Hi everyone,
Well, you probably heard that it was either yesterday, or, by my count, today, that Barack Obama passed the hallowed 100-day milestone as president. This litmus test of a new president's progress began with Franklin Roosevelt in 1933, when, in his first 100 days, he got moving immediately to take on the Great Depression.
Similarly, given the weight of the current economic crisis, it has come as no surprise that Obama and his administration have had to hit the ground sprinting on this. This is why, while it may not be applicable for other cases, I believe that in this case, this litmus test is a good way to go in measuring how we're doing. Whether you agree or disagree with, like or dislike Obama, you have to agree that he has had to get moving very quickly.
So, with this in mind, let us review what progress has been made since the 20th of January, look at where we have come up short, look at the challenges that lie ahead for this administration and this country, and then I will issue one overall grade, as opposed to my first grade report, where I broke it down into several areas.
So, what have we gotten done? An epic economic recovery act was passed, a tax cut for most of us, instead of those at the top (though some non-rich folk continue to insist that their taxes are going up, don't ask me why). A new strategy to end the Iraq War, and to revamp the strategy in Afghanistan, was announced. Just a week into his tenure, the President signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay act, which makes it easier for women to sue for discrimination. Later, a White House Council on Women and Girls was created.
Even as President Obama took massive spending measures to counter the economy, he has made moves to curb spending in unnecessary places, putting forth a plan that would help the economy, but also bring the deficit down (I don't know how that's even possible). We are starting to see some signs of progress on the economic front, in the sotck market, for instance. And, when it comes time to go overseas, it's nice to have someone in charge about whom I don't have to give an exasperated sigh, instead listening to thoughtfully, yet with a touch of pride.
Another small example of the progress that has been made. You remember the inexcusable response to Hurricane Katrina, right? Well, a much smaller episode occurred recently to provide some contrast to an actual, functioning government. Back in March, the Red River that borders North and South Dakota and Minnesota began a tremendous flood. It was said that the city of Fargo, right on its banks, would become "the next New Orleans."
Well, the Federal authorities and the National Guard headed there, and a legion of volunteers, young people who gave up their spring break, headed for Fargo. Everyone put down sandbags and shipped in supplies, and now that the floodwaters have come down, the town of Fargo is still standing. A wonderful little testament indeed to what good the government can do if done right. Indeed, far from being the problem, government can actually be quite helpful in these situations.
Wonderful, indeed, but all is not well. What do we still need to do? Unemployment remains high. I suppose the initiatives, particularly of the "green" variety, would take time to kick in. Still, the issue of the banks needs to be resolved. We cannot continue to pour government money into this indefinitely. There must be some action to stabilize the banks and the financial market. Similarly, I believe that the situation with chrysler could have been handled differently. They were given 30 days before they were to go into bankruptcy. It seems they could have used a tad more time to make the difficult merger with Fiat. The whole of the financial world remains very precarious. Stabilizing and fixing the economy will be no easy task.
Then, there's the foreign front. I mentioned earlier North Korea's defiant F-U! to the world's rules. Recently, the Taliban has established the toxic sharia system of law in the Swat Valley in Pakistan. Taliban territory has been creeping forward, and now looms just 60 miles from Islamabad. Pakistan's unstable government and its nuclear arsenal are what make Pakistan such a pivotal place on a world stage. In case you're wondering, the Israel-Palestine conflict isn't going anywhere. Time magazine this week quoted a Carter-era adviser as criticizing Obama's lack of a move on that front. Given that Israel's newly-elected leader is much more hawkish, the Obama administration will have to take the lead soon in that area if it wants to set the tone there, and establish a two-state peace. Given President Obama's standing around the world, if he talks, people will listen.
Okay, this was just the first 100 days of the Obama administration, but what lies ahead? After all, a four-year span of time has 1,460 days, an eight-year span has 2,920. So this is still a small fraction of the duration of the Administration. Ahead, there are the caveats I mentioned with North Korea and Pakistan. Bringing the War in Iraq to a stable end will not be a simple task. The challenge of building a stable Afghan government is even less inviting. Finding methods to get off of foreign oil and finally declare energy independence will take some considerable investiment.
