5 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(03/23/05 12:00pm)
The next time you use the Internet, do a Google images search for "Israel wall." What will appear are thousands of pictures of the enormous concrete barricade separating Israel from Palestine, something we should all vehemently condemn.
When the Berlin Wall was constructed in 1961, the entire non-Communist world immediately denounced the structure and the purpose it was designed to serve. President John F. Kennedy traveled to Berlin shortly after the wall's construction to publicly condemn the Soviets with his memorable "Ich bin ein Berliner" speech.
Where is the similar backlash and outrage at Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's most loathsome act? Two years after construction was completed on the barrier that separates the West Bank from the rest of Israel, there has been no comparable reaction from the United States.
There will be no such response in the future. After all, it would not make sense for the United States to denounce a project it subsidized.
Each year, Israel receives more foreign aid from the United States than any other country. This aid does not come in the form of food and medicine, but rather, dollars.
The barrier is simply the latest in a long line of vicious Israeli projects funded by the bastardization of well-intended U.S. aid.
If our dollars buy the missiles aimed at Palestinians and the helicopter gunships from which those missiles are launched, why wouldn't we finance the barrier with which Israelis prohibit Palestinians from moving about their land?
The barrier, which was underhandedly and illegally built upon Palestinian land, has reduced much of what was already meager holdings by a growing population with at least as good a claim to the region as the Israelis.
It occupies over 10 percent of the very limited arable land in the West Bank, creating additional famine in an already desperate population.
This new barrier makes it difficult for Palestinians to go to work in Israel. Families and friends have been separated.
It has even disrupted the vital flow of water to and from the West Bank, increasing the malnutrition and disease that are already a significant part of West Bank life.
The Bush administration, like all those before it, has given the Israelis carte blanche to do as they please in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, be it bulldozing Palestinian homes or erecting ominous "Apartheid walls."
When construction first began, the United Nations General Assembly voted 144-4 to condemn the project as contrary to international law. These four countries in support of a wall were the United States, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, and of course, Israel itself.
Only the support of the world's hegemon has been enough to cloud the overwhelming transparency of Israeli brutality and cruelty toward Palestinians.
I have been careful thus far not to refer to either the Israelis or the Palestinians as innocent. The Palestinian-Israeli conflict is the most trying issue facing the entire world today, hands down.
Without U.S. aid, the Israelis would have been crushed many times over the past 60 years. Actually, they would have never even established a homeland.
Nevertheless, the Palestinians hold an equal claim to the land along the eastern Mediterranean. Israel claims that what it calls the "fence" is an example of its "right to take reasonable, necessary and proportionate measures to protect the security of its citizens and its borders."
Yet the wall is neither reasonable, necessary or proportionate.
It is not reasonable when it tears apart families, communities and food supplies. It is not necessary when you consider the already inadequate land holdings of the Palestinians in the West Bank and the success of the current truce to end violence.
The wall's dimensions exceed those of Berlin's - it is three times as long and twice as high. And yet the American-backed Israelis play it off as a proportional response.
Israeli supporters are quick to defend the barrier, noting that much of it is barbed wire and not concrete. These supporters conveniently do not mention that where wire serves as the barrier, it is accompanied by anywhere from 100-300 feet of electric fences, trenches, cameras and security patrols.
It is certainly not proportional, but that is to be expected from the Israelis. Their history of proportional responses include rolling tanks and bulldozers over Palestinian homes while children throw rocks and empty bottles at the goliaths.
Israeli government assassinations of suspected Palestinian terror threats are so "proportional" that they hover Apache helicopters outside Palestinian mosques and unload everything they've got on the buildings, killing not only the suspected terrorist, but every attending man, woman and child as well.
These "proportional" responses by the Israelis only exacerbate an already protracted and complex conflict.
The U.S. government would like Americans to see Israel as a lone oasis of democracy in an otherwise totalitarian-dominated region.
It cannot stand by idly, even supporting wicked Israeli tactics against Palestinians, and expect to fool the American public. Respectable governments do not build gigantic "Apartheid walls" and argue that they are instead just "fences" designed to maintain peace.
The world mourned for the East Germans. Free peoples everywhere should not just mourn for the Palestinians - they should take action against the Israeli tactics.
(03/02/05 12:00pm)
In the United States, we have terrible problems regarding equality. Politicians and outspoken Americans like to point fingers at each other when diagnosing the causes of discrimination in our otherwise extraordinary country.
More often than not, actual people are to blame for their prejudices and attitudes toward others who are different.
At times, this realization that we hold class and racial biases can be unsettling.
Today I recommend that we come to terms with the even more disturbing recognition that some of the inequalities faced by Americans result not from our personal attitudes, but from our own Constitution.
