You are currently browsing the tag archive for the 'Obama' tag.
Cool article from Reuters… Go consumer power! How many of y’all are buying organic, free-range turkey this year?
By Basil Katz
NEW YORK (Reuters) – Despite the worst U.S. recession in decades, sales of organic and sustainable products have continued to grow, experts say, with shoppers willing to spend a few more dollars in a bid to become more green.
U.S. supermarket sales of environmentally sustainable or “ethical” products — from energy-efficient light bulbs to organic produce — will rise about 8.7 percent in 2009 to nearly $38 billion, according to a recent study by Packaged Facts, a market research provider.
President Barack Obama’s commitment to tackle climate change, a string of scandals over tainted food and effective marketing of sustainable products have helped convince more Americans, whose environmental credentials lag behind Europeans, to buy green.
The hip-hop heavyweight is on a college tour, though audiences should expect to hear more weighty rhetoric than witty rhymes.
Cross-post by Delaney Rohan, Campus Progress
Laying his rap talents aside for an evening, critically-acclaimed hip-hop artist Lupe Fiasco gave George Washington University students a lesson in history this week. But unlike what’s taught in closed-door college classrooms, this lesson belonged to anyone who would listen.
Facing a darkened auditorium of over 100 students, Fiasco, drenched in a spotlight, began the evening by reading a now exalted speech Muhammad Ali once made in protest of the Vietnam War.
Why should they ask me to put on a uniform and go 10,000 miles from home and drop bombs and bullets on brown people in Vietnam while so-called Negro people in Louisville are treated like dogs and denied simple human rights? No I’m not going 10,000 miles from home to help murder and burn another poor nation simply to continue the domination of white slave masters of the darker people the world over.
Nearly 40 years later—with America still mired in Iraq, the Obama Administration contemplating sending 40,000 additional troops to Afghanistan, and nearly 50 million people lacking access to health care –Ali’s message remained emotionally relevant.
While on the campaign trail for the 2008 election Barack Obama often extolled the virtues of the Afghanistan War, contrasting it sharply with the disastrous Iraq War which he had vociferously protested. A year after winning that election, he faces arguably his toughest political decision to date: should he send more troops to Afghanistan? The debate within the White House appears to be focused on how Obama should continue this war (more troops or more sophisticated technology such as unmanned drones) as opposed to why he should. In reality, sending in more troops is delaying the inevitable and Obama must put an end to this war as soon as possible.
The first reason to end this war is the lack of clarity over the war’s objective. In March, the President stated that his goal in Afghanistan was to “to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al-Qaeda”. Yet most experts will tell you that al-Qaeda is a diminished force which has largely fled Afghanistan. It would be more prudent for the U.S. to concentrate on defeating al-Qaeda in countries such as Yemen and Somalia, which have recently become a hotbed for Islamic extremists, while paying more attention to the tinderbox that is Pakistan. Unfortunately, the U.S. is bogged down in a perpetual battle with the Taliban at huge human cost for all concerned. The War in Afghanistan has evolved into another nation-building exercise, despite the fact that Obama stated that “We are not going to be able to rebuild Afghanistan into a Jeffersonian democracy“.
The military is ostensibly in Afghanistan to protect the U.S. from future al-Qaeda attacks, yet how many of al-Qaeda’s most devastating attacks have been organized from Afghanistan? 9/11? Yes. The attacks provided the casus belli for the war. The 2002 Bali Bombings? No. They were planned in Thailand. The 2004 Madrid Bombings? No. They were planned in Spain and North Africa. The 2005 London Bombings? No. They were planned in England. The idea that the War in Afghanistan will protect the U.S. from future attacks is naïve and myopic.
So if you hadn’t heard, Power Shift Regional Summits have been happening all over the country (check out the map for a summit in your area). This weekend, Power Shift Pennsylvania pulled off our own summit at Penn State University.
While I hope to submit additional posts on the overall turnout, content of each panel and activists work around the first week of Senate hearings on the Kerry-Boxer bill, I want to start with the discussion that I found most interesting–the panel I facilitated on How Coal & Natural Gas Disrupt Communities and Degrade the Environment.
Presenting were Andrew Munn, from the Student Environmental Action Coalition (SEAC), Jay Sweeny and Brady Russell from Clean Water Action (CWA), Stephanie Simmons from both CWA and the Sierra Club, and Raina Rippel from the Center for Coalfield Justice and the newly formed Alliance for a Coal-Free Generation.
