Community of Nations

Last week the United States hosted a gathering of nations in New York. Many countries were represented and many heads of state had time to address the body. President Barack Obama had an opportunity to speak before the body and kept his remarks consistent with what he has been saying on the world stage thus far into his presidency. Sadly he was again polarizing as those on the political right criticized him for apologizing for the United States past behavior. Some on the political left praised the president for his honest and candid reflections on the United States presence in world affairs. However, not every speech was common fare. There were some notable United States allies and enemies who took to the stage who received considerably different responses.

Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu addressed the United Nations and went into a tirade against the Nazis, Iranians and and all members of the body who stayed seated as Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad spoke. Ahmadinejad again stood on the world stage and denied the holocaust ever existing. Members of the United States delegation left when Ahmadinjad came to speak as did delegations from many other nations. On the other side of that coin, there were delegations that left in protest against Israel when Mr. Netanyahu rose to speak. Mr. Netanyahu received fair to favorable coverage in the United States media although the Palestinian Authority has a war crimes suit against Israel before the World Court at The Hague.



A man who did not receive such favorable response was Libyan leader Muammar al-Gaddafi. Gaddafi addressed the body for nearly two hours. He rambled through much of his speech failing to strike a consistent theme or tone. He was not a poised nor polished speaker and his thoughts were not clear to say the least. However he did seem to have merit to his suggestions. He was the only speaker who suggested a one state solution to problems in the Middle East. He suggested that if the future of the Israelis and the Palestinians were linked as one there would be more incentive for cooperation. He also pointed to a positive Arab-Israeli relationship citing the Arab harboring of Jews in the wake of the holocaust.

Muammar al-Gaddafi is by not means a saint, nor are his comments the most profound words uttered from the podium at the United Nations. However neither is Mr. Netanyahu or any other foreign leader who has risen and spoke from that podium. Many leaders across the world have the metaphorical "blood on their hands". As listeners to the speeches from the United Nations, we have to be critical of what we are hearing and who we are hearing it from. We must be vigilant to weed out the rhetoric and find the substantive points of the speeches.



In doing that, we as the American public must also be fair. If we are going to be open-minded and hear Mr. Netanyahu out before reaching a conclusion about him, we must also hear Mr. Gaddafi before we simply dismiss him. Neither of the men are angels, but likewise neither are devils. They are merely two players on the world stage who we hope can help solve a centuries old problem. To dismiss either one as a mad man who can offer nothing of merit is disrespectful to both men. Since much of the United States press won't offer a fair minded approach to Mr. Gaddafi and some foreign press services won't offer honest observations of Mr. Netanyahu that puts the burden on the citizens to do the necessary research and think critically and come to their own conclusions about the world around us.

The Color of Change

President Obama has been firmly entrenched as the President of the United States now for almost eight months. Since his inaguration he has faced criticism on a bevy of different topics and issues. He has seen metaphorical darts thrown at him both from the political far left as well as the political far right. However just as he has faced more warrant-less criticism than most presidents in recent history, he has also faced more warrant-less praise than most other presidents in recent history. He has enjoyed a grace period filled with the type of social and political capital that Gerald Ford would have killed for. He has the social and political latitude to say and do things that Bill Clinton could only wish. Yet through the first eight months of his presidency there has been a pink elephant in the room. The same pink elephant that has been with the United States since its inception: Race.

The problem is much like Attorney General Eric Holder said back in February, the United States is a nation of cowards concerning race. That is not to say the nation has not worked to change the way people of different cultures and ethnicities interact with one another. That is to say there are deeply held convictions that people from different races are not honest with each other about. Because of this the race dialogue is never respectfully or legitimately addressed. The mainstream media also has a level of culpability. Since race is a social buzzword, whenever it is thrown around it is sure to generate interest. Networks find themselves giving a superficial glance at racial issues and playing up the dramatic effect of the buzzword for profit. For his part President Obama has attempted to steer clear of race, race related policy matters, or publicly acknowledging or discussing racism. The one time he did make mention he nearly squandered all of his political capital.


In today's political climate there is a heated debate of health care and health care reform. Masses of people are taking to the street to denounce President Obama, his health care plan and the large amount of government intervention. Many of the same people who are protesting now in the name of libertarian principles and fiscal conservatism were quite quiet and actually in defense of President Bush as he ran up huge deficits on defense spending, as well as spent more money on education than any president before him. President Bush also sent large amounts of money to various foreign nations in the hopes of advancing United States interest. Again these same people protesting were silent if not defensive of Mr. Bush. Some on the left are saying the only reason people could be protesting is a latent racism. An uncomfortability accepting a President who is of African descent.

