Asian decent, sings and plays lead guitar. BBQ, aka Mark Sultan, also sings, and plays rhythm, bass, and drums, alternatively. The band combines elements of '60s rock and punk, creating an driving garage rock show, especially for two people (probably the best two person band since White Stripes.) At KungFu Necktie, doors opened at 5pm, and it was an all-ages show, so no alcohol was served. One might think that this would have damped the enthusiasm of the crowd, instead, it may have feed it. The entire audience was dancing, and there was, frankly, too much moshing for this size of the venue, but this only added to the chaotic feeling of the show.

King Khan & BBQ Show would be highly recommended for any punk/garage music fan. Also, KungFu Necktie, if it can continue to draw band the size of KK n BBQ (and later this month, White Denim) may become a great venue for indie bands, as it is much more suitable in size to the main venue in town, the Electric Factory.

Lieberman Is A Liar (And We Should Listen To Him)

Joe Lieberman appeared on Face The Nation this morning to discuss topics such as Afghanistan and, of course, health care. As Lieberman fended off allegations from Bob Schieffer that he is in the pocket of the insurance companies, he let off some lies that should not go unchallenged. Lieberman said, "The public option came out of nowhere. If you look at last years presidential campaign, Bob, no mention of it." President Obama campaigned with health care reform as his major domestic policy agenda, and the public option was one of its main assets. In fact, many liberals at the time, who are in favor of single-payer, complained that this was not going far enough.
On one hand, maybe Lieberman is right. It is true that there are broad agreements among both Republicans and Democrats on most of what needs done. This includes ending practices such as denying policies to people based on pre-existing conditions, ending lifetime and yearly caps on benefits, closing the "donut hole" in prescription drug coverage, ending the anti-trust exemptions that the insurance companies enjoy, and raising the Medicaid availability rates to at least 133% of the poverty level.
The public option has been the main source of anger on the right. In its current form, it will do little to expand coverage, and perhaps more importantly over the long term, do even less to keep premiums down. Instead of taking half a loaf on the public option, perhaps Democrats in congress should get everything else they want instead. Then, they can make a true single payer system, or Medicare for all, their main health care platform. Inevitably, premiums will continue to rise, and more Americans will lose coverage.
According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, expanding Medicaid and weakening the public option will actually save money over the long term, because the government is paying providers directly instead of issuing vouchers to low income Americans. Taken to the logical extreme, 100% enrollment in Medicaid would be more efficient than any robust public option.
So let's give Senator Lieberman the benefit of the doubt. Let's assume that he has the best interest of the American people at heart, and maybe we should drop the public option. Then we can get around to working on what liberals really want, and what Americans really needs. Health care is a right, and should be above partisan bickering. And of course, we can still kick Lieberman out of the caucus in the mean time.

Junior Boys Bring White Boy Funk

This year on mischief night, Canadian electro/indie duo Junior Boys played Sonar in Baltimore. Junior Boys are from Hamilton, Ontario, and are currently touring in support of their fourth album, Begone Dull Care. Opening for Junior Boys were another Canadian electro/indie duo Woodhands.

Woodhands performed to a small, but passionate audience. They have had a revolving door of musicians, but their current line-up consist of Paul Banwatt and Dan Werb and uses key-tars and drums. Their sound is reminiscent of a more dance oriented Bloc Party, with the same kind of electronica-punk style drumming. Although they are not very unique in this era of indie/dance music, the energy on stage made for a fun and danceable set.

Junior Boys were next, and they were immediately impressive. On CD, their version of minimalistic electronic beats and soft sung vocals can be fun or just good background music while your having fun doing other stuff. Live, however, those minimalistic beats become accessible dance tracks, and Jeremy Greenspan's vocals are much more emotive. The small room at Sonar was almost full, and the everyone in the crowd seemed to enjoy the show.

While it's hard to say that any band will become big in the fragmented media scene of the early 21st century, Junior Boys are poised to take advantage of their years of hard work in obscurity. They have real indie cred, releasing a couple disc before even those in the cool crowd had heard of them. Also, the mix of accessible dance music and soulful vocals make them ideal for a FM breakthrough. It seems that a hit set at a major festival, such as Bonnaroo, or a prime spot soundtracking a commercial, like i-tunes, is all that this band needs to appear on mp3 players on college campuses and soccer mom minivans alike.

Controversy On "Fake" News Show

The Daily Show was the focus of some controversy this week when Jon Stewart hosted Jewish-American author Anna Baltzer and Palestinian democratic leader Mustafa Barghouti. Both advocate non-violent means to bring an end to the Middle Eastern conflict.

Tension were high right of the mark, when an audience member shouted "you lie" at Barghouti. Both guest went on to discuss not only the violence that has marred the peace process in the past decades, but also the peace protest, on both sides, that is mostly ignored in the western media. The truth is that the United States is actually to the right of Israel when it comes to Israel, probably because we are not witness to the violence. It is ridiculous that anyone who advocates the methods of Gandhi and Mandela to solve one of the longest ongoing conflicts in the world should be derided in the way that Baltzer and Barghouti were, both leading up to their appearance and at the show.

It is going to take a lot of hard work to resolve this conflict. This is not news. However, the situation is both more complicated and less dire than is presented in the western media. It is true that both sides deserve blame for increasing tensions, but it is imperative that more people such as Baltzer and Barghouti are visible in the media to bring hope to those that wish to see those tensions end sooner rather than later, and with a little bloodshed as possible.

Half A Loaf

Today, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi unveiled the merged health care reform bill. The measure comes just days after Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced his reform bill. The bill was met with criticism from both the left and right.

The bill would create a public option, but unlike the Senate version, it would not include an "opt-out" provision for states. The bill would also raise Medicaid eligibility to 150% of the poverty line, compared to 133% in the Senate version. Both bills would end discrimination based on pre-existing conditions, and end lifetime and yearly caps on benefits. Many liberals in the house, however, feel as though the public option is not strong enough. Instead of pegging reimbursement rates to Medicare plus 5%, the bill would allow the government to negotiate with providers for lower rates, meaning that tax-payers may get a worse deal and the insured may have variable fees from state to state or doctor to doctor. The plan would be paid for by raising taxes on individuals who make more than $500k a year and companies with payrolls of $750k a year who do not provide health insurance to their employees.

Perhaps most upset today is Congressman Anthony Wiener (D-NY), who is a major advocate of single-payer. According to sources, Wiener was promised that the House would bring a single payer bill to the floor for an up-or-down vote. Not only would this get members on record with regard to their position on single-payer, but, more importantly, would require the Congressional Budget Office to score the bill. Since national single payer would be much more cost effective, such an action might have dramatically shifted the balance of the debate this fall, and perhaps for years to come. The fact that Nancy Pelosi is not willing to take this step says much about her commitment to universal coverage. What has our national debate come to when congressional leaders are not even willing to get the facts on legislation that they say they support?

