The world is upside-down

A detriment to national security, Obama administration treats terrorism cases like normal criminal offenses Read more

Peace prize surprise

[TAKE OUR ONLINE POLL]

Whether or not prize was deserved, we should be thankful

A big “Huh?” with a finger scratching the head pretty much sums up the typical reaction to the news that President Barack Obama won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize.

In an attempt to explain the reasoning behind this year’s award, Nobel committee chairman Thorbjorn Jagland said, “The question we have to ask is: Who has done the most in the previous year to enhance peace in the world. And who has done more than Barack Obama?”

Well, for one thing, nominations for the prize began in February, when Obama had just begun his tenure.
The bigger issue is the not-so-small matter of achievement.

Traditionally, we view Nobel Peace laureates as icons like Mother Teresa, Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and Nelson Mandela. There were also the lesser known, but just as deserving awardees, like Shirin Ebadi, Wangari Maathi and Kim Dae Jung, all of whom have tirelessly pursued human rights in their respective countries.

Obama, as surprised as the rest of us, was also humble in addressing the honor: “To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who have been honored by this prize, men and women who’ve inspired me and inspired the entire world through their courageous pursuit of peace.”

So what placed Obama in this pantheon of winners? “For his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples” is the official line.

When it comes to the matter of whether this was enough to deserve the award or not, the answers are mixed.
One can make the argument that he hasn’t achieved anything tangible for the award to show that it is not premature.

Then there are those like Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele, who seem to take anything as an opportunity to bash the president and turn it into a fundraising bonanza. “The Democrats and their international, leftist allies want America made subservient to the agenda of global redistribution and control, and truly patriotic Americans like you and our Republican Party are the only thing standing in their way.”

Um… right.

Coming back to reality, one can also say that getting the ball rolling for peace is just as important as the actual achievement itself.

I say achievement can be a moot point with no right or wrong standard. It isn’t like the awards in the sciences – the process of selecting an awardee for the peace prize is highly subjective. Obama hasn’t achieved much in concrete terms to be able to confidently claim the prize. He hasn’t brokered peace treaties, persuaded Iran to end its nuclear ambitions or ended either of the two wars we are quagmired in.

However, efforts toward peace have been recognized in the past by the Nobel committee. And without a doubt, Obama has made great efforts at international diplomacy.

What he has done is help to radically change the tone of international diplomacy from where it was even a year ago.
It started before he won the election, with the speech in Berlin last summer where he left crowds dazzled with his promise of multilateralism. As president, there was his unprecedented speech in Cairo in an effort to reach out to the Muslim World.
Many in the international community credit Obama’s willingness to include them as partners in global matters and initiatives and to listen to their concerns.

As UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon put it, “President Obama embodies the new spirit of dialogue and engagement on the world’s biggest problems: climate change, nuclear disarmament and a wide range of peace and security challenges.”
Jagland reinforced that by saying, “All these things have contributed to — I wouldn’t say a safer world — but a world with less tension.”

He went on to say, “Look at the level of confrontation we had just a few years ago. Now we get a man who is not only willing but probably able to open dialogue and strengthen international institutions.”

Unlike the man before him.
Ah yes, another reprimand of the Bush administration. I would venture to say that this was a most satisfying part of awarding Obama: to stick it to his predecessor.

We all know there was no love lost between the international community and former President George W. Bush, who did his utmost to dismantle the concept of multilateralism and make clear his contempt for the opinions of others in international matters.
This award is surely another way to celebrate the end of Bush’s reign.
But Obama sure isn’t celebrating and I can’t really blame him.

Unfortunately for Obama, this award seems to set an already high bar of expectation even higher. With so many expectations for him to pull through on domestic issues, the international community has dumped an even bigger one on him.

The Nobel Peace Prize can be quite a politicized award and this one clearly conveys hope for Obama to take the mantle when it comes to issues of climate change, nuclear disarmament and ending two wars in a responsible fashion.
The world, unlike Steele and his ilk, is rooting for Obama.

This award, which went out of its way to praise effort and what could be, shows how much they want him to succeed.
The Nobel Peace Prize conveys faith that America can make this world a better and more peaceful place and for that reason I’m glad Obama won.