Which brings me to the environment. Reports on global warming develpoments are quite alarming. Scientists have calculated that the polar ice could disappear in just 30 YEARS. Most of our current energy sources, petroleum, coal, feed into the vicious spectre of global warming. So not just any old new energy will do. No, it seems our whole paradigm needs to be thought through again, and reinvented. This is something we will all have to do, not just the folks who live at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. As one cartoonist put it, "Back in 1932, we had an abundance of fossil fuels...now we have to grow our economy by investing in human capital."
And this is the central paradox of our task: grow the economy, but shrink our footprint on the Earth. This environmental front is an entirely new historic frontier indeed. Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt had their tests, but they never had to worry about global warming or nuclear weapons. But then, the bigger the challenge, the bigger the payoff, if you're an optimist, and I actually am an optimist. I think that we can get through these tough times. I believe that the country can overcome the environmental mess, renovate our society, and spread peace to these volatile pockets of the world in Afghanistan, Somalia, and such.
This isn't the first time the nation was in peril. We have weathered Civil War, Depression, World Wars. Though it took time, we rose above slavery, segregation. Each time, our character has been revealed, built up, even, and we as a people have emerged stronger for it. I don't wanna get cliche, but I believe we as a people and a country are just as capable as anyone of overcoming these challenges. National security, the economy, the environment, these three areas promise the most development in the next few years. So now that day 101 has arrived, don't go anywhere. The story has just begun. And I, your (sort of) correspondent will be here to report it to you every step of the way. So stay tuned! Well, in the future, but for now, that's all, folks.
This is the Daily Reeder, Over&out.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
War on Terror? That's so 2001!
Hi everyone,
Well, I'm back to reviewing current events now. Today's post will be all about national security. I've gotten behind again, so I will have to cover a mutitude of recent events, and break them down in a way that only I, as a true Washington outsider, can. Later, I will explain the meaning of the title, and elaborate on why I chose it. So bear with me, and let's get to it.
By now, you've probably heard about the episode with the pirates and our navy personnel in Somalia last week. This was the first test of President Obama's ability to handle international crises. Thankfully, the order was given for the SEALs to fire on the pirates, a few were killed, another surrendered, and the American hostage was rescued. This first test was a success, but it was a small test, and there are sure to be more tests for our young president.
Some detractors, like Fox's Sean Hannity, are claiming that Obama is now trying to "hog all the credit". I've seen no indication of this. I've heard no statement from Obama on the subject, and I've searched the white house's website religiously, and nowhere have I found anything pertaining to the incident. The order for the SEALs to attack had to come straight from the Presidnet himself, so his decision making is being evaluated along with the skills of our SEALs. Thankfully, he passed this test, but there are surely more to come, and I don't think Somalia is going away soon, so stay tuned.
In other, less-encouraging news, North Korea recently announced it was going to continue its nuclear rocket program. The North Koreans threw out everyone who was looking around at the programs, and announced they would not participate in any talks. This a week after yet another botched rocket launch. Kim Jong-il was giving the finger to the rest of the world, and now a challenge is being posed to Obama's ambitious plan to get rid of nuclear weapons around the world. This, coupled with a slew of suicide bombings in Pakistan, could well be that next test of Obama's skills in international crisis management.
Anyway, on the domestic front, a recent report from the Department of Homeland Security has triggered another firestorm from our fellow travelers on the right. The report, by Janet Napolitano, head of the DHS, warned of domestic extreme-right-wing, anti-government militias being a possible threat. These would be groups similar to those that sprung up in the early- and mid-90's, like the Timothy McVeighs, Eric Rudolfs, and other such groups. The report noted that the election of a left-leaning President, like Bill Clinton in the early 90's, infuriated these groups. The fact that this President is also black can only aggravate it, since many in these groups aren't very fond of black people either. The report went on to warn that veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan to a desolate economy, low job prospects, and no training in any specialized skills, except for killing and attack, would be likely targets for recruitment into these groups.
Conservative commentators like Michelle Malkin and Rush Limbaugh have chosen to interpret the report as an attempt at censoring all conservatives. Wow, the irony is palpable. Look who is now concerned with having their dissent trampled. Look who is now shouting "Dissent is Patriotic!". How interesting to hear this from those who, not long ago, were declaring that anyone who did not support the President's actions was a traitor. The irony is delicious. They also claim that this is an attack on our veterans. This would be like claiming that a report warning children to be on the lookout for drug dealers was accusing children of being drug addicts.