It certainly looks as though health reform is going to pass, despite the claims of Senator Lieberman. The only question is, "In what form?" Today, proponents of a robust public option were handed another setback, but just like in the past, this bill is only the beginning. If this country really is at the start of a liberal renaissance, then this will not be the final health care bill, because it does very little to control cost. Hopefully, this will at least get coverage for the 45 million Americans that don't have it, and then we can improve this legislation to bring a true government-run bill to all Americans,

Another Lieberman Betrayal

On Tuesday, Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT) stated publicly that he would be willing to filibuster the health care reform bill if it contains a public option. Previously, majority leader Harry Ried (D-NV) had announced that he would include a public option with a so-called "opt-out" for individual states.

Lieberman has a contentious relationship with Democrats, even though he caucuses with them and chairs some committees. He infamously supported the Iraq war, even after most Democrats had realized it was a mistake and were trying to pressure President Bush into reducing the troop presence there. Then, he lost a primary to Ned Lamont, only to win re-election running as an independent. In 2008, he openly supported Republican John McCain (R-AZ), going so far as to speak at the Republican National Convention and criticizing Obama for his lack of experience. Even after all of that, he was still allowed to caucus with the Democrats. Now, on the most important domestic policy agenda in a generation, Lieberman has again decided that he is on the Republican's team. How much longer can this be allowed to stand?

If Lieberman follows through on his filibuster threat, there must be consequences. He will already face a Democrat in his re-election bid in 2012. Until then, he must be stripped of his leadership positions, if not outright removed from the caucus. Furthermore, one must question the leadership of Ried if he did not question Lieberman's loyalty enough to seek guarantees before allowing him to keep those chairmanships.

Make no mistake, although Lieberman was elected as an independent, he ran as a progressive. He promised to fight for progressive causes, including health care for all. Connecticut voters will not forget this betrayal, and the 2012 senate race there will be one of the most widely anticipated in the country.

Taliban Options Dwindling

As President Obama continues to take fire from both the left and right in the United States over his continuing delay on Afghanistan, an important victory has been achieved in what used to be called "the war on terror," and with little or no US military presence. Pakistani security forces have waged an offensive against the Taliban in the province of South Waziristan.
After a series of attacks by the Pakistani Taliban last week, it was appearing as if Pakistan may be unable to deal with threat inside it's own borders. The Taliban had bombed a number of government buildings in Islamabad, and some were even wearing Pakistani Army uniforms. But this week, Pakistan has struck back hard. Pakistan has captured the militant stronghold in town of Kotkai, home to Pakistani Taliban leader Hakimullah Mehsud. The situation in Kotkai has created tens of thousands of new refugees, and forced many of the remaining Taliban into the mountainous countryside. Already familiar with terrorist tactics and asymmetrical warfare, Pakistani officials are worried about new attacks on public places, and are acting quickly to defend themselves, according to Al Jazeera.
This comes as great news, not only to Pakistan, but also to Afghanistan and President Obama. One of the biggest questions going forward was, "is Pakistan willing and able to defend themselves against Islamic militants?" After today, the answer seems to be yes. Going forward, that may allow Obama to proceed with confidence in Afghanistan, knowing that the Taliban cannot simply flee across the mountainous border into more friendly territory. With the American military on one front and the Pakistani's on the other, they can squeeze the Taliban until they have no safe havens at all. Although the Afghan war has always been thought of as "the right war," support in the United States and our European partners is starting to dwindle. If we know that we have a true partner in Islamabad (and Kabul for that matter), perhaps we can deny Islamic extremist a base to plot against the West without having to double down on troops and resources in the region.

Socialism On The Internets!

This week, Finland became the first country to offer broadband access as a right to every citizen. Citing the Internet's functionality as a communication tool and the fact that it is no longer for entertainment purposes only, Finland committed to building the infrastructure to bring 1MB/s speeds to all of their citizens. Even more ambitiously, officials have promised to raise the requirement to 100MB/s by 2015. The "right" is not free, however, and users will have to pay a low monthly fee.
This news should be exciting, yet somewhat disconcerting for Americans. In the country that invented the Internet, using military spending in the 1960's to build the first computer networks, the United States ranks 25th in the world in broadband access. Among active Internet users, only 80% of households have broadband access.
While businesses, both large and small, and, of course the military, have taken full advantage of the Internet since it was commercialized in the 90's, many poor and underprivileged Americans have yet to use the Internet to it's full potential. There are many advantages of broadband for social and economic use, such as online education, job-seeking, and information about social problems, such as domestic violence and drug abuse. While the United States should not, perhaps, go as far as to proclaim broadband "a right," we would be well off to ensure that access is as wide-spread and affordable as possible, including building the infrastructure for free wi-fi in poor urban areas. That would give adults and children alike access to jobs and education that these communities desperately need to change the current economic conditions.

Port O'Brien Opens; Shines

On Sunday, OTB attended the Port O'Brien / Seawolf show at Sonar in Baltimore. Singer/songwriter Sara Lov, originally from Hawaii, opened the show. Although everyone could hear the metal show taking place next door, the crowd seemed to be on her side, and she persevered. Next came Port O'Brien, who are from California and are supporting their third album, Threadbare. Finally, Seawolf closed the show.

Sara Lov's set, as mentioned, was complicated, and possibly cut short, because of the sound bleeding from the next room. While the quiet nature of her music made it harder to appreciate, her great singing voice was immediately noticeable, and she quickly won over the crowd. Next was Port O'Brien, ,thanks to the rhythm section, was much more audible. They were a good live show, mixing elements of folk and indie rock. For the closing number, "I Woke Up Today," they passed out pots and spoons to the audience, and everyone participated with percussion and singing. Seawolf closed the show. They are experiencing a new level of fame with their appearance on the Twilight; New Moon soundtrack. Seawolf are more rock then their two opening acts, and it was evident which fans came for which bands.

Overall, Port O'Brien received the best reception, and deservedly so. While Seawolf are currently poised to breakout, one feels that Port O'Brien may have only long term career of the night.

Profits Before Democracy

Latin American politics don't get a lot of attention in this country, unless you want to talk about the narcotics trade. Honduras, however, has had a large profile in recent months thanks to the coup that took place on June 28th. Today, representatives of ousted President Manuel Zelaya met with the interim government of Roberto Michelletti to discuss the future of the government. While neither side will comment publicly on the negotiations, there seems mostly to be wide spread agreement on all but one issue, and that is Zelaya's return to power.

Zelaya was ousted, supposedly, because he wanted to have a referendum to rewrite the constitution to allow the president to serve more than one term. In retaliation, he was abducted by the military in the middle of the night and led out of the country in his pajamas. He returned to the county on September 21st, and is taking refuge in the Brazilian embassy in the capital, Tegucigalpa. Zelaya has demanded that he be back to power before the upcoming election on November 29th, going as far as to say that he would postpone the election if he was not back in the presidency by October 15th.

There has been universal condemnation from across the world to this coup. Well, almost. The right wing in the United States continues to shock everyone with what they consider basic tenets of democracy. Witness Senator Jim DeMint's new op-ed in the Wall Street Journal. DeMint has compared Zelaya to Hugo Chavez, and said that there is more chaos in the Obama Administration than there is in Honduras. Oh, really?

There have been many instances of police brutality since the new government was installed. First, there was the curfew. Police would patrol the streets after dark, some shooting first and asking questions later. They were encouraged to break up all protest, no matter how small, and often did so with gunfire. Once, they tear-gassed a human rights office where 150 people had gathered to issue complaints about the police. At least 10 deaths have been blamed on officials since the coup. There is also a media crackdown. Two television networks that were critical of the coup were both shut down for promoting "social anarchy" and "national hatred."