Interestingly enough, this seems to be a preoccupation among white liberals. Keith Olbermann provided a special commentary on how the venom of comparing President Obama to Hitler and the massive protest are a result of unsettled racism. Former President Carter made news when he told NBC's Brian Williams that the animosity toward President Obama was "because of a belief among many white people not just from the south but around the country that an African-American is not qualified to lead this great country." This type of fodder becomes the news of the day. And again the issue of race becomes a central talking point, but it is approached with no meaningful depth or substance. What's worst is that sadly a good number of African-Americans have been so jaded by how blacks have been treated in this nation, that if President Carter's assesment is true they wouldn't be shocked, surprised or even offended.

All of this has those interested in policy issues thrown off track. Important policy matters are being ignored. President Obama has seemingly turned Afghanistan into the new Iraq and there is a demand for an Iraq-like "surge" to turn the tide in Afghanistan. Meanwhile domestically, President Obama can take solace knowing that most economic indicators suggest that the economy is rebounding.At the same time the unemployment rate is teetering dangerously close to 10%. In communities of color that number is more like 15-20%. Just as President Obama has agreed to a higher tariff to protect tire manufacturers in the U.S.; his administration has also undertaken plans to renew portions of the the much villified PATRIOT Act. This shows us that there is much room to debate the actual policy matters of the administration if we got past the question of race. We shouldn't get past it because it doesn't pervade our society, or it isn't the unremovable sin that this nation can never wash its hands of. We should get past it because otherwise we will never be able to see if as promised "Change has come to America".

Blame First Ask Questions Last

The election of Barack Obama as president of the United States seemed to usher in a dawn of new politics. People hoped that politics would change enough to the point where policy matters were discussed on their merit and how they would affect the real people of the United States and the world around us. Sadly that has not happened. We can see the failure of this new form of politics among politicians. Both major parties recite old cliches when critiquing the other. Democrats/liberals accuse those on the right of being soul-less, impossible of being passionate, and selfish evil people. Republicans/conservatives all spread the propaganda that those on the left seek to take away all individuality and make the United States one God-less monolith. This is definitely not the change I hoped for.

The United States is a nation with very serious and critical policy matters to discuss. Not least among them is the issue of its economy. Because the U.S. does not have a pure market or capitalist economy it is extremely nuanced. As one commentator on MSNBC was trying to explain the complicated matters of federal currency regulation another commentator on the network called him "wonkish". Wonkish is a term most often used to describe one who is immersed in the particulars of policy. However with the state of affairs in the United States perhaps now is the time to be wonkish. Now is the time people should be made completely aware of what is going on. Rather than do that, the left-leaning network spent very little time looking at the intricacies of economic policy and went back to reciting cliched themes of "Bush failure" and "Cheney torture"

The left-leaning MSNBC is not the only network that would rather play the blame game than seriously look at and consider the way policy will affect American people. Fox news has a history of skewing the presentation of the news to the favor of conservatives. However they drop the ball in their presentation of health care matters. When the conversation of health-care is had on one of their "Great American Panels" they act as if there isn't a significant portion of the nation that is advocating for the single-payer system. The single payer system is one where the government provides for the health care of its citizens (see With Liberty and Health Care for All Feb 4, 2009). The rhetoric used by Fox News suggest that a single payer option will financially bankrupt the nation and destory the concept of individuality in every way. However they don't take the painstaking steps the California Nurses Association took when it researched the topic and came with the economic numbers that a single payer health care option would turn out.

Unfortunately the lack of intelligent discourse or policy matters on those stations may not be new news to many people. The 24 hour news networks may not have the time nor actually care to put in the effort necessary to have a policy conversation. Even with that one would expect the Sunday morning programs to get more the heart of political affairs. Sadly this doesn't even happen there. On the long running Sunday morning program "The McLaughlin Group" the panelist discussed whether or not Barack Obama spent too much time "blaming America" and apologizing in his Cairo speech. Rather than doing that, perhaps they should have been examining the merit of his words. He was (for really the first time in modern U.S. politics) at the very least acknowledging the United States did not have clean hands when it came to Middle East affairs.

The problem with this behavior is that citizens are kept away from making informed judgments because all the people charged with informing them are failing. Politicians can not see past the special interest and next election to actually discuss policy matters. Journalist can't seem to see beyond the next sound-byte, or "gotcha quote" to explain matters. Sadly what is left is an uniformed nation who rather than discuss policy positions instead revert to inflammatory rhetoric and playing the blame game.

A Brave New World

In the summer of 2009 President Obama will make state visits to Middle East countries Saudi Arabia and Egypt. He will also make his first sub-Saharan African trip to the nation of Ghana. These trips will continue the efforts of the President to step out on the World Scene to refurbish the image of the United States. Needless to say President Obama's predecessor did him no favors in raising the nation's profile and image. It is with that burden that the current President takes the world stage. Fortunately he has well-wishers among some of the previous administration's harshest critics. However, in order to really revamp the way the United States is viewed and treated in the world the President should seek to engage in policy that supports his good spirits.

