9/12 DC Tea Party

On the 12th of September, the United States saw a large amount of nationwide protests aimed at President Obama and his new health care bill. I personally have no problem with protesting, in fact I encourage it because it is a direct reflection of the citizens that the government is serving and should therefore be respected and acknowledged. But I do have to say this, the 9/12 protest were nothing but a nationwide display of idiocy, in my opinion. Why do I say this? Because it was fueled by none other than Glenn Beck, the most misinformed anchorman to grace cable news. Anybody that knows me personally knows that I have never been a fan of Beck, and the reason is my belief that he really has no idea what he is doing. His show, The Glenn Beck Program, is nothing more than right wing propaganda at its very finest. And just look at his track record, from crying like a little baby on screen several times, to throwing a live frog into boiling water on live TV to prove a foolish metaphor, Glenn Beck has always proven himself to be more dimwitted than anyone expected.

And thanks to the popularity of show, he has been able to spread his dingbat method of thinking to quite a few people. Fox News is infamous for organizing these mass protests against the President, and having the nerve to call them a 'grassroots effort'. I'm sorry Fox News, but a major cable news network organizing mass protests is definitely not a grassroots effort. And the 9/12 protests are no different.

The people who were out protesting on 9/12, in my opinion, had absolutely no idea what they were there for. Some were out there accusing the President of McCarthyism/ Socialism/ Nazism and Fascism. And when they were asked by a camera crew as to why they are accusing the President of these acts, all they could do was give a blank stare to camera, and then start blathering about things that were completely irrelevant, in the same manner as Glenn Beck.

I saw a great video done by Chase Whiteside, a member of The New Left Media, and I though that short film summed up exactly what went on during 9/12. Mass confusion.

Enjoy

The Fight Against Obesity; Soda Tax

According to the US Surgeon General report, obesity is responsible for over 300,000 deaths a year in the United States alone. And we have also seen that the number 1 cause of death in the US is Heart Disease, and with Obesity being the main link to heart disease, it is clear to see that we have a major problem on our hands. And people do not really have to turn to CDC facts to acknowledge that the US has a problem, taking a walk down any busy street will paint a quite accurate picture to you about the weight problem in the US. And with late night TV being full of weight reduction pills and gimmicks, you would expect that the issue had been curbed, but all these efforts have been proven to be of no avail. How bad is the issue you say? Well here are a few statistics that really opened my eyes up;

-- Between 1962 and the year 2000, the number of obese Americans grew from 13% to an alarming 31% of the population.
-- 63% of Americans are overweight with a Body Mass Index (BMI) in excess of 25.0.
-- 31% are obese with a BMI in excess of 30.0.
-- Childhood obesity in the United States has more than tripled in the past two decades.

So now the question is, how do we attack this problem? Well, I sure do wish that there was a clear cut answer to this question, but the reality of the situation is that it would take a large collaborated effort by the people of the US to curb this looming disaster, and I am yet to see any signs of this.

I believe that the US Government should fight this disaster the best way they can, raising taxes. Now for a long time I have been a staunch critic of raising taxes, but when to comes to this issue, I am all for it.

A group of health and nutrition experts have been pushing for a large increase in Soda tax, similar to the highly successful Cigarette tax, for a very long time and are yet to be successful in passing any legislation on the matter. The newest effort that is being proposed is a sales tax of 1 cent for every ounce of soda sold. Now this is a far cry from the tax being imposed on cigarette smokers, and yet it is having the hardest time trying to be recognized. And my question is why not? This will simply mean that instead of having the regular 5 cent tax for a $1 can/bottle of soda, the tax would be 12 cents. And how much will this slight increase of 7 cents help the US? Well, it would mean that there would be an additional income of $15 billion a year for the government, and considering the economic fiasco that we are currently in, it would not hurt to have an extra $15 billion lying around. And it would also curb the increasing obesity epidemic in the US, with an average of 2 pounds less weight gain for every soda drinker within the US.

But I highly doubt this bill will pass due to the fact that the Soda conglomerates have the best lobbyist protecting their interests within the US. And yet another brilliant plan that will not see the light of day because of lobbyists.