Anyway, I never thought I would be saying this, but the DHS is working to protect you guys on the right, protecting you so that you can go out and complain about the government. I just thought I'd bring this up since it is delightfully ironic. I also enjoyed being able to finally say that. By the way, the report also talked about threats posed by extreme-left-wing groups seeking to use cyberterrorism. So it isn't about ideology, it is about genuine security.
Moving on, we now come to the meaning of the title. It is now known that the phrase "war on terror" is being phased out. Using the phrase "War on Terror" will now be like saying "Don't go there!". You can use the phrase, but it's just so stale and outdated that who would want to use it?There is, of course, no formal order making this so.Secretary of State Hillary Clinton just directed that the term will no longer be used officially. And we all know what happens if you don't do what Hillary tells you to.
Just kidding. But in all seriousness, this was a wise move on Secretary Clinton's part. Not because there is no threat posed by terrorists; there is. Not because we will not seek to defeat them and their hateful ideology wherever it festers; we will. But this struggle needs to be redefined. I am all for battling terrorists and keeping innocent people safe, but how can you win a war on terror? A war on terror would be like fighting a "war on anger" or a "war on hatred". No matter how hard you fight, how much victory you achieve, you can never definitively "win". War could work against a country, which could formally surrender, and then you would win. But how can you really beat an idea, an irrational action, or series of actions, which constitute terrorism?
Furthermore, since the concept of a "war on terror" would go on indefinitely, it would be easy to claim again and again, perhaps forever, that there's a big, bad enemy out there, and we gotta do "whatever it takes" to "beat them". Such a nebulous war against such a loosely-defined opponent would easily allow abuse from power-hungry hands seeking Orwellian benefits here at home. It would easily allow a leader to, say, shift the battlefield to wherever he chooses, regardless of the actual value of that battlefield in the larger struggle to defeat terrorists.
Also, the term "terrorist" has been blurred and abused in recent years. It used to refer to actual assailants who attacked large numbers of people to further an ideological goal, often a hateful, extremist one. Now it has been stretched by many in this country, particularly in this country, to mean anyone in the Middle East, any Muslim, regardless of whether they actually participate in or even espouse extremism, and any person of Middle Eastern descent.
"Get the terrorists!" Well, who are the terrorists, first of all? In this effort, it will be critical to differentiate between real terrorists, the violent extremists, and law-abiding people, or those just caught up in the whole thing, who turn to extremist groups like the Taliban, because they have no one else to turn to. Force will have to be used against dangerous extremists. However, as someone once pointed out, "We shouldn't be torturing these people. This isn't Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia or Red China. There are other ways of interrogating these people." Who said this? A veteran from the marines who was a devout republican. He said this when calling in to Rush Limbaugh's show, as he called Limbaugh on his extremism. Kudos!
These values that the man espoused are what separates us from the terrorists. We do not use sadism and torture for our ends as the terrorists and those rogue, despotic states do. Our government was founded on principles, strong ones, and what makes us strong is when we stick to them in hard times.We have, collectively, the character to rise above these darker instincts that constitute the terrorist's only guiding force. Our country is not driven by hatred and mindless violence the way the terrorist groups are. At the CIA headquarters, President Obama noted that we the terrorists would be defeated because they were on the wrong side of the battle. Utilizing not only "the examples of our strength, but the strength of our example" is what will guide us in combating the insanity of terrorism and spreading the light of stability and peace. That's how you could win a war on terror, if you wanna put it that way.
This is the Daily Reeder, Over&out.
Well, I'm back to reviewing current events now. Today's post will be all about national security. I've gotten behind again, so I will have to cover a mutitude of recent events, and break them down in a way that only I, as a true Washington outsider, can. Later, I will explain the meaning of the title, and elaborate on why I chose it. So bear with me, and let's get to it.
By now, you've probably heard about the episode with the pirates and our navy personnel in Somalia last week. This was the first test of President Obama's ability to handle international crises. Thankfully, the order was given for the SEALs to fire on the pirates, a few were killed, another surrendered, and the American hostage was rescued. This first test was a success, but it was a small test, and there are sure to be more tests for our young president.