So what is Senator DeMint talking about? Well, here he sees a two-for. First and foremost, he gets to criticize Obama. Remember, this is the same man that spoke publicly about his attempts for "Obama's Waterloo." Secondly, Zelaya is what you might call a liberal. In this country, he would be considered a socialist. By the right wing, a communist. DeMint sees the coup as an opportunity to have a more conservative government in Tegucigalpa, one that is more favorable to American conservatives, and more importantly, American businesses.

The good thing about Jim DeMint is that he doesn't try to hide his true colors. He is a proud corporatist. Whether it's health care for Americans or democracy for the third world, DeMint will reliably choose corporate profits instead.

One Small Step For A President

Today was a big day for Obama's most important domestic policy agenda. The Senate Finance Committee passed their version of the bill to become the final relevant committee to do so. This is the first time since Medicare was passed during the Johnson administration that any effort to improve the health care in this country has gotten out of committee. The bill passed with a vote of 14-9, including the only Republican to vote for the bill, Maine Senator Olympia Snowe.

The bill will cost 829 billion dollars over ten years, saving 81 billion in the deficit, according to the Congressional Budget Office. It would cover 29 million Americans that don't have health care access, leaving 25 million uninsured, mostly undocumented immigrants. The bill would tax expensive insurance plans, and would save money with cuts in medicare.

The main goals of reform are tougher regulations on insurance companies, an individual mandate and higher subsidies for lower income Americans. Some versions of the bill would tax millionaires at a higher rate to increase these subsidies. While the Finance Committee bill would meet all these goals, but it does not include a public option. Meaning that although all Americans would be required to buy insurance, the government would not take major steps to help everyday Americans afford that coverage.

The vote takes place on day after a report on the bill, which was payed for by the insurance companies, was released. The report, which claimed that premiums would skyrocket, was roundly criticized as Democrats as a "hatchet job." Basically, the bill gives a floor to what will become the final version, and obviously the insurance companies don't like it, which probably means that it's a good bill.

It is important that the Democrats were able to pull one Republican vote for it. It shows that at least some Republicans are negotiating in good faith. Now that bills need to be combined into one final version to be voted on on the Senate floor. Hopefully, the final version will include a public option. Equally important, it is important that all Democrats vote to end a Republican filibuster, regardless of how they intend to vote on the final bill. Obama was elected, and Democrats given huge majorities in Congress, so that the country could benefit from health care reform. It is generally accepted fact that Republicans will gain seats in 2010, and the Democrats need to realize that any loses will not be a result of them being too liberal, only a result of them not being able to deliver.

Obama Praised; Republicans Furious

This morning in Oslo, Norway, came the annoucemnent of the winner of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize, and was it a surprise. Gasps were audible in the room when President Barack Obama was named the recipiant by Nobel chairman Thorbjoern Jagland. Obama was awarded the prize "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between nations."

Although Obama was only in office for two weeks before his nomination, there are three key moments that brought on this recognition. First was his speech in Berlin during the campaign where he addressed America's role in the world and the need for understanding and cooperation from Europe. Secondly, was his speech in Prague shortly after he took office. His speech for nuclear disarmament, in the Czech Republic, forshadowed domestic controversies including the Eastern European missile defense shield and multi-lateral diplomacy with Iran. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, was his speech in Cairo. Obama's declaration of a new relationship between Europe and the United States and the Muslim world was really the centerpiece of his effort to reposition the US as a nation that is willing to deal with it's problems in a diplomatic manner, first and foremost. This last point underscores what may really be behind this honor, the departure of George Bush.

Which is why the right-wing in the States have reacted so negatively to the announcement. One can hardly be surprised that the same people who were celebrating Chicago's failed attempt to bring the Olympics to the the US are now aghast that a sitting President has received such a widely respected award. Republican chairmen Micheal Steele was quoted as saying, "It is unfortunate that the President's star power has out shined tireless advocates who have made real achievements working towards peace and human rights." Obama himself has acknowledged that the award may be premature, saying that it should serve as a "call to action," and that it will provide momentum for his policies and goals.

Obama becomes the 3rd sitting US President to receive the award. The first was Theodore Roosevelt for his "mediation of the Russo-Japanese war." Next was Woodrow Wilson, for his attempts to establish the League of Nations. Former President Jimmy Carter also received the award after he left office for his efforts to advance human rights and economic improvements.

9 More Years?

Today, President Obama met with Congressional leaders from both parties to discuss the war in Afghanistan while the pressure on the administration to send more troops keeps increasing. Discussion of Afghanistan has increased dramatically in recent months, although the matter was made all the more pressing with the deaths of eight American soldiers in Nuristan province yesterday. Although the president has not given any hints to what he may do, the White House did say that a total withdraw of troops from the region was not on the table.
That being said, there are basically three ways that the administration could go. General Stanley McCrystal has said that he may ask for as many as 40,000 more troops. However, Obama may feel that that number is politically risky, and decide to lower that number to ten or twenty thousand. Also, there have been hints that Obama may decide on a third option, actually pulling troops out of Afghanistan in favor of a more focused anti-terrorism mission.
Obama has said that his first job is to determine the strategy in Afghanistan, and only then can a decision be made about resources and how best to implement that strategy. Many Republicans, including former presidential candidate John McCain, have expressed a counter-insurgency strategy, much like what was used in Iraq. The problem with that is that it assumes that we have a honest broker in the region.
Peter Galbraith, formerly of the UN, has said that he witnessed voter fraud in Afghanistan and was told to keep quiet in the name of national unity. Most who support Afghani president Karzai are ethnic Pushtans, while those who support Abdullah are Tajiks, and fears are growing that in such a tribalistic country like Afghanistan, ethnic cleansing might not be far off. Furthermore, the Taliban and Al-Qeada have contacts and operatives in Pakistan, as shown by the bombing of the World Food Bank this week. Afghanistan's Foreign Minister has said that Afghanistan faces "a triangle of terror that compromises the Taliban, Al-Qeada, and the ISI." The ISI is Pakistan's intelligence service. If we are dealing with people who are more interested in power and jihad than a safe and secure Afghanistan, are we ever likely to achieve that goal on our own?
So these are the choices that Obama, and indeed the American people, face. Sadly, this decision may define the Obama presidency more than any other. Tomorrow marks the beginning of the 9th year of this war. Have we wasted our opportunity for a secure Afghanistan that respects the rule of law? Was it ever possible to begin with? This part of the world seems increasingly immune from the influence of American power. We, however, are not immune from the consequences of what happens there.

Spring Standards

The Spring Standards played the Executive Banquet Center in Newark, Delaware on Friday October 2nd. The band, although based out of New York City, are from Newark, and Kennet Square, Pennsylvania.

The Spring Standards are an indie/folk trio. Although they don't have a drummer, they all share percussion and singing duties, and specialize in three part harmonies. Their first EP, titled No One Knows, was produced by Alternative/Country star Rhett Miller, of the Old 97's.