Additional reading on the subject; http://www.boston.com/news/local/connecticut/articles/2009/09/16/fight_obesity_add_sales_tax_to_soda_tab/

Im Back

It feels like it has been forever since I wrote my last blog entry, and it almost has been too. I would like to apologize to my readers, I have been extremely busy. But now I am back and ready to assess all the political issues facing the United States. Quite a few of my readers have complained that my website has been strictly about US Politics, but it was purely because I started my blog around the historical election of President Obama, and I, like every other person in the United States, had been stricken with Election fever. Now that that is in the past, I will make it a point to be as balanced as possible with my choices in stories to cover and look forward to analyzing world politics as well as US politics.

Thanks,

A.M Tesfay

President Obama's Cairo Speech; A New Window to US- Middle East Relations

Today in the main auditorium of Cairo University in Cairo, Egypt, President Barack Obama gave what I found to be on the most memorable speeches of my lifetime. The reason why I found this speech to be more honorable than any other of the countless word-perfect speeches given by our most articulate President in recent history is how much purpose this speech served. We all know how rocky the ties between the US and the Middle Easy have been, and the Bush Presidency only made this worse. With the War in Iraq and 9/11 aggravating both sides of the equation, it was hard to see any healing coming from the severed ties. But today, President Obama extended an olive branch of peace and harmony to the Middle East that I never expected to see coming from any US Official in my lifetime.

Ever since his days on the campaign trail, Obama had preached of religious equality and fixing ties with the Arab World, but I had never really expected such a well coordinated effort so soon. The people of the Middle East have recently had low expectations from American leaders, and have all the right to do so after having dealt with our obviously dyslexic Ex-President Bush for 8 years. But today, when they were greeted by a very articulate and brilliant man who reflected his education and understanding of the Middle East and the Islamic religion, I am sure they were very impressed. 

President Obama started of his speech by respectfully saying "Asalam Alakum" (which means peace be upon you an Arabic, a common greeting). He then when on to admit how much mislabelling Muslims had to deal with, especially in the US, in the wake of 9/11. He put out a call for a new beginning, so that the Muslims shall not be persecuted in the US solely based on their religious principles and beliefs. He admitted that this much needed change will not come overnight, but yet was willing to put in as much work as he needs to to achieve this distant goal. He then goes on to say that this uneasiness and distrust between the Arab World and the US should have never happened in the first place, because the US was known for its ties with Middle Eastern countries centuries ago. He used the Treaty of Tripoli as an example, because that was the time that Morocco, Tripoli and Algiers had signed an peace agreement with US, and upheld it well as well. He then went on to show his support for the fight against the rise of a negative and "crude stereotype" for Muslims in the United States, and also went on to praise the 7 million Muslims living within the Us borders by revealing the little-known fact that they actually have an average income than the average American. He also appealed to the more traditional Muslims in the audience by pointing out the fact that the US Courts have ruled in the favor of Muslim girls being allowed to wear their Hijabs freely within the US. (I actually want to see what the Liberals in the US will say about this since they have always fought the acceptance of the Hijab in favor of women's rights). He then concludes his introduction by letting it be known that 'Islam is a part of America'.

He then started to be more specific and spoke of 7 important matters that I have discussed below;

1. Extremism: Continuing on with drawing a line between Muslims and terrorist, Obama went ton to speak about the US's ongoing fight with Extremist parties in the Middle East. He made his point clear by saying that "America has never been, and will never be, at war with Islam". I found this to be a very powerful sentence because this addresses the ongoing persecution and racial profiling that Muslims have faced within the US since 9/11 based purely on their religion.