As an American, I take as much pride in the president winning it, as I do when our scientists win.
“[It] gives us a sense of momentum when the United States has accolades tossed its way rather than shoes,” a statesman for the State Department pointed out.

Obama’s ‘Nobel’ mistake?

Declining Nobel Prize would have been greater distinction

President Barack Obama emerged from the White House last Friday with a pretense of humility and delivered an eloquent acceptance of his Nobel Peace Prize. The announcement for the prestigious award came as a shock to most of the world and, ostensibly, the administration.

Many people question what Obama has accomplished so early in his presidency to receive such an honor. The issue has prompted a majority of liberals and conservatives to agree that our president has done little — if anything — to deserve the award for which he was nominated just 11 days after he took office.

One thought is that the Nobel committee made Obama the latest laureate of the peace prize for his ideals and difference in policies and attitude from his predecessor. Perhaps the committee gave him the award as a motivation to keep his word and hold to the promises he made during the presidential campaign.

While we can’t rule out his worthiness to be placed in the same category as figures like Mother Teresa and Nelson Mandela, we can reasonably question the committee’s premature decision to do so.
Although most Americans hadn’t expected Obama to fulfill his campaign promises within nine months, we also hadn’t expected him to receive such a distinguished recognition for doing nothing more than traveling around, giving good speeches and smiling a lot.

Without really having swept the country with change, Obama has essentially received the Peace Prize for his rhetoric — for pledging what he will do, rather than showing what he has done.

Our president is inarguably charismatic and internationally affable, but beyond these political attributes, a record of selfless achievements is commonly considered a necessity to earn the award.

Although the peace prize committee has a history of controversial decisions, its latest escapade borders on surreal.

Just four and a half years ago, Obama took office as a junior senator from Illinois, making his first appearance on the national scene.

Today, he holds an inconceivably powerful position and has been awarded one of the highest distinctions in the world.

Obama accepted the award last Friday to a stunned audience and said he was “deeply humbled” by the committee’s decision.

The most humble thing our president could have done, instead of adding a line of text in his acceptance speech, would be to decline the award.

Doing so would come with little political repercussions, while taking it can only impede Obama’s agenda. Now our president must live up to the award’s standard, rather than having the ability to set his own precedent.

Obama can’t be blamed for the committee’s decision to select him for doing nothing, but can be blamed for accepting the award? His decision to take in the Prize ultimately reflects an affirmation and agreement with the committee.

Had he declined, liberals would hail the act as truly humble and commendable, and conservatives would agree that he doesn’t deserve it and should therefore not accept it.

The speech we should have heard last Friday should have read:
“I am honored by the committee’s choice, but I don’t feel that, since my inauguration, enough has been accomplished in improving international relations or nuclear disarmament. I cannot, therefore, conscientiously accept this most prestigious award but would instead like to use this opportunity to emphasize the importance of diplomacy and hope that this serves as an impetus for greater relations between all nations in the future.”

Not only does Obama now have to achieve deeds worthy of the award’s bestowment, but its acceptance will probably stir resentment among nations with whom we have tenuous relations.
As Americans, we should all be proud to have a sitting president awarded with the Nobel Peace Prize, but our pride would perhaps have been amplified had he truly not thought himself worthy to receive the distinction.

Declining the award is almost unheard of, but Obama could use the act to make a point that he possesses the humility that his speeches convey. It would also show that he is not striving to improve the world for recognition, but to make it a safer and more livable place for everyone.

Foreign policy flops

Obama fails to deliver on most basic diplomacy

Last Friday, President Barack Obama suffered one of the most damaging setbacks to his foreign policy goals — he failed to get the International Olympic Committee to hold the 2016 Olympic games in his hometown of Chicago. This certainly was at the top of Obama’s foreign policy priorities list. In fact, it was so important that he traveled to Copenhagen and brought Oprah Winfrey along for the ride.

I’m beginning to see a pattern starting to develop with the commander-in-chief — Obama is totally inept when it comes to anything foreign, unless we’re talking about applying failed foreign concepts to our own society and government.
Don’t believe me? Simply examine the foreign policy moments of Obama’s presidency so far.