This was the first show they have played in their "hometown" in some time, and it was obvious from the crowd. All band members' parents were in attendance, as were most of their friends, and the crowd was considerably older than the band. Secondly, the Executive Banquet Center is not your typical concert venue, and is more commonly used for corporate events and proms. All this made for a somewhat awkward, if not unique, concert experience. The band, however, did not disappoint. They played two forty-five minute sets, including songs from the EP, new songs they are currently recording, and covers. Harmonies have made a big comeback in the indie scene with bands like Grizzly Bear, and with the help of a name like Rhett Miller, the new record could lead to a breakout, making the Spring Standards the biggest band out of Delaware since George Thorogood and the Delaware Destroyers.

Keep Talking

Today marked the beginning of a new phase of diplomatic relations between the United States and Iran. President Obama has promised a renewed focus on diplomacy since he ran for president in 2008. So, the E3+3 and Iran met in Geneva to discuss, mainly, Iran's attempts to enrich uranium.
It has been thirty years since the Islamic revolution in Iran caused the United States to break all diplomatic ties, and the two nations have rarely engaged in talks. Among the big stories to come out of Switzerland today, Iran has agreed to allow weapons inspectors in the country. This comes as somewhat of a surprise, as it was only last week that Iran announced the existence of a second, previously unknown, nuclear enrichment site. Iran has always maintained that there nuclear program is for peaceful energy purposes, and that they have an "absolute right" to nuclear energy. Iran, for it's part, claims to want total global nuclear disarmament. While this is obviously aimed at the United States (and Russia, the UK, China, France...) it is also a swipe at Israel, who have not disclosed their nuclear activities, and have not received the same negative attention. The United States has expressed some satisfaction with the progress of the talks, but says that Iran must keep to it's commitments. If all goes well, a second round of talks has been scheduled, possibly for the end of October.
This is a early foreign policy victory for Obama, and a marked departure from the last eight years. By actually talking to Iran, and not labeling them "evil," Obama has reduced the rhetoric in an already volatile region. Iran, with all of its problems, could be a strategic partner in Afghanistan. The question of Iran's nuclear program must be addressed if they wish to engage with the rest of the world. With the threat of a major, and possibly catastrophic, military encounter currently off the table, perhaps forces inside Iran can persuade the regime to adopt a more open and democratic society. All of this is possible as long as all parties involved keep talking instead of shooting.

Diplomacy 101

Today, Barack Obama gave his first address as president to the United Nations general assembly. However, there were more important developments happening concurrently within the international community. Of course, much has been said, both in the United States and abroad, about Obama's decision to cancel the missile defense shield planned in Poland and the Czech Republic. Russia has certainly spoken approvingly about the decision, and it may have played into their decision to change their stance on Iran.
Iran has said that they expect the nuclear issue to be raised at the upcoming summit of the Security Council and Iran. According to the BBC, the Iranian Foreign Minister, Manouchehr Mottaki, has told his Japanese counterpart that Iran is committed to a world with no nuclear weapons, but Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said that although he is open to discussions over his country's nuclear program, he will accept no restraints. Russia, which has been supportive of Iran, including selling them uranium, has said that they will not allow the creation of nuclear weapons in Iran, and that the Iranians must be encouraged to make the right decision. President Medvedev has said, however, that sanctions may be inevitable.
After the summit between the United States and Russia a few months ago, it was clear that there was still progress to be made on the issue of nuclear disarmament. By deciding to forgo the useless missile defense shield, Obama has wisely lowered tensions between the two nations. This has allowed Medvedev to make the sensible decision to increase pressure on Iran. This is how diplomacy works. Now the real work begins. Negotiations with Iran will be more difficult. Ahmadinejad has said that Iran will "shake all hands that are honestly extended," but if both countries come to the table with mistrust, it will take an act of god to settle this dispute in the near term.

Bi-Partisan Or DOA?

While Barack Obama continues to push for universal health care coverage, and the Republicans continue to throw a fit, there is an alternative bill, widely-supported but little-known. The Healthy Americans Act, first introduced in 2007 and also known as the Wyden-Bennett bill, may have bipartisan support.
The bill would change the tax deduction from an employer one to an employee one, meaning that it would liquefy your health plan. The bill would charge a tax to employers that would range between 3%-26% of basic coverage, depending on the size of the employer. Individuals would receive a six thousand dollar tax credit (on average). Programs like Medicaid and SCHIP would be done away with, but would be replaced by state-run programs that would help administer the new program. State's would help citizens choose from numerous policies, most offered by insurance companies, but also from a public program. The bill would mandate coverage for all Americans, and taxes to pay for the program would come out of one's paycheck, much like Medicare. Individuals could still buy plans outside the state-run programs to augment their basic coverage. Additionally, the Congressional Budget Office has scored the bill budget-neutral in the short-term, and it actually saves money in the long-term.
So this bill basically has everything that liberals want. It has a federal program to compete with health insurance companies, and an individual mandate. It also has everything that Republicans want, including tax cuts and "free-market" competition. So will it get passed? No. First, for liberals, it removes people from their employer provided coverage, a non-starter for the labor movement. Secondly, for conservatives, the state-run control over insurance companies, even while forcing millions onto their rolls, still smacks of a "government take-over." While the bill is not what Obama and most Democrats would have wanted or drafted, it does overhaul the health insurance landscape in this country while expanding coverage, and controlling cost, and it is a bipartisan bill. If even one Republican, even the sponsor of the bill, would promise to vote for it, we would have the bi-partisan health care solution that Obama has promised.

Baucus Or Bust

Yesterday, Max Baucus, chairmen of the Senate Finance Committee, released the fruits of his labor, and the results were not good. Baucus had given away the Democratic majority in the Senate to negotiate a bipartisan bill.
The bill includes an individual mandate, which legislatures on both sides of the isle are for, but no public option. That is precisely the problem. If every American is required to buy health insurance, but the government is not going to offer a public option to hold down costs, then the bill is simply a giveaway to the insurance companies. It would force millions of Americans into the insurance market, but would not require any concessions from those companies. And really, should we expect any less. Baucus has taken millions of dollars from the insurance companies. And after he negotiated away the Democratic majority, the public option, and any chance for meaningful reform, he still failed the get any votes from Republicans.
Thankfully, according to Congressmen Anthony Wiener (D-NY) the bill is "DOA". Now is the time to forgo bipartisanship, to get the best bill possible for the American people. Bipartisanship is merely a means to an end, not an end itself. Republicans have had months to bring their suggestions to the table, and all they have done is cry about socialism and death panels. The Democrats need to pull together to break a filibuster and pass a bill with a public option. Members, such as Baucus and Ben Nelson, who are afraid for their political future do not need to vote for the bill, but must vote to end a filibuster. A public option was part of the Democratic platform in '08, and the American people are for it. Health care was the primary (domestic) reason that Democrats won a landslide, and it is about time that they pay attention to their working class base and not their corporate overlords.

More Troops Or No Troops?