He said that the US solely blames Al Qaeda for the attacks and will continue fighting them, with the aid of 46 countries in the coalition and the commitment will not weaken because not only have these extremists killed many Americans (civilians and troops) but Muslims worldwide as well. And he goes on to say that his fight against the extremists is not just through military excursions, but by working together with the governments harboring these terrorist, and goes on to explain how the US has invested $1.5 billion in aid Pakistan's build new schools and infrastructure, and $208 billion to help rebuild Afghanistan's economy. He concluded this part of his speech by admitting that Iraq was a war of choice (by a misinformed leader), but will not be an occupation. He said that he plans on rebuilding the Iraqi government and will withdraw all US Troops from Iraq by 2012 (the first clear outline given of the withdrawal of troops)

2. The second issue he discussed was the Israeli-Palestinian issue. Now this was a very touchy issue and I congratulate our President for being able to speak about both sides without showing any form of bias. He acknowledged Israeli-American ties, but announced that they don't have anything to do with the US's views on the matter. He admits that both Israeli's and Palestinians have suffered greatly and have lost a lot in the fight to gain a homeland. He then went on to support the Two-State Solution, which I personally believe is also the best method to resolve this conflict. He then wrapped this part of the speech up by proclaiming that he wants Jerusalem to be a place of peace, and to serve its role as the birthplace of the 3 major religions.

3. Nuclear Weapons. Even though he did not speak greatly on this matter, he did outline his intention for the world, which is a world with no nuclear weapons. Now do I believe this to be possible? No. I find it to be highly unlikely, but for the fate of mankind, I sure hope he succeeds.

4. The fourth matter he discussed was the the eternal pursuit of Democracy the US seems to have. We have seen the US get criticised time and time again for their views on foreign policy, and for their eagerness to 'stick their nose in others business', but he said that the only reason is the quest for international democracy. He said that the US aims to achieve freedom internationally and will continue to support a government of the people, by the people to set standards.

5. His fifth speaking point was about Religious freedom. When discussing this matter, Obama slightly criticised the Muslim world for their inability to accept other religions. He also spoke of the riff between Sunni's and Shiites within the Muslim community, and let his thought be clear on the matter, that the US was not happy about this. He went on to say that "Freedom of Religion is central for people living together".

6 & 7. The last two points that Obama spoke of was abouts women's rights and how denying a woman education is denying her equality. He pointed out that nations who have educated women, and more so, women elected into power are usually the most prosperous ones. He then connected his mention of prosperity to speak about development. He mentioned many aspects of development and the constant struggle between development and tradition. He advocated the growth of scientific research and pointed out many examples of how he is pushing for scientific innovation and the technological growth within the US.

Overall, I thought this speech was brilliant and will surely be a stepping stone to strengthening US- Middle East ties.

View International reactions to speech here

Homegrown Terrorists?

In case you have missed the headlines, the Tri-state area is buzzing about the new case of 'homegrown terrorists' that have emerged from Newburgh, NY. Apparently, 4 African -American men with extensive prison records had hatched a plan to blow up a couple of Synagogues in the Bronx while simultaneously shooting down military jets at the nearby Stewart International Airport, a widely known military base.

The reason I am choosing to write about this case as my first post as I return from my hiatus is because I believe that it is a very controversial case. Why is it controversial? Well, the media will chose to spin this in whichever direction they please. If you turn on Fox News, they will make it seem as a large invasion of Homeland Security and that  the US is still under heavy risk of attack from our 'enemies'. And then if you turn on to any other left-leaning media source, they make it seem as if this was an inevitable terrorist attack, that only fell through because of the well coordinated efforts of the FBI, and the overall idiocy of the 'terrorists'.

Now, I may not be a very trusted news source, but since I can be classified as the independent media, I will try and call this case for exactly what it is.

Now lets go back and analyze this case. These four men have extensive prison records, and according to the NY Times, they also have mental issues. Here is an interesting quote I found about one of the suspected bombers;

"An assistant imam at the mosque, Hamin Rashada, said that another one of the four men, Mr. Payen, seemed disturbed. Mr. Payen often talked in circles, showed signs of paranoia and kept bottles of urine in a messy apartment." (NY Times)

So, we firstly see that these men are not really the most sane people on earth, but I guess we can also argue that terrorist are not really the most judicious people around. But what I found to be most interesting about this case was how foolish these "terrorists" really are. Apparently the reason they decided to hatch these half-baked plans is because they were unhappy about the large amount of Muslims (all four of the suspects converted to Islam while incarcerated) and by setting off these bombs at synagogues and by shooting down military aircrafts, they will prove a point. That's just plain foolish and I simply do not see the connection.