Some detractors, like Fox's Sean Hannity, are claiming that Obama is now trying to "hog all the credit". I've seen no indication of this. I've heard no statement from Obama on the subject, and I've searched the white house's website religiously, and nowhere have I found anything pertaining to the incident. The order for the SEALs to attack had to come straight from the Presidnet himself, so his decision making is being evaluated along with the skills of our SEALs. Thankfully, he passed this test, but there are surely more to come, and I don't think Somalia is going away soon, so stay tuned.
In other, less-encouraging news, North Korea recently announced it was going to continue its nuclear rocket program. The North Koreans threw out everyone who was looking around at the programs, and announced they would not participate in any talks. This a week after yet another botched rocket launch. Kim Jong-il was giving the finger to the rest of the world, and now a challenge is being posed to Obama's ambitious plan to get rid of nuclear weapons around the world. This, coupled with a slew of suicide bombings in Pakistan, could well be that next test of Obama's skills in international crisis management.
Anyway, on the domestic front, a recent report from the Department of Homeland Security has triggered another firestorm from our fellow travelers on the right. The report, by Janet Napolitano, head of the DHS, warned of domestic extreme-right-wing, anti-government militias being a possible threat. These would be groups similar to those that sprung up in the early- and mid-90's, like the Timothy McVeighs, Eric Rudolfs, and other such groups. The report noted that the election of a left-leaning President, like Bill Clinton in the early 90's, infuriated these groups. The fact that this President is also black can only aggravate it, since many in these groups aren't very fond of black people either. The report went on to warn that veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan to a desolate economy, low job prospects, and no training in any specialized skills, except for killing and attack, would be likely targets for recruitment into these groups.
Conservative commentators like Michelle Malkin and Rush Limbaugh have chosen to interpret the report as an attempt at censoring all conservatives. Wow, the irony is palpable. Look who is now concerned with having their dissent trampled. Look who is now shouting "Dissent is Patriotic!". How interesting to hear this from those who, not long ago, were declaring that anyone who did not support the President's actions was a traitor. The irony is delicious. They also claim that this is an attack on our veterans. This would be like claiming that a report warning children to be on the lookout for drug dealers was accusing children of being drug addicts.
Anyway, I never thought I would be saying this, but the DHS is working to protect you guys on the right, protecting you so that you can go out and complain about the government. I just thought I'd bring this up since it is delightfully ironic. I also enjoyed being able to finally say that. By the way, the report also talked about threats posed by extreme-left-wing groups seeking to use cyberterrorism. So it isn't about ideology, it is about genuine security.
Moving on, we now come to the meaning of the title. It is now known that the phrase "war on terror" is being phased out. Using the phrase "War on Terror" will now be like saying "Don't go there!". You can use the phrase, but it's just so stale and outdated that who would want to use it?There is, of course, no formal order making this so.Secretary of State Hillary Clinton just directed that the term will no longer be used officially. And we all know what happens if you don't do what Hillary tells you to.
Just kidding. But in all seriousness, this was a wise move on Secretary Clinton's part. Not because there is no threat posed by terrorists; there is. Not because we will not seek to defeat them and their hateful ideology wherever it festers; we will. But this struggle needs to be redefined. I am all for battling terrorists and keeping innocent people safe, but how can you win a war on terror? A war on terror would be like fighting a "war on anger" or a "war on hatred". No matter how hard you fight, how much victory you achieve, you can never definitively "win". War could work against a country, which could formally surrender, and then you would win. But how can you really beat an idea, an irrational action, or series of actions, which constitute terrorism?
Furthermore, since the concept of a "war on terror" would go on indefinitely, it would be easy to claim again and again, perhaps forever, that there's a big, bad enemy out there, and we gotta do "whatever it takes" to "beat them". Such a nebulous war against such a loosely-defined opponent would easily allow abuse from power-hungry hands seeking Orwellian benefits here at home. It would easily allow a leader to, say, shift the battlefield to wherever he chooses, regardless of the actual value of that battlefield in the larger struggle to defeat terrorists.