Andrew has been working and living in the Coal River Valley in West Virginia, working with communities affected by Mountaintop Removal. Jay and Brady have been working with communities affected by Natural Gas drilling into the Marcellus Shale in Pennsylvania, along with Stephanie. And Raina has been doing some amazing organizing against Longwall Mining in her community.
Guest Post by Amanda Young with commentary from Laura Kavanaugh
Earlier this week, comments made by General McChrystal concerning the strategy in Afghanistan were leaked to the press. He called for a new strategy because he believes the current one will lead to mission failure (a strong statement that has raised concerns). The military has already begun to relocated troops from the sparsely populated mountainous regions that are difficult to cities. This move is in hopes that we can begin to rebuild cities, protect the Afghan people, and help strengthen the government.
After eight years in Afghanistan a mission focused on civilian protection, reconstruction, and strengthening the Afghan government that will lay the groundwork for a responsible exit sounds like the right plan, but the General believes more resources are needed for this strategy to succeed. In this case “resources” means American soldiers. Many people speculate that the general will ask President Obama for more troops to be sent to Afghanistan today, even though President Obama made it clear during his interview on Meet the Press that, “Until I’m satisfied that we’ve got the right strategy I’m not gonna be sending some young man or woman over there- beyond what we already have”. President Obama’s decision has become even more difficult now that current polls show that the majority of Americans no longer support the war.
Afghanistan has witnessed 30 years of war and America and its allies have an important responsibility to establish security and support the reconstruction of the country’s infrastructure and rule of law systems. Many agree on this goal, but disagree on the correct strategy – will a troop surge further reconstruction efforts or fuel discontentment in the region and among Americans impatient to bring our troops home? Are we repeating mistakes made in Iraq by burdening the military with reconstruction missions typically carried out by civilian specialists? How can we increase the capacity of USAID (still w/o an administrator) and the State Dept quickly to ensure that the military’s efforts are appropriately supported?
To learn more about General McChrystal’s recommended strategy and President Obama’s interview with Meet the Press click here:
General McChrystal: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8266072.stm
President Obama: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32935603/ns/meet_the_press//
After five months in the Middle East and far too many hours on airplanes, I’ve settled in for a summer with Americans for Informed Democracy. I’ll be AIDemocracy’s Global Development Campaign Intern for the next two months before starting my final year at American University. If it weren’t for the frightening level of humidity, I’d be overjoyed to be back in Washington.
At this point, I’m smiling before people have even finished asking me where I studied abroad. If mentioning my first semester in Nairobi, Kenya, doesn’t cause people’s eyes to pop out of their heads, telling them I’ve just arrived from Cairo, Egypt, certainly does. When they’ve recovered from their shock, most people smile and ask me how I liked Africa and the Middle East. I can’t help feeling that they’re inwardly wondering why a sweet girl like me would choose to live in the big, scary, developing world with the Muslims, starving children, and deadly water-born diseases. Maybe that’s just my own paranoia.
I’m frustrated, I suppose, that my study abroad choices generate so much surprise. First of all, Kenya and Egypt are not scary places. There are certainly dangerous conflict zones in Africa and the Middle East, but there are many more beautiful places full of kind people who will draw you into their homes and lives with both arms. Second, these are the two regions about which Americans know the least—aren’t those the places I should be going as a student? I was in Nairobi following Kenya’s violently contested December 2007 elections, in Egypt following Obama’s inauguration, and in Syria for his historic address to the Muslim World. How could professors, government officials, or the American media possibly teach me more about global politics, ethnic and religious conflict, and the perspectives of people in other parts of the world? We should really be surprised that more students aren’t studying in Cairo, Nairobi, Damascus, Accra, Amman, or Abuja.