And therefore, these men started attending mosques in their area looking a way to commit Jihad against the US, and that is when they met an undercover FBI informant, posing as a connect to a Pakistan based terrorist group (the media is still unsure whether it is Al-Qaeda or not). This man therefore set these men up with the bombs and surface-to-air missiles they would need to carry out their attacks. But since these men were completely untrained the FBI informant tricked them by giving them fake bombs and fake weapons, and they were oblivious to this until they were caught.

So on the day they planned to carry out their attacks, the men went to 2 synagogues in the Bronx and planted the bombs and planned to drive down to Stewart Airbase and blow up the so called bombs from a cell phone activated detonator while shooting down military aircrafts, but they were apprehended by the FBI, and other Homeland Security services that had worked with the FBI, before they left the scene.

In conclusion, I fail to believe that this case should be sensationalized in the way it is being shown. These were just a group of mentally unstable ex-convicts who sought to carry out attacks against an undefined enemy. They were completely untrained, and therefore failed miserably. But I am glad to see that the FBI is staying on top of Homeland Security like this. They have really proven themselves as hardworking, and I do feel a bit more secure now. Therefore I salute the brave men and women that thwarted this half-baked scheme, and look forward to more of these heroic moments.

Additional info on this topic;

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/22/nyregion/22terror.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp

or

The Torture and Interrogation issue

Ever since the Bush Administration stepped down, many new things have been popping up about the interrogation methods that were used in the Bush era. And with the big Waterboarding scandal that has erupted, and with the constant argument of waterboarding not being a form of torture, the US Government is looking highly confused on the whole interrogation process of terror suspects.

Barack Obama was quick with his public denunciation of these interrogation methods, especially when it comes to Guantanamo Bay. And to further drive his point home, Obama appointed Leon Panetta (who is not a big fan of torture) as the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency.

If you have read any of my earlier articles, you do know that I am not the biggest supporter of torture as well, but I do have to say that some of the methods that people are speaking up against are slightly out of hand. 

The recent outpour of people speaking out against the US's interrogation methods are mainly due to the highly publicised holding of Abu Zubaydah, a high ranking Al Qaeda member and close associate of Osama Bin Laden. Abu Zubaydah was, according to CIA papers, subjected to 'enhanced interrogation techniques' that now currently have the media and the public speaking out very harshly against the CIA and Bush Administration. And the 10 main interrogation methods that are under heavy scrutiny are as follows;

 (l) attention grasp

 (2) walling

 (3) facial hold

 (4) facial slap (insult slap)

 (5) cramped confinement

 (6) wall standing

 (7) stress positions

 (8) sleep deprivation

 (9) insects placed in a confinement box

 (10) the waterboard.

Now what I am beginning to wonder is, are these really torture methods? When dealing with a confirmed Al-Qaeda member and Bin Laden associate, should the US really be concerned about slapping him? Come on, these are basic interrogation methods, and even though some of them (like waterboarding) can be dangerous they are in place only to guarantee Homeland Security. Really is the deprivation of sleep really a method that can be classified as dangerous, especially when dealing with such a high ranking individual?

I must say that I am confused and looking forward to the proposed interrogation methods, if the ones listed above are outlawed.

Further reading on this topic; http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6111109.ece

Random Historical Analysis: Secularism & Popular Religion

The following is just a random thought tangent I went off when I was looking at pictures of the $2 bill.