During his campaign for president, Obama stood in solidarity with his far-left base by bashing every foreign policy move made by then-President George W. Bush. He promised he would regain respect for the U.S. in the eyes of the world, reminding me of a high school student who sells himself out to score points with the popular crowd.

During his inauguration, Obama said he would extend an open hand to our enemies’ clenched fists. He essentially meant that we should be the better person and hope our enemies stop plotting our destruction and grow to love us.

Obama started off great by disappointing his supporters, failing to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility, where apparently innocent terrorists were tortured.

Obama also made a very important trip to Europe to further beef up his thinning foreign policy résumé. During the G-8 summit, Obama politely asked the Europeans to send more troops to Afghanistan to fight Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. He succeeded in only securing about four helicopters for NATO. Off to a great a start, right?

In addition, Obama felt it necessary to apologize for virtually everything the U.S. has done — securing nothing but respect for us in the eyes of the world.

During the Summit of the Americas, Obama had the chance to invigorate Latin American countries and ask them to follow our example of economic success, but instead, he chose again to apologize on the U.S.’s behalf.

Obama also thought it wise to listen to the “other” perspective and sat in on a 90-minute diatribe against the U.S. by Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega. He also chose to sit around and listen to the Venezuelan president’s thoughts on the U.S.

As the summer started to ease its way in, Obama found himself faced with two major foreign policy crises.
The first was with North Korea, where two American journalists were captured and imprisoned. Obama’s initial response was to do nothing, followed by nothing.

Then North Korea started testing medium- and long-range missiles capable of delivering possible nuclear warheads to the U.S. and threatening our allies as well. Obama, by now the whiz kid of foreign affairs, chose to go with what he knew best — do nothing.

Then came the real shocker — the presidential elections held in Iran were rigged. Millions of young Iranians took to the streets around the country to protest the outcome of the election that claimed Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the current president, had won a landslide re-election.

At the direction of the Iranian mullahs, the police brutally cracked down on the protesters and killed many in the process. It appeared for a moment that there was an actual revolution in Iran. All the Iranians needed was support from the country that represented freedom and liberty the most — the U.S.

Obama saw no need to support young Iranians filled with hope that could create real change — more than Obama’s bumper stickers could ever hope for.

What could have been Obama’s greatest foreign policy achievement became one of his greatest foreign policy failures. It wasn’t the result of a poor diplomatic decision, but simply the result of no diplomatic decision — the recipe for worse-than-poor leadership.

There was also another trip to the Middle East where Obama addressed the Muslim world, but he again reverted back to his strategy: He apologized on our behalf.

Some months later came Obama’s first address to the United Nations. Instead of talking about real issues like the War on Terror, Obama talked about solutions to global warming – which will further destroy this country by handicapping economic growth.

His failures didn’t stop there. He decided that because the U.S. was at fault for using atomic weapons to end a war against Japan, he would announced to our enemies that we would be disarming ourselves of nuclear weapons — just when everyone else is nuking up.

This brings us to today. Iran has completely disregarded the U.S and will continue to pursue nuclear weapons. In the last couple weeks, Iran has tested several medium- and long-range missiles.

The U.S.’s involvement in Afghanistan seems like it has been tossed by the wayside, which Obama claimed was a foreign policy priority.

The U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McCrystal, demanded more troops from Obama, saying otherwise we risk losing there. Obama has continued to do what he does best in these matters: He has remained silent and done nothing.
The most important thing for Obama seemed to be getting the 2016 Olympics to Chicago instead of getting badly needed troops to Afghanistan. Too bad he failed at that too.

As our soldiers are dying, we should be comforted in knowing that our president has his priorities straight.

The new South-South alliance

Developing countries are looking to each other for cooperation, leadership Read more

Do you know what socialism is?

Government’s role in ensuring health care should be welcome

When our country was consumed with the “red scare” more than 50 years ago, it seemed like everyone was accusing someone of being a communist.

After 9/11, during a “scare” targetting everyone that was or looked Middle Eastern, thousands of innocent people across the country were unjustifiably suspected of being or helping terrorists.

Every so-called “scare” stems from fear and a misunderstanding of reality. This is still the case today.

I have heard cries of socialism everywhere recently. Everything the Obama administration does or proposes is somehow socialistic to many.

