Category: Opinion

By Eric Soble

Opinions Editor

While phrases  like “enemy combatant” and “war on terror” have become loathed by the Obama administration, these words—and the policies they represent—are still very alive in our political system. The President has not yet shut down Guantánamo Bay, an action he promised on his first day in office. He has not insisted on any investigation of the allegations of torture under the Bush administration. While we have moved forward as a country, it is dismaying to see these vestiges of a prior era so readily followed.

When President Obama visited Indonesia this month, he had a chance to speak clearly and frankly about the human rights abuses that have occurred under President Yudhoyono and the Kopassus, the military unit in Indonesia. He may not have engaged this topic for a number of reasons: it may not be strategic to bring up human rights concerns while trying to mend relations with the Muslim world. Such a discussion may put the President in an awkward place, as his administration recently lifted a ban on funding the Kopassus and currently aids their “anti-terrorist” activities.

But I wonder if his silence on human rights is not, in part, caused by the inherent hypocrisy of advocating for policies abroad that are not fully embraced at home. It certainly makes for a weak argument when any foreign official can quickly point to Abu Ghraib or the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act as evidence of the United States’ own violations of the law. This weakness was seen on Nov. 5, when the United Nations Human Rights Council showered the United States with allegations of human rights abuses in Geneva.

Even the new UN expert on torture, Juan Ernesto Méndez, has called for the Obama administration to investigate allegations of torture, saying “we haven’t seen much in the way of accountability.” This admonition comes just a week after the Justice Department excused all CIA operatives that had destroyed tapes of terrorist subjects undergoing “harsh interrogation techniques.”

All this makes me think: is this what we want on our record? Is this what we want broadcasted across the world? That old and warn idiom “all is fair in love and war” should not be a prescription for policy but an admonition of the atrocities that occur when everything becomes acceptable, and when the ends justify the means.

In George Bush’s new memoir, “Decision Points,” he admits to authorizing “enhanced interrogation techniques.” When asked whether to waterboard Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, he responded, “damn right.” The Department of Justice defines waterboarding as a form of torture. Thus, such an act is illegal under the federal anti-torture act. As the U.S. has historically defined water torture as a war crime—see the sentencing of Yukio Asano in 1947—it remains to be seen why this does not apply to our past president.

I do not have a personal vendetta against George Bush, nor do I wish to see him “suffer” because I disagree with his policies. This is about abiding by national and international convention. This is about applying the rule of law equally. This is about government accountable for actions.

If we are to be a nation committed to the rule of law, we must understand that an investigation into these allegations is both morally and legally necessary.

By Pranav Sehgal

Writer

George W. Bush. Call him friend, foe, comedian—the fact remains he was once our president. He was subject to a great deal of criticism and mockeries by television hosts like Jon Stewart and Bill Maher. Although we may have hated his policies, there is no denying he always kept us entertained. From making up words, to dodging shoes thrown at him and being portrayed in shows and movies like “South Park” and “Harold and Kumar,” he has always given us a chuckle.

Former President Bush has recently released an autobiography of his presidency entitled “Decision Points.” The book focuses on 12 different personal and political decisions Bush faced during his presidency. Now that he has been out of office for two years and has released his book, many are starting to wonder: what exactly is his legacy in American political history? It is often said controversial figures are vindicated by history. As time passes, old wounds heal. This concept is nothing new. Could this apply to our past president?

Most presidents’ popularity has grown over time after their presidency. For instance, Bill Clinton’s affair with Monica Lewinsky sullied his reputation during his presidency, but now whenever we think of Bill Clinton we think not of his affair but of his great philanthropic and diplomatic efforts. Still we may never forget the myriad of Bush blunders that not only tarnished his image as president but also tarnished our image as Americans worldwide.

Bush will never be able to change his domestic and international catastrophes such as the slow response to Hurricane Katrina, our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, our current financial crisis, prisons such as Guantánamo Bay and Abu-Ghraib in Iraq and the fact that the world virtually hated all Americans during his presidency.