Obviously there needs to be a change in Iraqi policy. So far President Obama has said what appears to be all the right things. He has talked about drawing down the number of active combat troops on the ground in Iraq. He has also intensely laid out the strategy for shifting the nature of the work in Iraq from active combat to military training. The only bad part about that is former President Bush made the same claims. Unfortunately those ideas never took shape the way any of the American people would have wanted them to and they are understandably wary of that same talk.

If President Obama does change the face of the United States on the world scene he must also address the military's unacceptable behavior. Some mainstream media outlets have addressed this but only in the vein of discussing torture. That issue is something the current administration must address and rectify. Beyond that, the Obama administration has the daunting task of tightening up attack procedures in the Middle East. Countless numbers of civilians have been harmed or killed in United States military attacks. This was something that was prevalent in Iraq and now that the nation has supposedly turned its attention to Afghanistan it is happening there as well.

The United States can not ask to be looked to as a moral authority and continue to hurt innocent civilians. Some supporters of the attacks in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan argue that the civilians are collateral damage and that the by and large number of victims are Taliban or insurgent fighters. This contradicts much of what those countries governments are releasing as official reports. The Afghani government claimed one attack to have killed over 140 civilians. The United States puts that number somewhere around 20 or 30. The fact remains that if President Obama is going to chart a new path for United States foreign policy he needs to repudiate any civilian death at the hands of the United States military.


The mere election of Mr. Obama as President of the United States is monumental and done much already to change the perception of the nation abroad. Sadly this will just be a passing fancy if the policy and actions of the Obama administration do not differ from that of previous administrations. President Obama has been in charge of foreign policy a very short time but some of the decisions he has made seem consistent with the failed and disrespectful foreign policy of America's past. Hopefully with trips to long neglected parts of the globe this summer, the president can chart a brave new world in American foreign policy.

Hundred Day Hoopla

Much has been made about the United States celebrating the first one hundred days of the Obama Presidency. In essence the celebration is becoming much like Valentine's Day. Its a day that has no real meaning or significance but something we've allowed ourselves to observe none the less. In no other job does the first one hundred days matter the way the mainstream media has created this "First 100 Days". Surely there is much to track when assessing the pros and cons of an Obama presidency but to set an arbitrary mark of one hundred days does nothing but give mainstream media outlets something to gear up for. In the coming days here are few things you can expect to see most media outlets ignore when "grading" Obama on his first hundred.

Much of the foreign policy talk has been about three central topics; these topics tend to be torture, Afghanistan and Pakistan. These areas have been identified by much of the press as areas of pressing concern to the safety and security of the United States. Thus when commentators will give Obama a grade on the matter they will be using the affairs of these topics as a rubric. Recently the plight of Somalians became a point of conversation but once the Navy Seals shot them, their story also died. Also Venezuela and Cuba have been talking points but the United States nor the government can (with a straight face) claim a moral high ground on that argument. So the media is likely to have that phased out of the public discourse. So in honor of the 100th day expect the media to center the discourse on foreign policy where the United States can claim moral superiority.

As far as domestic policy goes the media again seems to be disinterested in anything that doesn't pit Democrats and Republican against each other like wild animals. Debates about the budget, government spending, warrant less wiretapping, the bank crisis and same sex marriage are continually viewed through the prism of right/left, conservative/liberal and red/blue. As the news channels acknowledge the 100th day it is safe to expect those that lean left to heap praise on Obama on the aforementioned issues. Those news organizations that lean right will lambaste him on the matters. Either way no new information is gathered and the dialogue is full of partisan rhetoric that doesn't advance the culture or the conversation

With all the conversation about domestic policy surrounding the partisan nature of modern news organizations, it is easy to for see news organizations neglecting questions of whether or not small businesses are benefiting from a flowing credit market. The case against the police officer who shot and killed a handcuffed citizen in Oakland will more than likely be swept under the rug and not receive a great deal of attention. Whether or not the states that refused the stimulus money will be able to survive on their own will be another ignored story. The prosecution (or lack there of) for bankers who were criminally negligent in their actions will also be something that may not make it to airwaves or to press.

A main reason for the void in meaningful dialogue or a thorough look at serious issues is because to truly see them play out takes time. It takes clearly more than 100 days. Unfortunately because so many of us are subjected to getting our news and information from the mainstream media, we are also limited to the news stories that they feel as though shape our life. In this case, we will be paraded through the gamut of opinions and grades on "Obama's first 100 days". All the Sunday morning talk shows are likely to have a roundtable discussion about it as well. This will be all in the name of profit. News networks can count on viewers to watch as they assess Obama's performance over this short time. It is clear that things are bad when James Carville notices the partisan jockeying. This is sadly the media's attempt to generate a story despite most rational people realizing that 100 days is no real barometer in assessing a president. But even I can't complain that much. Even I am writing about it. Looks like everyone is caught up in the Hundred Day Hoopla.