Today, Barack Obama and the Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper met to discuss several issues, amid whispers and speculation that the United States will up its troop levels in Afghanistan. This idea has come under renewed scrutiny from the American public as the legitimacy of the Afghanistan election has become even more questionable.
Currently there are 68,000 American troops in Afghanistan, and August was the deadliest month yet, with 51 killed. With incumbent Hamid Karzai receiving 54% of the vote, there have been multiple accusations of fraud in Afghanistan. European Union election observers have estimated that as many as 1.5 million ballots may be fraudulent. Over 1 million of those ballots have been cast for Karzai, and over three hundred thousand for top challenger Abdullah. Afghanistan's Independant Election Commitee called the EU's assessment irresponsible.
So what is the strategy in Afghanistan? Many Afghanis are already losing faith in the government over corruption issues, and that is only giving the Taliban more power. Even though many votes could be thrown out, a second round of voting would only lead to an ethnic divide inside Afghanistan. So should the coalition support Karzai and endorse the results of a rigged election, or demand a re-vote and risk even more violence? Should we throw our hands up and leave, as the Canadians and other nations are considering? Will that lead to an Al-Qeada supported government, and can we even be bothered to destroy any potential safe havens in the first place? We have wasted eight years in Afghanistan. Have we squandered our opportunity? With all these questions, can we be asked to spend more American blood and treasure? The only thing that everyone is in agreement on is that the status quo is unacceptable.

The Return Of Diplomacy

On Friday, the Obama Administration announced plans for multi-party talks with Iran, to take place starting on October 1st. No location for the meetings were announced, but Washington and the "E3+3" countries will no doubt want to discuss Iran's nuclear program.
Iran has offered the talks in response to the threat of sanctions amid accusations that they are enriching uranium for a nuclear weapon. The talks will include European countries the UK, France, and Germany (the E3) and the US, Russia, and China (the +3). Iran has promised "comprehensive, all-encompassing, and constructive negotiations." They have already stated that "nuclear energy is for everyone, but atomic bombs are for no one." That makes it pretty clear that they have no intent to stop enriching uranium, but wish to discuss a framework for "clean nuclear energy." Other issues that Iran is apparently willing to discuss are regional security and trade.
Talks with Iran were a major campaign promise from Obama, one that he took some considerable heat for from the right. Obviously "regional security" and energy issues tie directly into the atomic bomb issue, and the "party of six" will make this point. Iran is right to say that nuclear energy is the right of every nation, but only with transparency. Transparency is at the core of the International Atomic Energy Agency policies. The problem comes that Iran's neighbors have not always cooperated the way they should. It is basically accepted fact that Israel has atomic weapons, and Ahmedinejad has called Israel a "stinking corpse." It is only fair to ask all nations in the region to play by the same rules. If Iran can open up it's program to international inspectors, and Israel can come clean about the threat that is poses to it's Arab neighbors, then maybe Iran and the West can come closer to solving other security problems in the region together. After all, the United States is engaged in two wars on Iran's borders, and cooperation from a major Arab country could give that effort renewed credibility.

Health Care Home Stretch

On Wednesday, President Obama appeared before a joint session of Congress to make his pitch for health care reform. A prime time joint session is perhaps the largest venue a president has to push his agenda, and Obama appeared to be on the offensive.
He started by describing the recession and recovery that has defined his short time in office, and got the first standing ovation of the night when he mentioned jobs. He said that presidents as far back as Teddy Roosevelt have tried to reform health care, but that he was "determined to be the last."
First, he described the effect of the current system on those who have insurance, some 85% of Americans. Lapses in coverage, when one moves or changes jobs, or getting dropped from a plan after getting sick are some of the major fears of many Americans. Entrepreneurs and small business owners, the spirit of America, are also affected by rising premiums, and are unable to compete against larger corporations who have fatter bottom lines. Premiums that are rising three times faster than wages are a hidden tax that most Americans never even see. A large segment of the population that has insurance are those on Medicare, and, with Medicare cost eating up a larger portion of our budget every year, Obama was able to frame health care reform as entitlement reform.
One of the more surprising elements of the speech was the amount of detail, something many of his liberal allies have been yelling for. The first was consumer protection. "In America," Obama said, "no one should go broke," from health care cost. Second was an individual mandate, saying those who choose not to have coverage are simply passing costs onto the rest of us. Thirdly was an insurance exchange, where people could pool together and buy insurance themselves. As part of this exchange, Obama voiced his support for a public option. A public option would force the insurance companies to compete in a way that was not driven by profits and stock prices.
Obama admitted that there was "significant details" to be worked out, which drew very audible laughter in the chamber. But he called out Republicans that had spread "bogus claims," such as death panels, a government "takeover," and paying for undocumented aliens and abortions. He also said he would not waste time with members who are more interested in killing reform than improving it.
In this speech, Obama seemed to be targeting Americans that know that reform is necessary, but who are nervous about how it will affect them. Polls show that most Americans are ambivalent about the current plan, if they even know what it is. What Obama is really pitching is sweeping reforms of the insurance markets, not how you receive your health care.
He closed by citing the old American argument about individualism versus collective responsibility, and by quoting a letter from Ted Kennedy, who called health care reform "the great unfinished business of our country," and a "moral issue."
So this marks the home stretch for health care reform. If Obama does not get what he wants, it will not be because he was stonewalled by the Republicans. It will be because members of his own party got nervous. If done right, health care reform could remake America for generations, and Americans will not forget it. With the Republicans lost in the political wilderness, Democrats can control Congress for the next forty years, if only they have the bravery to push a progressive agenda and restore the equal playing field in the land of the free.

Obama Youth

Today, in Arlington Virginia, Barack Obama gave a speech to school children to welcome in the new school year. The speech was much derided before hand from conservatives who believed that Obama would try to "indoctrinate" them into his agenda.
When the actual speech was delivered, there was very little controversy to go around. Obama preached the virtue of personal responsibility, and the fortitude to never give up on yourself. He mentioned several celebrities by name who overcame failure to become legends in their field, including Micheal Jordan and J.K. Rowlings. When asked who he would have dinner with, anyone, dead or alive, he answered Gandhi. "He is someone I find a lot of inspiration in. He inspired Martin Luther King Jr with his message of non-violence. He ended up doing so much and changed the world just by the power of his ethics."
This whole debacle has proved how incoherent the right has become, and how ready they are to malign Obama over the smallest thing. How partisan has this country become when the president cannot speak to school-children with a message of "work hard and stay in school" without passing protest signs on the way? This rage started in the election, when people were yelling "terrorist" and "kill him" at McCain campaign stops, and continued with people painting Hitler mustaches on Obama signs at town halls. To be fair, the left was not shy about comparing G. W. Bush to Adolf Hitler, but anything Obama does will be seen through this xenophobic lens of the right. The question remains, will the Republicans rightfully marginalize this segment of the electorate, or will they marginalize themselves by embracing it?