It has become agonizingly apparent for this American that the U.S. Constitution does not adequately provide equality for all. At present, our Constitution denies millions of Americans the right to hold the exalted office of president.
Article II Section 1 states that "No Person except a natural born Citizen or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President."
Certainly this is an antiquated notion no longer appropriate today.
Jennifer Granholm might be a popular governor who has done a fine job in Michigan, but her Canadian birth certificate prevents her from forming an exploratory committee for 2008.
In 18 months, Arnold Schwarzenegger has turned around the troubled state of California, whose population is greater than most countries. He might be an exemplary American, but he shouldn't even think about trying to serve his adopted homeland in any higher capacity. Leave that to a real American.
This constitutional stipulation preys on the fear that we Americans are supposed to hold regarding the presidency. The framers of the 18th century did not wish anyone of foreign birth to ever become president. Should we still dread the thought of a great American, who happens to have been born somewhere else, holding the office of president?
How can we honestly encourage others to leave their homelands, promise them better lives in America and flat out deny them the most prestigious right that all Americans have the opportunity to enjoy?
Critics may brush aside this complaint as affecting only a few or as an attempt to stir controversy where none should exist. After all, only a small few even want to be president.
Ironically, today's efforts to amend the Constitution seek to take away rights by denying gay Americans the right to marry, whereas my proposal wants only to extend rights and promote real equality.
We cannot allow ourselves to shy away from this crisis. Too many good Americans will never enjoy the complete citizenship that I can take for granted for the rest of my life, simply because I was born on American soil.
Even if my parents and every single member of my most extended family came from foreign origins and loyalties, my birth on American soil ensures my eligibility to one day hold the highest office in the land.
My friend, who was not born of American parents or on American soil, can become a citizen, devote her life to serving her country, even become a member of Congress - but she can never run for president.
Therefore, "We the people of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union," should stay true to those very words and amend our Constitution accordingly.
It's not about extending the right to be president to all Americans per se, since many could care less about being eligible for the highest office. It's simply about extending equal rights to all Americans.
If my fellow naturalized American has committed no felonies and has all of her mental faculties but is ineligible to enjoy the same perks I can take for granted as a natural born citizen, then we do not live in a nation built on freedom, liberty, justice and equality.
In the movie, "The American President," Michael Douglas' character speaks of America as "advanced citizenship." I have always disliked that reference, because it goes against my notion of American freedom and liberty.
Yet, I have realized that America is indeed "advanced citizenship," since millions of Americans are discriminated against - in our own Constitution no less - based on where they were born. We may not want to acknowledge it, but the truth is that this form of discrimination is as old as our country itself.
Until our Constitution is amended to correct this inequity, Article II Section 1 might as well state: "All Americans are equal, but some are more equal than others."
(02/23/05 12:00pm)
In October, I was asked to participate in a panel discussion and "put the Bush administration in a historical context."
This pre-election forum asked me to look deep into the administration's record and come to terms with its place in the grand scope of U.S. history.
What I argued then and what I will argue now is that a Bush victory in November would have drastic implications for the administration's legacy and even more importantly for the future of U.S. foreign policy.
That victory is history and we are now embarking on what could be the age of "the Bush Doctrine."
U.S. history has witnessed several presidents gain notoriety for the doctrines associated with their names.
The Monroe Doctrine of 1823 stated that the United States would not tolerate the Europeans colonizing any part of the Americas, nor would the United States meddle in European affairs.
Eight decades later, Theodore Roosevelt issued his famous corollary to the rather passive Monroe Doctrine.
This addendum, part of Roosevelt's "Big Stick" approach to foreign policy, stated that the United States would intervene as a last resort to ensure that nations in the Western Hemisphere paid their debts and did not infringe on the rights of the United States.
A third creed familiar to Americans is the Truman Doctrine of 1947.
In a speech to Congress that year, Harry Truman announced that the United States would support "free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures."
This doctrine eventually gave way to "containment theory" in the Cold War battle against Communism.
What each of these dogmas has in common are the simultaneous assertions by the president that the United States was set on defending freedom and exercising hegemony, or preponderant power and influence.
The most recent attempt by an American president to ensure his legacy as defender of American liberty and prestige occurred just three years ago, with the declaration of the Bush Doctrine.
This doctrine, stating that the United States will pre-empt any and all attacks on its national security and the safety of its citizens, was the result of Sept. 11 and the renewed focus on international threats to the American way of life.
However, the Bush administration floundered when it put the doctrine into action.
More importantly, the president's decision to go to war with Iraq permanently tarnished international respect for American foreign policy, since the doctrine's maiden voyage resulted in "pre-empting" an attack that billions of people now know could never have been mounted against the United States.
The result? A supremely illegitimate quagmire costing well over the already astronomical White House estimates of one billion dollars per week.