When studying Civilization in we have seen how important the rise of organized religion was in the Roman era. And as we have seen over time, there has been large amounts of progress made when it comes to organized religion. And now 33% of the world population is Christian, 21% are Islam and the rest are a mix of Hindus, Jews and of course, Atheists/ non believers. We have come a long way from believing in idols, and other such less popular forms of religion, some which have even been called ‘witch craft’.
When studying the rise of religion, there are many things that can be credited for helping it get to where it is now. Firstly the popularization of Greek philosophy provided average citizens with too many questions about life. “Why are we here?, How did we get here?” and questions of that sort were on the minds of people everywhere. In my opinion religious leaders used this general uncertainty about life as a method extending their churches popularity to the masses. And unlike other forms of religion and idol-worshipping, Christianity at that time was very open (in the sense that anyone can join).
Also another reason that I believe that major religions- Christianity especially, got to where they was through, for lack of a better word, propaganda. They were able to present the people with mental comfort by answering one of the main philosophical questions at the time that was haunting the people, which is “Where will we go after we die?”. Nobody at the time was willing to accept that they were going to be buried and end up as fertilizer, instead when Christianity offered the people a chance to live in a luxurious and free place in the sky, they were able to get large amounts of support.
I personally have nothing against religion. I believe that it teaches people to be mature and helpful citizens. It also gives people mental and emotional strength when dealing with things in their life. But one main complaint I have about religion in the Western world is that it is being used in politics way more than needed. I am a Secularist and therefore I believe in the Separation of Church and state, and I will spend the second half of this entry writing about how well the Western world has done this, in comparison with the rest of the world.
The reason that I have such an active opposition of mixing Religion and Politics is because I have seen many unnecessary prosecutions of individuals due to their religious views. And I am sure we have all heard about the Shari’a law (A Muslim law), with countries like Iran, Nigeria and Sudan etc. using the death penalty on anyone accused of homosexuality.
Therefore after analyzing the US Constitution, I was pleased to see how far the Separation of Church and state had come. But this was not achieved overnight, this was achieved by the hard work and determination by people on both sides of the problem who worked diligently to achieve their goal. I will try and point out the few most important factors that have made the Separation of Church and State successful.
The first person to make great strides in this effort ( and a personal hero of mine) was President Thomas Jefferson who himself was a staunch believer in the cause. Jefferson believed that religion was a deeply personal matter, and therefore had no business being mixed with Politics.
In 1802, Jefferson wrote a very historically important letter in response to a letter by the Danbury Baptist Association. The letter the President received was a complaint about the lack of religious liberties in the DBA’s home state of Connecticut.
In response, the President wrote;
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.
(Letter to the Danbury Baptist Association)

This letter has been regarded as a very historically important document because it not only demanded the Separation of Church and State, but also led to the Establishment Cause in the US Constitution Amendment 1 which is ;
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
(US Constitution Amendment 1)


This in my opinion was one of the most important, if not the most important, steps towards building up a stable and strong government. I believe that one of the main reasons that the US’s Government is now the strongest in the world is mainly due to the fact that people are willing to work hard and work together in the pursuit of a common goal. And now due to the steps taken by the great Jefferson, the US is one of the foremost leaders in the exercising of religious freedoms .

Now the question is how do we spread it to the rest of the world?

Congressman Shimkus: Really?