Labor Day More Than End Of Summer

Today is Labor Day, which has come to symbolize the end of summer in pop culture. Labor Day has been celebrated in the US on the first Monday in September since 1882, when President Grover Cleveland signed it into law following the Pullman Strike in Chicago.
September was chosen not only because of the Pullman Strike, but also to avoid the connection with May Day celebrations in other countries. May Day resulted from the Haymarket riots, when striking workers threw a bomb at police, killing eight officers. Eight anarchist were tried for the incident, and four were put to death.
The modern labor movement began in 1891, with Pope Leo XIII. His essay, "On the Condition of the Working Classes," promoted the ideas of a limited work day, a living wage, the elimination of child labor, the rights of labor to organize, and the duty of states to regulate working conditions.
This Labor Day could mark a turning point in the political influence of the labor movement. The AFL-CIO has said that they are tired of supporting Democrats and getting nothing in return. They have drawn a line in the sand over health care reform and the public option. Richard Trumka of the AFL-CIO told HuffPost, "the special interest, the pharmaceutical industry, the health care industry are so vested in the current system so they'll do anything to keep it this way and we have a job to do there."
The Democrats won big in November because they were able to pick up seats in conservative districts. Now they are hearing rumbles of discontentment from the left. Labor has long been a big voting block for the Democrats, and liberals need to make sure that their voices are heard.

One More Win For USA

On Saturday, the US soccer team played El Salvador in World Cup Qualifying, in Salt Lake City. The US headed into the game in third, two points behind top of the table Costa Rica but good enough to qualify.
United States manager Bob Bradley had pick of his first choice eleven, except for defender Oguchi Onyewu who was suspended from yellow card accumulation. In the first 15 minutes, the US dominated possession, but chances were few for either side. Yet in the 32nd minute, Jonathan Bornstein cleared the ball directly into his own 18 yard box, which El Salvador was able to recover. A cross found the head of Castillo, and with Tim Howard off his line, Castillo's header found the back of the net to put the US down 1-0. The United States reacted well and continued to have most of the possession. In the 35th minute, Charlie Davies used his speed to get to a lose ball in the El Salvador 18 and just pushed it wide. Davies had another good chance 5 minutes later when Jozy Altidore found him with a nice pass, but Davies could not score. Then a Landon Donovan free kick connected with Clint Dempsey, and Dempsey scored to equalize. Again, just before half time, Donovan would assist on the United States' second goal, this time from Jozy Altidore.
The second half would prove less dramatic. There was plenty of fouls and offsides calls, but with very few chances. Altidore had a goal waved off to end a US move in the 59th, and Howard came up with a great save in the 87th to deny El Salvador a draw.
The win puts the US temporarily in first place in qualifying. The team looked good for most of the game against a capable El Salvador squad. Charlie Davies, who plays for Sochaux in France, has been a revelation this summer. His pace and work ethic are what the US need up front, and he looks poised to claim a spot on the World Cup roster. Donovan has proven why he is considered the best US player ever, and has provided much needed service while playing in midfield or just behind the main strikers. Tim Howard, while not having much to do in this game, is one of the best keepers in the world. The US face Trinidad and Tobago on Wednesday, after which they will only have two games left in qualifying.

Seattle Sounders Win 1st Trophy

Last night was the Final of the US Open Cup between DC United and Seattle Sounders. The game was hosted by DC after a week-long controversy involving bids from both teams. Seattle, which plays its home games at Qwest Field, was favored to hold the Final because it has superior facilities. However, the game could only be played at one o'clock in the afternoon because of the Seattle Seahawks' preseason game, so the game was played in DC at RFK Stadium which is one of the oldest and most dilapidated arenas in the league.
Possibly because of the controversy, the atmosphere at the game was great, with both DC United and Seattle supporters in full voice. The game lived up to the atmosphere as well. The first half was all Seattle, but DC goalkeeper Josh Wicks made three or four big saves to keep it even. In the second half, however, Seattle forward Freddie Montero scored on a breakaway, and was subsequently stomped on by Wicks, resulting in a red card. Seattle seemed to take their foot off of the gas, and conceded the majority of possession to DC United. Yet on the counter-attack in the 87th minute, Roger Levesque received a low cross and tucked away an easy goal. It was 2-0 and Seattle looked like they were well on their way. But two minutes later, DC United midfielder Clyde Simms received the ball when it deflected off the Seattle wall and he toe poked the ball home. The goal made for an exciting finish, but DC United could not equalize.
The victory gives Seattle their first trophy, and books them a place in the 2010 Champions League. The US Open Cup has been around since 1914, but receives very little attention from the soccer press. Cup competitions are famous around the world for their drama and unpredictability. Such a dramatic Cup Final should increase attention to the competition.

(Mental) Health Care Reform?

Today was the beginning of the 2009 World Mental Health Congress, this year held in Athens, Greece. The Congress will be held from September 2nd - 6th, and its mission is to raise awareness of mental health issues globally.
Mental health concerns are only recently becoming a real issue in the United States, thanks in part to the late Senator Ted Kennedy who championed the Mental Health Parity Act of 2007. According to the World Health Organization, suicide rates in the US are 17 in 100,000 for males and 4 in 100,000 for females. Overall, 1 in 4 Americans suffer from some kind of mental disorder per year, while 1 in 17 suffer from more persistent and serious cases.
With all the attention paid to health care reform this year, little gets paid to these kinds of issues. With such high rates of mental disorders, more effort needs to be made to remove the stigma from those who need care. Mental health issues are more likely to be left untreated, even by those who have access to such facilities. In tough financial times, these problems are certain to increase. Such concerns affect us all, as people with mental disorders are more likely to abuse drugs and alcohol and commit violent crime. Will the current health care reform effort bring mental health access to underprivileged communities, or will Congress water down reform and leave millions to suffer these unseen illnesses in silence?

No Answers In Afghanistan

Today General Stanley McChrystal released his report on NATO strategy in Afghanistan. The report states, "success is achievable and demands a revised implementation strategy, commitment and resolve, and increased unity of effort." The report was delayed until after the Afghanistan elections as so not to interfere with local politics.
One thing the report did not include was any recommendation regarding troop numbers. The White House says such suggestions will come at a later date. There are scheduled to be 68,000 American troops in Afghanistan by 2010, bringing the number of NATO troops to over 100,000. More troops, however, means more troops in harm's way. August was the deadliest month of the eight-year war so far, with 47 American deaths. The number of IEDs in July doubled from the same month the previous year, to over 800.
Further complicating matters is the criminal behavior fueling the Taliban resistance. Estimates place the income of the Taliban at $70 million from the illegal drug trade alone. However, the Taliban operate like a crime syndicate, taking protection money and ransoms for kidnappings. About a quarter of public and private budgets go to either security or protection rackets. This includes those of foreign private contractors, meaning tax-payers of the US, UK, Germany and dozens of other NATO allies are helping to fund the Taliban.
So this is where things get really complicated. If a major source of income for everyday Afghanis comes from illegal activities, kidnappings and poppy farming, then a legitimate legal economy must be built from the ground up. Also, last week's presidential election has come under fire for voting irregularities, and the results haven't even been announced. Here we have all the makings of a failed state.
And this is where United States national security comes in. After September 11th, 2001, Afghanistan was the right war, but the US has squandered so many opportunities in the years since. We cannot afford to pull out, lose this war, and return Afghanistan to the Taliban. This is not Iraq, where there existed a secular, yet totalitarian, regime. US failure in Afghanistan would no doubt return the country to a caliphate.
This is what people mean when they say that we must allow little girls to go to school. Those people are not part of some global feminist movement, they are talking about the rule of law. A modern society cannot function when 25% of funding for roads and schools goes to criminals. Yet, presently, Afghanistan's leadership is corrupt, as is it's tribal system. General McChrystal has sent a memo to all NATO troops, "We will not win simply by killing insurgents. We must get the people involved as active participants in the success of their communities." To grow a new, modern economy from the ground up will require patience, and blood. NATO must defend the population from those who wish to disrupt the development, and bring in local labor to build local infrastructure using local resources. As one Afghani Minister of the Interior said, "the community will protect what the community has built." However, NATO is playing defense, and as troop deaths increase and time drags on with no military victories on the nightly news, will Americans have the commitment and resolve to build Afghanistan into the modern country it has never been.