Even though the U.S. and international public despised him at times, his legacy is not without merits. Let’s face it—George Bush’s poor decision-making didn’t stem from the fact that he wanted to intentionally do wrong; it occurred because he was just plain stupid. He’s not the guy you want running your country, he’s the guy you want to have a beer with. He’s the guy that you want to invite to parties so he can entertain you, but he’s not the guy you want controlling your 401(K).

Kidding aside, his presidency was not without memorable moments and important policies. During the days after 9/11, President Bush not only brought our nation together but also responded to those attacks in a forceful and deliberate way. Although his response was misguided and culminated in the invasion of Iraq, American involvement in Afghanistan was applauded. By going after Osama Bin Laden, and later the separate, but tyrannical Taliban regime, he provided a powerful response after 9/11.

President Bush also diversified his cabinet by appointing members such as Condoleezza Rice as the first African American National Security Advisor and Colin Powell as the first African American Secretary of State.

In a recent interview with Matt Lauer, Kanye West apologized for calling former President Bush a racist on a television broadcast, saying he was just expressing his anger over Hurricane Katrina. If Kanye West can find it in his heart to take a step back and reevaluate his opinions about George Bush, do you think we should all do the same? Or will George Bush’s legacy be forever marred by the policies of his administration?

By Eric Soble

Opinions Editor

“Never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though all inclinations of his heart are evil from childhood and never again will I destroy all living creatures as I have done. As long as the earth endures, seed time and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night, will never cease.”

One would expect this recitation of Genesis 8 from a preacher on a Sunday morning, or from a theologian studying biblical text in one of our many seminaries across the United States. But what is the context in which this recitation occurred? John Shimkus, a Republican representative from Ill., uttered this reading at a subcommittee meeting on global warming more than a year ago.

This same representative is now seeking the chairmanship of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. I hope I am not the only one unsettled by Shimkus’s reliance upon the Bible for scientific insights, especially given the imminent climate crisis. One wonders if Shimkus would also sanction selling his daughter into slavery (Exodus 21) or killing those who work on the Sabbath (Exodus 35).

His assertions that “the earth will end only when God declares its time to be over” and that “man will not destroy this earth” raise important questions about the role of faith in environmental policy. His policy changes, including a permanent block on the Environmental Protection Agency’s regulation of greenhouse gases, could be extremely damaging to our planet. However, this denialism is not confined to one individual. This climate skepticism can be framed in the wider Republican takeover of Congress and the ascendancy of the Tea Party.

In a recent New York Times/CBS News Poll, only 14 percent of Tea Partiers believed global warming to be a current problem, compared to 49 percent of the public. This is telling, especially in the context of the midterm election, wherein anti-environmentalism became a major tenet of the Republican establishment. A survey completed by the Center for American Progress found that, of the more than 100 Republicans newly elected to Congress on Nov.2, over half are self-proclaimed climate “skeptics.”

Part of this denialism stems from the right-wing’s distrust of elites such as climate scientists and politicians. Many believe that these people are trying to redistribute wealth and impose their own liberal policies on so-called “normal” Americans. But there is another less talked about source of climate denial that is linked to biblical literalism and fundamentalist Christianity.

Is it rude to point out that the 41 percent of Americans who believe that the rapture will take place within their lifetimes may be less likely to care about environmental sustainability? Am I stepping out of line by connecting the unscientific teachings of Genesis to the fervent denial by those on the Right? Of course, many Christians may be empowered to pursue environmental justice because of their faith, but this does not dismiss the wider picture.

I’m of the opinion that the Bible shouldn’t dictate our public policy, especially when it comes to such an important topic as climate change. I wish I could have faith that a supernatural being could wave a wand and make this all better, but this is nothing more than wishful thinking. Perhaps a more effective method would be to elect representatives to office who have a deep commitment to our environmental sustainability. This disaster is man-made, and thus must be fixed by man.

By Chris Giglio

Opinions Editor

This past Wednesday, an executive commission released a proposal on how to start tackling our $14 trillion national debt. The draft bill would erase $4 trillion of our projected debt by 2020 and bring the annual budget into balance by 2015. Though this draft bill has its problems and is unlikely to pass, it does focus our attention on a problem that is too often pushed to the side: the problem of a debt that is spiraling out of control.