Even though I have a strong belief in the American Government and also believe that the officials we elect into office are of high caliber, I have to admit that somehow we make mistakes. The 'mistake' that I am particularly aiming at right now is Congressman John Shimkus (R-Ill).
Now before I get into criticizing this man, I have to make it known that I am not one to criticize or lambaste a person for making the occasional mistakes, but when I see an elected official making outlandish remarks and continuing to lead in a way that is not beneficial to the citizens, I have to speak up.
The United States (so far) has proven to be a no-nonsense type of government when it comes to dealing with elected officials that make mistakes (we have all seen how easy it was for the people to turn their backs on such worthy politicians such as Clinton and Spitzer for making mistakes) and I am proud of this. This showed to me how demanding the American people are of their representatives, and therefore I support this attitude 110%. But occasionally, we forget to criticize certain officials who are doing and saying things while they are in power that could be far more damaging to us than Clintons extra marital affairs.
Which brings us to John Shimkus. At a House Subcommittee on Energy and Environment hearing on March 25, Shimkus went on to say that God will be the one who decides when the earth will end, and Global Warming is but a myth. Excuse me?! That is what this man believes to be a good introduction at an Energy and Environment Committee hearing? And he started his foolhardy speech by quoting the bible, which I thought was completely irrelevant.
Now don't get me wrong, I have nothing against the Christian faith or the bible, but I am a strict supporter of the Separation of Church and State, (I am a soft Secularist) so therefore I was angry when I saw that this man did this. First of all, Shimkus has gone on the record plenty of times to say that he does not believe in evolution or global warming. I wont criticize him for not believing in evolution (its pretty common) but is he really going to stand there and say that global warming doesn't exist? Secondly, what ever happened to the Separation of Church and State? Is quoting the bible really a legitimate method of justification in government meetings nowadays? And this man is still a Congressman? And therefore because he quoted a few verses of the bible did he really think that people will completely abandon the global warming cause and stop worrying about it? I am not asking this man to be like Al Gore or anything, I would just like him to know that their are problems being faced by the world that cannot be fixed by reciting a few words, and the main reason he was elected was for him to help fix these problems. And if he wants to rely on his Christian faith to help him make decisions, then that's fine, but if he wants to be able to make decisions that will help our nation, then maybe he might have to start accepting the large problems we have facing us, the main one being Global Warming.
Watch the video of the hearing here; http://tiny.cc/Ph7yv

Sorry for the lack of posts

I know I haven't posted anything for a while, I have just been busy with exams
But I will start writing again soon, and the first thing I will discuss is the new documentary 'The Obama Deception'. If you haven't seen it yet, here is the link: http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=obama+deception&hl=en&emb=0&aq=f#
Its something to watch, and stay tuned for my analysis of the film. (coming soon)

Conservatives deny Rush Limbaugh

Rush Limbaugh has always been quite a character. He is a man who publicly (and proudly) said that he wished Obama "failed" a few days after the President got sworn in. With a radio show that he claims attracts 20 million listeners a week, he has gained a heavy following amongst Conservative Republicans. But his fame has slowly evolved into notoriety lately because of all the mistakes that he seems to be making. With all the biased and even sometimes racist things that he is known for saying, he has slowly evolved into someone, who in my opinion, can be classified as the Bill O'Reilly of the radio circuit.
And now with the Republican party at its worst, the Obama administration pulled a great piece of political strategy to make sure that the Republicans stay down. And what is this great political move? Labeling Rush Limbaugh as the de facto (unofficial) leader of the Republican party. Who better to label as the head of the Republicans than a infamous Conservative with a wide fan base, who is known for having the most unstable personal life (with all the drug addictions and marital problems he faced), and a natural skill of making himself and anyone that supports him look like fools? Even though the Obama administration claims to never take part in underhanded Politics, there has never been a finer move (in my opinion) to suppress the already struggling Republicans.
But what is the outcome of labeling Rush Limbaugh as the de facto leader? First of all, last week, the new head of the Republican National Convention, (and also the first African American leader of the Republicans) Michael Steele came out to publicly deny Rush Limbaugh, claiming his statements are sometimes "incendiary" and "ugly". I personally thought that was a bold move by Steele, even though he retracted his statements a few days later. And while the official Republican heads are being hesitant to publicly deny Limbaugh, the Conservative population in the US are not backing down in denying this "aggressive and bombastic" guy as their leader.
I just finished reading an impressive article by David Frum, a neoconservative journalist, who has made it known that even the Conservatives, let alone the regular Republicans, find the labeling as Limbaugh as their leader to be a disgrace. Even though it was quite a long article, it not only highlights the views that Conservatives share on Limbaugh (which is highly negative), but it also highlights how eager the Republicans are in reviving the US.
Overall, I must hand it to the Democrats for letting Rush get where he is, and letting him continue his sabotage of the Republicans will guarantee a Democrat stronghold for quite a while to come. For the sake of the Republican party (and my support of bipartisanship) I hope the Republicans find another de facto leader, or just accept Michael Steele as their leader.
The David Frum article; http://www.newsweek.com/id/188279/page/1