Also, the term "terrorist" has been blurred and abused in recent years. It used to refer to actual assailants who attacked large numbers of people to further an ideological goal, often a hateful, extremist one. Now it has been stretched by many in this country, particularly in this country, to mean anyone in the Middle East, any Muslim, regardless of whether they actually participate in or even espouse extremism, and any person of Middle Eastern descent.
"Get the terrorists!" Well, who are the terrorists, first of all? In this effort, it will be critical to differentiate between real terrorists, the violent extremists, and law-abiding people, or those just caught up in the whole thing, who turn to extremist groups like the Taliban, because they have no one else to turn to. Force will have to be used against dangerous extremists. However, as someone once pointed out, "We shouldn't be torturing these people. This isn't Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia or Red China. There are other ways of interrogating these people." Who said this? A veteran from the marines who was a devout republican. He said this when calling in to Rush Limbaugh's show, as he called Limbaugh on his extremism. Kudos!
These values that the man espoused are what separates us from the terrorists. We do not use sadism and torture for our ends as the terrorists and those rogue, despotic states do. Our government was founded on principles, strong ones, and what makes us strong is when we stick to them in hard times.We have, collectively, the character to rise above these darker instincts that constitute the terrorist's only guiding force. Our country is not driven by hatred and mindless violence the way the terrorist groups are. At the CIA headquarters, President Obama noted that we the terrorists would be defeated because they were on the wrong side of the battle. Utilizing not only "the examples of our strength, but the strength of our example" is what will guide us in combating the insanity of terrorism and spreading the light of stability and peace. That's how you could win a war on terror, if you wanna put it that way.
This is the Daily Reeder, Over&out.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
My Spring Break
Hi everyone,
Well, I'll digress from my usual theme and talk on a personal note. I'd like to talk now about what I did over my spring break, and it was a memorable spring break. So I'll give you a brief breakdown of what I did here.
I got out a week before this past friday. I didn't do much that day. Just sat around, read, looked at the computer. The next day, saturday, went pretty much the same way, I did some shopping in the morning, but not much else.
On sunday, I went to church in the morning with my family. We don't go that often, since I remain ambivalent about religion, but this day was the 25th anniversary of the pastor's beginning, and we know him well, so we decided we'd show up this day. Funnily enough, I found myself connecting with the sermon this day. He was talking about how we had to choose to accept Jesus into our lives, to "open the door" as he put it. I don't remember the message exactly, just that I found myself connecting with it in a way that I had not before.
The next day, my brother and I set to work on getting the back deck painted. On monday, we moved the stuff, chairs, plants, so on, out of the way, and get the deck washed and clean before we could paint the next day. The whole job of painting took a long time, but I enjoyed it for some reason. Every once in a while, when I have to do something like this around the house, I find it satisfying to get it done.
On wednesday, my brother and I left and headed to a friend of my dad's in the Santa Cruz area. We decided to take the train up there, and have him meet us. Well, we got on a train, took it to San Luis Obispo, which is still 200 miles away from Santa Cruz. So after a series of buses, we reached the guy, whom my dad knows very well, and whom we have visited many times.
The next day, thursday, my brother and I traveled into the Bay Area itself. First, I recommended we go to Berkeley, just for the hell of it. My brother agreed, but this meant a little less time for things to do in San Francisco. We did do some exploring there, though. We stopped by this bookstore that catered mostly to left-leaning clientele. Moving on, we got back down into the main drag of San Francisco, strolling about and taking pictures like a couple of damn tourists. Later, we utilized the train again to get back to our friend at his job in San Jose.
On friday, we set out to go kayaking at a nearby slough (I think it's pronounced sloo), but since a heavy wind would be kicking up soon, it would pretty much ruin the whole thing. Instead, we took some more pictures of a nearby sea lion habitat, and then came back to his place for a bit. Then he introduced us to his newest hobby (as he's had quite a few hobbies). It's called geocaching. It involves using a handheld GPS device to find boxes of goodies hidden nearby. He went a little far with it, though, in my opinion. He took us on this one long trail walk looking for them, which I didn't mind as much, but at one point, he went looking for one in a local cemetary.
On Saturday, we went on a long walk with the guy and his dog in the morning, then had breakfast at a coffee place. When we couldn't figure out what to do with the rest of our day, we decided to play frisbee golf. The course was on the side of a high hill, so that added a lot of challenge to the game. Then as the afternoon bled into evening, we payed a brief visit to his mother. That night we had take out and beer for dinner.