Compassion Or Contracts?

On August 20th, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmen Al-Megrahi was released from his Scottish prison and flown home to his native Libya to die. Al-Megrahi had been sentenced to a life for the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland on December 21st, 1988. He was released on compassionate grounds by Scotland, a normal practice, due to his terminal prostate cancer. His release was met with great controversy, which has only increased in the following days.

Libya, which took responsibility for the bombing in 2003, has a long history of anti-Western beliefs. Muammar Al-Gaddafi, the de facto head of state, took power in a military coup in 1969. Hoping to become the "African Che Guevara," Al-Gaddafi installed what he called a "Islamic Socialist" government. He funneled weapons and money to terrorist groups, or anybody claiming to battle "imperialism." He has recently, however, become more diplomatic with the West. In 2006, the US normalized relations with Libya after they acknowledge their WMD program and cooperated with inspectors.

The UK, however, still has a vested interest in Libya. British Petroleum and the Lybian National Oil Company have a $900 million contract to harvest Lybian oil reserves. Al-Gaddafi's son, Seif Al-Islam Gaddafi, told Al-Megrahi, "In fact, in all the trade, oil and gas deals which I have supervised, you were there on the table. When British interest came to Libya, I used to put you on the table." When Al-Megrahi's plane arrived in Libya, hundreds gave him a hero's welcome.

Al-Megrahi is a terrorist, a criminal. There was no compassion when he exploded Flight 103. There was no compassion when passengers fell thousands of feet to their deaths. Yet, only by showing compassion to this criminal can the people of Scotland show that they are better than this dispicable tactic and this bankrupt ideology. What the people of Libya did, treating him to such a homecoming, set relations with the West back decades and showed why they deserve to be treated like the backwater of modern humanitarianism, which they are. Indeed, if the British released Al-Megrahi not for humanitarian concerns, but simply to secure an oil contract, then they have used the deaths of those 270 people to increase the coffers of an multi-national oil company, and they deserve scorn as well.

Now, Al-Gaddafi is set to visit the United Nations in New York on September 23rd. With a backlash growing in the US, against both Libya and the UK, his welcome is expected to be much colder than the one Al-Megrahi received upon his return. Can the UK navigate this controversy or will this lead to a rough patch in US-UK relations? Britain has a critical role in US national security, both in Afghanistan and concerning issues like global warming, and differing views on compassion and humanitarianism are sure to complicate ideas about Islamic extremist in the future.

Cyber Autonomy Under Attack

A little publicized, but highly worrisome bill is making its way through the United States Senate. The Cyber Security Act of 2009 would give the executive branch wide reaching authority to manage and even shut down the Internet infrastructure in the United States. The bill is sponsered by Democrat Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia and Republican Olympia Snowe of Maine.
The Cyber Security Act would give the Secretary of Commerce access to critical networks across the country in order to monitor and react to a cyber attack. This would allow the President to "direct the national response to the cyber threat," according to the language in the bill. Senator Snowe has said that this bill is necessary to prevent a "Cyber Katrina."
Senior counsel of the Center for Democracy and Technology, Greg Nojeim, has warned that the new law could undermine the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, which requires law enforcement to get a warrant to monitor e-mails, texts, tweets, and even blog post.
No one in American politics understands the value of the Internet like Barack Obama, and that is what makes this bill all the more problematic. The Internet has become the printing press of the new millennium, and millions of citizen journalist around the world are taking part. We have seen what effect a government crackdown on social media can have in places like Iran and China. Americans cannot allow the government to control the spigot of the New Information Age. With more of our personal information on the Internet than ever before, we must take steps to ensure that it is secure, but we mustn't hand over that responsibility to government, for those who would trade liberty for security deserve neither.

Long Live the Lion

Senator Ed Kennedy passed away Tuesday at his home in Hyannis Port, Massachusetts. He was 77 and had been diagnosed with brain cancer last year.

Kennedy was born February 22nd, 1932, and was first elected to the Senate in 1962 to fill the seat of his brother, John. He was the second senior member of the Senate and the third longest serving member in it's history. Over the years he was a champion of liberal policies, and became known as the "Lion of the Senate." In 1980, he challenged incumbent President Jimmy Carter for the Democratic nomination. The two fought a long battle, the likes of which was not seen again until 2008. Kennedy eventually lost the nomination. The battle produced an awkward moment on stage at the 1980 Democratic Convention in New York, and the party limped to November and defeat to Ronald Reagan. He appeared at the 2008 Democratic Convention to deliver a speech and endorse Barack Obama.

It has been said that health care for all Americans was the cause of his life, which goes to show just how long the current argument has been going on. Many people on both sides of the political spectrum have said that his death aught not be used for political gain, and thier calls are no doubt sincere, but is that what the Senator would have wanted? Most of his brothers have given their life in service to the country. Would Ted have given his life for universal health care? Liberals have lost ground in the debate since the beginning of the August recess, and Kennedy's death serves as a stark reminder, a wake up call, of how long we have wanted this, how much the special interest have spent to deny reform, and how many more Americans, that don't have access to the world class health care that the Senator did, will die in the months and years to come if we accomplish nothing.

War Crimes Hurt US Image

Today marked the release of the highly anticipated report from the Office of the Inspector General on Torture from 2004. The release of the report is the result of a Freedom of Information lawsuit from the ACLU. Although the report is heavily redacted, it does add some new details to our understanding of what happen between September 11th, 2001, and 2004.
First the report details how "enhanced interrogation techniques" were conceived inside the Department of Justice, using some legalese and references to several statutes from US and International law. These include ten techniques recommended for interrogations, plus one that was suggested but was ultimately not adopted, and is not named. The techniques that were adopted include confinement, stress positions, sleep deprivation (of up to 11 days), an "insult slap," and, of course, water boarding, plus others. The Department of Justice cited an "EIT Phase," which would be in addition to conventional interrogations and last "likely no more than several days, but could last up to 30 days."
Next the report details how the EIT was actually put in to practice. It cites numerous cases of "improvisation." The first detainee to experience these EIT was Abu Zubaydah. Zubaydah was captured on March 27th, 2002. He spent several weeks in the hospital recovering from injuries suffered during his capture, but then was almost immediately subject to these EITs. Of course there is also the case of Khalid Shiek Muhammed, who was water boarded 183 times. Perhaps the most egregious act in the report happened to Abd Al-Rahim Al-Nashir. Al-Nashir was bound, naked and hooded, when an interrogator threatened him with a power drill. Al-Nashir was told that "we can get your mother in here," a threat that he would have understood to mean that she would have been sexually abused in his presence had he not talked. Al-Nashir was also threatened with a handgun; threatened both with being shot and being pistol-whipped.
Of course, all of these techniques are illegal under both the Geneva convention and United States law. The CIA, which carried out the interrogations, claims that such techniques lead to the capture of other suspected terrorist, but no one knows if any attacks were actually prevented. What we do know is that actions by the CIA, and the Department of Justice, are easily war crimes. They have tarnished the image of the United States abroad, caused a kind of legal purgatory for detainees, and made America less safe in the future.