The failure to properly implement the Bush Doctrine should take precedence over Bush's more popular proclivity to steal from the poor and give to the rich or his loathsome attempt to dismantle Social Security, which now dominates headlines.
After all, the hundreds of billions of dollars squandered by this administration, hundreds of thousands of lives lost, crusades against the Muslim world and loss of credibility all directly result from the invasion of Iraq, a country which proved to be about as much of a threat to U.S. national security - or any country's for that matter - as Canada or Switzerland.
Because all the original reasons for invading Iraq were proved false, our beloved government was faced with two options.
It could either admit its mistakes and take accountability for the hundreds of thousands who have died for no good reason or formulate new lies about spreading democracy and protecting freedom (the neo-conservatives' Wilsonian approach to justifying blatantly illegitimate foreign policy).
Fortunately, Bush governs at a time much unlike his predecessors, where transparency abounds and legitimacy is actually tested.
This administration has failed the test time after time. The Republican monopoly on all three branches of government should therefore disturb Americans.
Our greatest apprehension about the next four years should surround where Bush test drives his pre-emptive war doctrine next, and where he will ultimately crash and burn like he did in his invasion and occupation of Iraq.
(02/16/05 12:00pm)
In its first term, the George W. Bush presidency was marked by a series of tradeoffs. It traded the capture of a man who organized the flying of planes into the World Trade Center three-and-a-half years ago for the capture of Saddam Hussein, a man who did not. It traded saving billions of dollars that have since been squandered for giving tax cuts to the wealthy.
It traded a well-reasoned war in Afghanistan for a poorly reasoned one in Iraq.
The only thing the administration didn't attempt to trade was credibility, which remained at a constant level of zero.
Many Americans expect the Bush administration's luck to run out and for it to finally succumb to the dreaded "second-term curse" that has plagued past presidents fortunate enough to get re-elected.
For once I have good news for conservatives: don't worry, this man is untouchable.
Bush has managed to get re-elected despite a miserable economic record (usually the deciding factor in national elections), a dismal approval rating (he became the first president ever to go into election day with a rating below 50 percent and emerge victorious) and astronomically high record deficits that make Ronald Reagan look like a miser.
He did this while receiving more votes than any previous president.
In addition to its poor track record, the Bush administration is among the most corrupt in our nation's history.
Despite this, it has not caught any hell for its deceit, its complete lack of accountability and for the needless loss of life that occurred under Bush's watch. Right-wingers should feel free to sit back and relax - their man is the new Teflon president.
If history is any indication, Bush's second term will be even more corrupt than his first.
Ulysses S. Grant, our nation's 18th president, saw his second term ravaged by scandal and the appointment of two attorneys general in addition to the three that had served during his first term.
Richard Nixon's legacy speaks mightily of the second-term curse. News of the Watergate scandal broke during his second term.
After the famed "Saturday Night Massacre," in which he twice attempted to fire the special prosecutor that was investigating him, he was ultimately forced to resign in disgrace.
Yet even Watergate pales in comparison to the corruption that took place during the second term of Ronald Reagan's presidency. Fresh off a big election victory, the Reagan administration gave birth to the notorious Iran-Contra scandal.
Iraq, then our ally, was at war with Ayatollah-led Iran from 1980 to 1988. A hemisphere away, U.S.-backed Contras challenged Marxist Sandinistas in Nicaragua.
Earlier in the decade, Congress had passed the Boland Amendment, which disallowed government aid to the Contras.
Apparently, nobody bothered to tell this to National Security Council staffer Lt. Col. Oliver North, National Security Advisor Robert "Bud" McFarlane and a select group of other administration officials who diverted money to the very same Contras Congress had told them not to assist.
The scheme unfolded as follows. First, North and others used secret liaisons in Israel to contact Iranian officials, offering to sell U.S. missiles and weapons systems to the Iranians. The money from the weapons sales was then filtered to the Contras in violation of the Boland Amendment.
Not only did this devious plot deceive unsuspecting Americans, but it also broke numerous laws by engaging in trade with a terrorist nation.
North and the others involved in the dishonest ploy were tried and convicted but later had their convictions overturned on testimonial technicalities.
While they created a shield of plausible deniability that protected Reagan from facing criminal charges, their actions greatly tarnished the president's legacy.
Until now, no president has been immune from the curse. Woodrow Wilson saw his legacy as defender of democracy stained when he failed to gain support for the League of Nations during his second term.
Bill Clinton's legacy as a popular moderate and a champion of free trade got roughed up during his second term because he was a lousy family man.
Clinton's impeachment then set the stage for Bush's victory over Al Gore and the scandals that plagued Bush's cabinet.