Finally, on sunday, we went out for breakfast, came back, got packed up, and then came back to the train station to travel home. After a long, beautiful afternoon on the train, my brother and I arrived in LA at nightfall. Our parents were there to take us back home to resume our loads of tasks the next day, but we had gotten oodles of enjoyment from this spring break.
Well, I hope you enjoyed listening to this as much as I enjoyed talking about it. Every now and then, I get narcissistic, so I have to indulge in self-uh-telling, for lack of a better word. Maybe I'll do some more of these personal stories in the future. I don't blog very often, as you guys know, so most of my insight comes from a fairly mundane, day-to-day life. I'll keep you posted.
This is the Daily Reeder, Over&out.
Well, I'll digress from my usual theme and talk on a personal note. I'd like to talk now about what I did over my spring break, and it was a memorable spring break. So I'll give you a brief breakdown of what I did here.
I got out a week before this past friday. I didn't do much that day. Just sat around, read, looked at the computer. The next day, saturday, went pretty much the same way, I did some shopping in the morning, but not much else.
On sunday, I went to church in the morning with my family. We don't go that often, since I remain ambivalent about religion, but this day was the 25th anniversary of the pastor's beginning, and we know him well, so we decided we'd show up this day. Funnily enough, I found myself connecting with the sermon this day. He was talking about how we had to choose to accept Jesus into our lives, to "open the door" as he put it. I don't remember the message exactly, just that I found myself connecting with it in a way that I had not before.
The next day, my brother and I set to work on getting the back deck painted. On monday, we moved the stuff, chairs, plants, so on, out of the way, and get the deck washed and clean before we could paint the next day. The whole job of painting took a long time, but I enjoyed it for some reason. Every once in a while, when I have to do something like this around the house, I find it satisfying to get it done.
On wednesday, my brother and I left and headed to a friend of my dad's in the Santa Cruz area. We decided to take the train up there, and have him meet us. Well, we got on a train, took it to San Luis Obispo, which is still 200 miles away from Santa Cruz. So after a series of buses, we reached the guy, whom my dad knows very well, and whom we have visited many times.
The next day, thursday, my brother and I traveled into the Bay Area itself. First, I recommended we go to Berkeley, just for the hell of it. My brother agreed, but this meant a little less time for things to do in San Francisco. We did do some exploring there, though. We stopped by this bookstore that catered mostly to left-leaning clientele. Moving on, we got back down into the main drag of San Francisco, strolling about and taking pictures like a couple of damn tourists. Later, we utilized the train again to get back to our friend at his job in San Jose.
On friday, we set out to go kayaking at a nearby slough (I think it's pronounced sloo), but since a heavy wind would be kicking up soon, it would pretty much ruin the whole thing. Instead, we took some more pictures of a nearby sea lion habitat, and then came back to his place for a bit. Then he introduced us to his newest hobby (as he's had quite a few hobbies). It's called geocaching. It involves using a handheld GPS device to find boxes of goodies hidden nearby. He went a little far with it, though, in my opinion. He took us on this one long trail walk looking for them, which I didn't mind as much, but at one point, he went looking for one in a local cemetary.
On Saturday, we went on a long walk with the guy and his dog in the morning, then had breakfast at a coffee place. When we couldn't figure out what to do with the rest of our day, we decided to play frisbee golf. The course was on the side of a high hill, so that added a lot of challenge to the game. Then as the afternoon bled into evening, we payed a brief visit to his mother. That night we had take out and beer for dinner.
Finally, on sunday, we went out for breakfast, came back, got packed up, and then came back to the train station to travel home. After a long, beautiful afternoon on the train, my brother and I arrived in LA at nightfall. Our parents were there to take us back home to resume our loads of tasks the next day, but we had gotten oodles of enjoyment from this spring break.
Well, I hope you enjoyed listening to this as much as I enjoyed talking about it. Every now and then, I get narcissistic, so I have to indulge in self-uh-telling, for lack of a better word. Maybe I'll do some more of these personal stories in the future. I don't blog very often, as you guys know, so most of my insight comes from a fairly mundane, day-to-day life. I'll keep you posted.
This is the Daily Reeder, Over&out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)