Crusader Xe

On August 19th, The New York Times published an article by Mike Manzetti which claimed that Blackwater USA, now known as Xe, had been secretly directed by the CIA to locate and assassinate Al-Qeada operatives in Iraq in 2004.
Blackwater operates a private military and police training facility on 7,000 acres in North Carolina that trains up to 40,000 people per year. It is the largest such facility in the country. The founder and CEO of Blackwater is a former Navy SEAL named Erik Prince. Prince was an intern in the George H.W. Bush White House and is a massive GOP donor. He has also come under fire for his "Crusader Ideology." In one affidavit, a former employee says Prince, "views himself as a Christian Crusader tasked with eliminating Muslims and the Islamic faith from the globe. To that end, Mr. Prince intentionally deployed to Iraq certain men who shared his vision of Christian supremacy, knowing and wanting these men to take every available opportunity to murder Iraqis. Many of these men used call signs based on the Knights Templar, the warriors who fought the crusades."
This Blackwater Assassination Squad isn't the only example of these men murdering Iraqis. On Febuary 6th, 2006, a Blackwater sniper opened fire on security guards of the state-run Iraqi Media Network, killing three. On September 16th, 2007, a Blackwater security detail opened fire on Iraqi civilians, killing 17. The FBI found that at least 14 were innocent victims, and that the security detail continued to fire into a group of fleeing Iraqis.
Yet, The Assassination Squad never actually killed anyone. The program, which was never revealed to congress, was started and cancelled by CIA director George Tenet. His successor, Porter Goss, restarted the program, only to have it "downgraded" by Michael Hayden. Then Leon Panetta, who was head of the CIA for months before he learned about the program, finally killed it.
However, Blackwater never had a contract for this program. Instead, CEO Erik Prince was personally involved in negotiations at a very high level. Illinois Representative and member of the House Intelligence committee Jan Schakowsky puts it as Prince being in, "the innermost circle, strategizing within the Bush Administration."
So the Bush Administration was paying Blackwater to assassinate Al-Qeada. Assassinations have been against stated American policy since the '70s, and mercenaries of any kind are illegal under the Geneva Conventions. The United States position is that Blackwater are only security detail, and perform "defensive" duties in Iraq. The Geneva Conventions make no distinction between offensive and defensive mercenaries. What is the operating legal framework here? What if Blackwater employees were captured by Iraqi officials? Murder charges or war crimes?
This is another example of Conservatives hating government. Military operations are one thing that most Americans can agree should be handled by the government, but the Bush Administration decided to outsource this duty as well. The claim that there are simply not enough troops to perform guarding our own diplomats and convoys only undermines their argument. Why are we undertaking such massive nation building efforts if we acknowledge that we don't have the troops necessary? What does this mean for Afghanistan? In recent polling, most Americans now question the usefulness of the Afghan war. Can we afford to have Blackwater in Afghanistan, or can we afford not to?

One Small Step For Afghanistan

With all the talk of health care reform and Micheal Vick's return to the NFL, one story has gone woefully under reported in the mainstream press. Tomorrow is the presidential election in Afghanistan, perhaps the first meaningful election in the country's history. Hamid Karzai is the incumbent, and has been president of Afghanistan since the US installed him in the position in 2001. The presence of Western troops, the government's tolerance of the Taliban, and political corruption have been the major issues of the campaign.
Over 30 candidates have filed to unseat Karzai, and half the population, or fifteen million people, have registered to vote. If the winner, presumably Karzai, does not get 50% of the vote, a run-off would be held. Two televised debates have been already been held. The first was on July 23rd, and Karzai boycotted it because he perceived the network presenting the debate to be biased against his campaign. The next was on August 16th, and the main opposition candidate, Abdullah Abdullah, did not participate in that debate. This is not your typical election, however. There have been reports of ballots being delivered to remote villages by donkey. There are also various security concerns. More Coalition troops have died since March than in the first three years of the war. Polling places still have not been announced. In a country stuck in the 1800s and with the majority of the population illiterate, one has to think that this will have a negative impact on turnout. The UN has even reported cases of voter fraud, accusing Karzai of attempting to buy voter registration cards.
So, despite these hazards, the election will go forward as required. Hamid Karzai leads the (unreliable) polling with 44%. After helping the Mujaheddin, a predecessor to the Taliban, fight the Soviets in the 1980s, Karzai was allied with the Taliban in the '90s until they started to allow foreigners to operate training camps inside Afghanistan. Abdullah is the main challenger, currently getting 26% support in polling. Abdullah is the former foreign minister, and was a leading member of the Northern Alliance, which helped to oust the Taliban in 2001. Abdullah wishes to change to Afghanistan constitution to a parliamentary system. Ramazon Bashardot is third in polling with 10%. Bashardot is the only Shiite with any popular support in a mostly Sunni country. Bashardot was exiled under Taliban rule, and has no tribal affiliation. He is considered a crusader for human rights. Ashraf Ghani is the last candidate with any widespread support, but he only garners 6% in the most recent polling. Ghani is a former member of the World Bank, working on projects in Southeast Asia. He was also, according to the Financial Times, a candidate to replace Kofi Annan as Secretary General at the United Nations. Ghani is the former finance minister, and supports the creation of an All-Women's University. Ghani, who famously hired James "Ragin Cajun" Carville as a political consultant, has said of the elections, "It has been the largest seminar in my life, and I am the sole student."

Free Maziar Bahari

Unfortunately, this has become a banner year for imprisoned journalist. On June 21st, Maziar Bahari was detained by Iranian authorities. Bahari is a reporter for Newsweek and was covering the protest resulting from the contested Iranian elections. Bahari has dual Iranian-Canadian citizenship and has been working for Newsweek since 1998. He has also been covering Iraq consistently since the war began in 2003.

Bahari had published at least five articles about Iran in June before his arrest. Bahari was coerced into making statements incriminating himself of "covering illegal demonstrations" and "promoting a color revolution." He has been visited briefly by his mother several times in the last eight weeks. His wife, Paola Gourley, who lives in London (and is six months pregnant) has begun to make the rounds to popular television news outlets to increase public support and awareness of his situation. She says that when she saw the picture of him in detention it "broke her heart." Bahari has been jointly charged with over one hundred other journalist and activist of promoting the "illegal" protest, and they will all stand trial together.

Unlike other situations involving other imprisoned journalist this year, Bahari's employer and his family have come out publicly for his release, which probably means that any back-channel negotiations between the Iranians and the Canadian government have not been going well. Maziar Bahari has routinely reported from the Middle East, and was routinely accredited by the government in Iran to cover events there for Newsweek and the BBC. Suddenly, they have come to believe that he is an agent of foreign governments, or more likely they only want to quash legitimate decent and lay the blame on foreign agents. To support the effort to free Maziar Bahari, please go to FreeMaziarBahari.org.