But I am convinced that at least half of those who are exaggerating proposed policies by labeling them socialistic have no idea what they are talking about – because amidst the talk of socialism, I hear the same people, sometimes in the same sentence, also refer to our president as fascist, communist or totalitarian.

Obviously, they’re not all the same.

The real issue behind all the name-calling is the large role of government. But recent government policies make us no closer to being an economy organized on socialistic values than we were before.

If we do in fact achieve a state in which American citizens are universally covered for health care, we are closer to what is considered a welfare state, which most of Europe is already considered. No economy in Europe is organized under socialism.

If a government providing and ensuring proper and affordable health care to its citizens is somehow considered socialism, then Britain, France, Germany, Canada, Sweden, Iceland, Switzerland, Norway, the Netherlands, New Zealand and Japan should all be considered socialistic. And if this is what socialism means – then I’m all for it.

But of course, the countries named above do not identify with socialism because merely having the government play a role in the nation’s health care does not mean it is somehow leaning toward that ideology.

The U.S. and most of the industrialized world is organized under capitalism. But the U.S. remains one of the only industrialized countries to not provide proper health care coverage to all its citizens. Why can other countries label themselves capitalistic while allowing their governments to ensure universal health care coverage?

Because health care is a right and it is a government’s job to protect rights.

Health care is a right because life is a right. I cannot live unless I receive proper health care. It befuddles me how that connection is not clear to so many Americans.

We should not consider the government’s role in health care unwanted because it should be the government’s job to preserve rights. The private industry does not have a role in ensuring free exercise of religion or guaranteeing free speech. Similarly it is not the responsibility of the private industry to provide equitable health care.

Government involvement is not a problem when it is trying to achieve a social good.

We don’t worry about big government when the size of our law enforcement doubles because it is for our protection. We don’t worry about the size of the Department of Defense when our military becomes the largest in the world. We don’t minimize the role of government when it pours tax dollars into funding wars not all citizens agree with or when it promotes the research and development of weapons. Supposedly, all of the above are for the safety of our people and so, they are justified.

But what about health care? If the government can control and vastly enlarge our military by justifying its need to ensure the lives of American citizens, isn’t health care coverage more directly related to our physical safety?

If people don’t protest the size of our military, which is directly under the president, and so a government branch, because it is for our protection, then why do they protest when the government tries to ensure health care?

I worry about an excessive, powerful government when someone can listen to my phone conversations without my knowledge, when someone can read my e-mails or deleted text messages and when they can search my house and detain me without a warrant.

I worry about the large and powerful government when I see cameras on every street corner.

I worry about big government when a vice president of the U.S. orders the CIA to lie to Congress and the people.

And I worry about an abusive and powerful government when hundreds of thousands of men and women are used to fight wars that were waged for all the wrong reasons.

I don’t worry about big government when it is doing exactly what it should – protecting our right by protecting our lives and ensuring a higher quality of life for citizens.

Obama’s school speech brouhaha

Skewing the contents of a perfectly unbiased speech

The president’s critics were able to breathe a sigh of relief on Tuesday: The nation’s children did not get brainwashed by his socialist agenda.

Maybe that is because there was no socialist agenda.

Maybe that is because it really was a speech encouraging kids to stay in school and work hard.

I’m referring to the “controversial” 15-minute speech in which President Barack Obama directly addressed school kids, saying things like, “Every single one of you has something you’re good at. Every single one of you has something to offer. And you have a responsibility to yourself to discover what that is. That’s the opportunity an education can provide.”

Yeah – that’s really some indoctrination there.

The whole world listens when a U.S. president talks, regardless of their political affiliation.

But today, whether through ignorance or unfounded fears, some parents choose to put mufflers over their children’s ears.

I am incensed that my high school-aged brother did not have the opportunity to view the speech thanks to the ruckus certain Las Vegas parents made in opposition.

Individuals who believe in encouraging education should feel appalled. Any opportunity to tell a child he or she should work hard to obtain a better life, even if the message is coming from someone you don’t agree with politically, should be met with open arms.

Newt Gingrich remarked that “it is good to have the president of the United States say to young people across America, ‘Stay in school, study and do your homework.’ It’s good for America.”