On Mar. 3, 2003, Secretary of State Colin Powell sat before the United Nations and lied to the member nations for several hours about the existence of weapons of mass destruction. He is no longer serving, yet his resignation has nothing to do with being held accountable for his deceit.
In four years as attorney general, John Ashcroft infringed on countless civil liberties. He oversaw the roundup of more terror suspects - over 5,000 foreign nationals - than any other attorney general in history. Despite this, he failed to produce a single conviction that proved a terrorist conspiracy.
Not surprisingly, he was allowed to step down without paying any kind of price.
On Nov. 2, much of the world's population groaned as America elected Bush to a second term. Now that we're stuck with him, the least we can do is hold him accountable before the scandals spiral out of control.
(02/09/05 12:00pm)
Is this a sign of the end times? A self-proclaimed liberal is about to confront affirmative action. Contrary to what some might believe, I cannot think of a more important issue to speak about in my first column.
As a proud citizen of the most diverse and heterogeneous nation on the planet, I consider the call for racial equality to be an absolute priority.
I am pleased to be able to speak today about affirmative action, considering the constant criticism it has faced since its introduction into the public dialogue over 40 years ago.
I take great satisfaction as an American that my government understands the implications of the policies and decisions of its predecessors enough to continue to right the wrongs caused by their actions and promote justice throughout the United States to this day.
Fortunately, I can write to you today at a time when affirmative action policies are effective and still striving to promote equality among all Americans.
I am equally as proud to observe, read and hear about court rulings, referenda and executive decisions that limit or, in some cases, eliminate affirmative action policies.
Gasp! Yes, this liberal is proud to see affirmative action policies undergo severe scrutiny each year despite the still rampant racism, inequality and utter injustices plaguing our country. My sentiments spring from several reasons:
First, I hold a sturdy belief that our affirmative action policies have positively affected the lives of millions of minority Americans as well as countless non-minorities like myself.
Like many policies though, affirmative action is rightly a sort of living organism, subject to changes and adaptations. Let there be no mistaking it, affirmative action should not be practiced where it is no longer needed.
I believe there was a time when it was needed almost everywhere. However, just as Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson predicted four decades ago, the diligent use of affirmative action to create a more balanced culture of justice and equality has caused it to no longer be necessary in some parts of our country.
The best example of such a scenario can be found in California. Our nation's most populous state has not only adopted affirmative action laws but has also deeply embraced the entirely American concept of affirmative action to such an extent that its services are no longer necessary in the Golden State.
In 1996, the people of California - one of the most diverse political entities on the planet - voted to repeal all affirmative action policies within the state.
Is California 100 percent ethnically and racially equal? Of course not. Yet the success of its affirmative action laws until 1996 created an environment that sees more blacks, Latinos and other minorities in a wider variety of offices, leadership and other positions of influence.
Secondly, I support the increased scrutiny of affirmative action because like most long-range laws, affirmative action has been distorted over the years.
At times it has unfairly held back non-minorities while elevating unworthy minority Americans in what its opponents describe as "reverse discrimination."
Two clarifications need to be made here. First, reverse discrimination has taken place, but only in the rare instances where unqualified individuals have received preference over highly qualified non-minorities.
The second clarification is that these infrequent examples, however unfortunate they may be, in no way offset the gross injustices that have plagued this country for over 228 years.
My conservative friends repeatedly attack affirmative action, citing that two wrongs do not make a right. I could not agree more. Affirmative action is a concept that is by now deeply rooted in American culture.
The uncommon - while admittedly real - occasions where Americans have been discriminated against because they were non-minorities should not convince anyone that the millions who have benefited from affirmative action, do not inherently justify its practice.
My final explanation supporting the skeptical examination of affirmative action stems from it being a controversial yet incredibly worthwhile issue.
Critics take pleasure in citing the Supreme Court decisions like Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978), which invalidated that medical school's admission plan.
Alan Bakke twice applied to the university medical school at Davis and was twice rejected. Sadly, his GPA and test scores exceeded those of any of the minorities admitted in the two years when Bakke's applications were rejected.
I too love to cite this case, since the court rightly found in favor of Bakke, who was ultimately admitted, thereby minimizing white opposition to the goal of equality, while also voting 5-4 that race was permissible as one of several admissions criteria, subsequently extending gains for racial minorities through affirmative action.
It's OK to be critical of affirmative action. In America, it is your duty to be skeptical of the government's actions. This American is proud of affirmative action.
In the United States, we have a problem with equality and equal justice for all.
Rather than frivolously attack affirmative action policies that benefit Americans, conservatives should take solace in what Gordon Sinclair described as America putting its scandals "right in the store window for everyone to look at."
Affirmative action is an example of an extraordinary country's refusal to hide from its far from perfect past and forge ahead by promoting a culture of equality and justice that is truly for all.