There are serious implications down the road if we don’t start addressing this problem. One is the risk of losing our AAA bond grade, which would substantially increase interest rates on the loans we take out. This would in turn make it much more difficult to finance our debt.

Another concern is that countries such as China will start spending the huge reserves of U.S. dollars they currently hold. This would inject massive amounts of dollars into the U.S. economy and consequently drive down the price of the dollar. We would then face an inflation level that would put U.S. export companies at a disadvantage and drastically decrease consumer demand. People also worry that as foreign countries continue to accumulate U.S. debt, they will have more and more leverage on our policy decisions.

These looming problems are not complicated ideas that our government officials don’t understand. The truth is almost everyone in the House and the Senate is aware of the problem, but no one has the political will to do anything about it. This is because politicians fear that the long-term solutions of cutting spending and increasing taxes will lose them their constituencies.

Politicians succumbing to these pressures can still take action to get our economy on the right path. This would involve focusing the current stimulus packages on programs and investments that actually grow our economy. That seems simple enough but apparently this notion gets lost somewhere in the process. It is amazing to me that after $14 trillion down the hole we still have a deteriorating infrastructure, a manufacturing sector in decline, a declining education system and a widening gap between the rich and the poor.

But more effective government investments is only the start. At some point we will have to increase taxes and start cutting Social Security and health care costs that are set to explode in the next few decades. Every year we wait, the harder the effect of balancing measures will be on Americans. For this reason I hope we find the courage to balance our budget sooner rather than later.

By Pranav Sehgal

Contributing Writer

Republicans are seeking to dismantle the current health care reforms, criticizing its “socialized” principles. But is “socialized” medicine such a bad thing?

The recent midterm elections have seen an unprecedented number of Republicans retake positions in Congress, with a Republican majority in the House and a greater presence of Republicans in the Senate. GOP leaders such as John Boehner (R-OH) are seeking to stop the current health care reforms from coming to fruition. Republicans spent $200 million on health care ads in congressional swing states during the vote on health care reform.

Republican hostility to “socialized” health care stems from the greater role of government that would result from this health care bill. If this bill were to take root, it would not only threaten the influence of private corporations but also of Republicans, who are often supported by corporate interests.

Although many modern countries such as Canada, England and Germany have adopted “socialized” medicine, the United States has yet to do so. Throughout American history, presidents and politicians have attempted to adopt socialized medicine but have always been attacked for trying to advance a socialist agenda in government or conspiring to force a totalitarian takeover.

It seems as though people equate socialized medicine with radical principles and ideas, even though the most moderate and liberal countries in Europe and Asia have adopted this form of health care. While the Affordable Care Act  is not a government takeover of the health care system, it does allow health care to be affordable to most Americans and expands benefits to the poor. This is far from fascism or socialism.

Many people that argue against the merits of “socialized medicine” may not know the great deal of benefits that socialized medicine entails. Their opinions and beliefs are influenced not only by the media but also by politicians who reflect the beliefs of corporations they serve. A 2005 Harvard study revealed that the number-one cause of bankruptcy in America was medical bills.

It may surprise you that the United States ranks 33rd in infant mortality and that we rank 21st and 20th for life expectancy of men and women respectively, while countries like Germany, a user of the multi-payer universal health care system similar to the one President Obama supported, rank much higher than us. The United States is one of the only industrialized nations that does not guarantee full access to health care as a right of citizenship, and while we may have the best trained health care providers and the best medical infrastructure, we still rank poorly compared to other industrialized nations.

The proponents and opponents of a “socialized” health care system have valid reasons to advocate for and against it. Although no solution is perfect, the government must do something to stop health care companies from charging exorbitant rates to their customers. The number of uninsured U.S. residents has grown to over 46 million and health care has become increasingly unaffordable for small businesses.

At the same time, many argue there is not a single government agency that runs efficiently, that such a program would lead to higher taxes and that the health care system will fall prey to corruption, which is already prevalent in other areas of government.

Choosing one side is extremely difficult and that is exactly why the issue is so controversial. If the government is to establish a successful health care system, it must compromise on issues with corporations and corporations must be willing to do the same. It is this healthy relationship between industry and government that will establish a health care system that is just and equitable.