I’m not a fan of his politics, but if someone like Gingrich were to wax poetic about the merits of an education to my brother, I would be all too willing to have him listen to this conservative firebrand, especially considering that the national rate for high school dropouts is at roughly 30 percent and Las Vegas has one of the highest rates in the country.

So here’s a memo to all the parents in this city: If the president is trying to encourage your child to do his or her best and to stay in school, you should applaud the effort.

There’s just a certain gravitas when the president says, “We need every single one of you to develop your talents, skills and intellect so you can help solve our most difficult problems. If you don’t do that – if you quit on school – you’re not just quitting on yourself, you’re quitting on your country.”

Obama, like most in this country, was not born with a silver spoon in his mouth. He and his family had to work hard for everything they achieved.

Most importantly, Obama was able to claim the White House due to his perseverant pursuit of education. Anyone should be able to appreciate how poignant that message is and how powerfully it resonates with kids.

In his speech, he conveyed his personal struggles and pushed the kids to set goals for their education – but he did not push his health care agenda or any other political agenda for that matter.

To be fair, the White House did get carried away with their original proposal of a “lesson plan” in which the kids would draft letters regarding how they can help the president. This was a contentious issue for parents and it is important to note that it was removed.

The administration also tried to alleviate parental concern by releasing the text of the speech on Monday.
I’m not a parent, but I am an older sister who acts as one.

Therefore, this is how I would have acted:

I would have first read the text so I would actually know what the president was going to say to my child.
If I was mistrustful of Obama’s intentions, I would have had a serious talk with my child before and after the speech in order to exert my parental influence. I would have explained what the word “propaganda” meant if that was what I was concerned over.

I would have prepared my child rather than have him or her shielded as if Obama was some sort of jihadist mullah preaching evil things to young, impressionable minds.

He’s the president of the United States for crying out loud, not the boogeyman.

Most of these kids are watching Tila Tequila or some other questionable programming on TV. They don’t often get to hear motivational speeches on education – especially from the president.

It isn’t very often that anyone tells them, “This isn’t just important for your own life and your own future. What you make of your education will decide nothing less than the future of this country. What you’re learning in school today will determine whether we as a nation can meet our greatest challenges in the future.”

Even as a student who has taken education seriously since the age of five, I still drew inspiration to work a little harder after watching this speech and I’m sure I wasn’t the only one.

I don’t see the harm or controversy in encouraging education. Those who do need to take their heads out of the sand and take a serious look at our education system.

Letters

To the Editor,

In response to August 10th, 2009 Matthew jarzen article “America: the new Land of the Czars.”

Mr. Jarzen goes into great detail explaining the FDR and Obama administrations uses of cabinet Czars while upsurping the constitution and eliminating the checks and balances of the other branches particularly the Senate and its confirmation role.

While he cheerfully mentions only Democratic administrations and a bypassing reference to Nixon, I must inform the great readers of this fine newspaper of the George W. Bush administrations use of czars in all faucets of its administration that clearly usurps the checks and balances and bypasses Senate oversight that Mr. Jarzen holds dear to his heart.

Here are a few of the Czar positions that Bush 43 apponted by Presidential Appointment that were not confirmed by the Senate clearly violating the constitution: Homeland security czar, Terrorism Czar, AIDS Czar, Bank Bailout Czar, Bioethics Czar, cyber security czar, Domestic Policy Czar, Faith Based Czar (clearly violating the separation of Church and State), Food Safety Czar, Global AIDS Czar, Health Czar for the WTC, Intelligence Czar, Manufacturing Czar, Reading Czar, Regulatory Czar, to name a few.

I do agree with Mr. Jarzen that these Presidential Appointments clearly violate the Constitution; but he needs to be honest in his assessment that both political parties are guilty of this practice. If according Mr. Jarzen, Obama has amassed an unprecedented amount of power because of the appointment of czars, then can we say the same regarding George W. Bush?

John J. O’Brien,
history major

NOTE: Letters to the editor run unedited.

America: the new Land of the Czars

Typical of a socialist land, Obama appoints dubious experts Read more

Obama insulted U.S. in commencement speech

Obama’s frequent attacks hurt America’s image Read more

Next Page »