Nearly a half a century ago, following the economic slump of the Post-War era, President Eisenhower created the largest infrastructure plan in American history. Using modern technology, the Federal Highway Act of 1956, connected the major cities of the United States. While creating millions of jobs from architects and engineers, to day labors and surveyors, this program also led to the American obsession and dependence with the automobile. We have a present opportunity, as a Nation, to redesign our infrastructure with the technology that exists today, to connect our cities using fast, clean, and efficient high-speed rails. With the passage of the stimulus bill, the federal government has allocated $8 billion to the development of high-speed rails within 11 corridors throughout the country. Working in corporation with state governments and private businesses, this decade long project is apart of the current administration’s commitment to revitalize our society. For the last several years state governments have proposed high-speed rails to connect regional cities. States like Florida, California, and Texas have experienced rapid growth and suburban sprawl. Clogged roadways and interstates beyond capacity have caused residents to lobby for alternative methods of travel. Coupled this with the increase in fuel costs and the rise of environmental consciousness, legislation in several states have passed to begin development of high-speed rails. With the investment of $8 billion by the federal government and an additional $5 billion over the next five years, the proposed rails will become a reality. Using a strategic plan that must be submitted to Congress by mid-April, the Federal Railroad Administration must determine the guidelines of the project, such as: what corridors are the first to be developed, the amount of grants to distribute, and a timeframe of completion. There is also a provision that obligates the federal government to provide high-speed funding as part of its budget by 2012. However, the bulk of the responsibility falls on individual states, such as financing and development contracts. The construction of the rails would be half as expensive than to develop new freeways or runways and can carry large amounts of people as well as light freights. When redesigning its infrastructure, the US should consider its rate of growth. Major cities like San Francisco, Chicago, and Dallas; cities that are plagued with congestion and pollution issues have begun doing so. The new high-speed rails will decrease the amount of congestion on the roads and airports as well as relieve the necessity to further expand them. Travel time will greatly decrease as cities are connected. Traveling at 220 mph between San Francisco and Las Angelas will only be 2.5 hours. As an alternative means to travel, the new trains will be electric powered, saving about 324 lbs of CO2 on a trip from San Francisco to Las Angales. The savings will be even greater with the expansion of alternative energy such as solar, wind, and geothermal as a means to power the United States. As the population of the United States continues to grow, the effects will be felt in all sectors. More energy is then consumed, more resources depleted, more land is then developed, more sprawl occurs. The Obama administration has provided funds to a program that would not be able to exist without it. Not only will the federal government create skilled jobs throughout this country by the increase in productivity, it will lesson our environmental impact and progress the United States’ Environmental Agenda.
The New Republic has a piece this week that really has gotten me thinking. In “In Which We Engage” Leon Wieseltier explores the role of human rights in the President Obama’s foreign policy and expounds upon a classic international relations condundrum: liberal ideals versus pragmatic realist strategies. While Wieseltier lauds the administration’s diplomatic engagement with various governments and regimes, he also has a sobering reminder: “But sooner or later we will hit the limit of what conscience can bear. There are only so many tyrants and terrorists we can engage before we stain our principles, before the politesse becomes repulsive.” Wieseltier’s comment raises a tough question: when does dialogue with a rights-abusing regime stop being diplomatically constructive and begin to be interpreted as a tacit acceptence of undemocratic practices?
This question is particularly relevant given recent developments in the U.S.’s policy towards Iran. President Obama recently sent a recorded video mesage to Iranian citizens. Many analysts noted that the President’s use of Iran’s official name, The Islamic Republic of Iran, was a signal to Iranian officials that his administration would not continue the Bush administration’s policy of regime change. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has also vowed that the U.S. will continue to reach out to Iranian officials, despite their rebuff of the video message.
The Foreign Office of the United Kingdom, however, has recently published a report on human rights, including Iran in its 18 “countries of concern”. British officials noted the harassment of activists, legal discrimination against women, and persecution of religious and ethnic minorities, concluding that “Iran’s human rights record today is dismal”.
Even as someone who has consistently cheered the Obama administration’s efforts to engage Iran diplomatically, reports like this one do make me wonder whether or not these efforts are effectively rewarding, or even legitimizing, an oppressive regime. Does talking to the likes of Ahmadinejahd reward his outrageous behavior? These questions are certainly not limited to Iran; the United States regularly engages with a number of governments who have less than stellar human rights records. But does that make it ok? Should we restrict or limit our engagement with governments who are abusive or undemocratic? Is that even a realistic option? How do we tell the “good” governments from the “bad” ones? It’s a double-edged sword; many countries are quick to point out America’s own questionable practices.
I don’t pretend to know the answers to these complex questions and I would be interested to hear others’ opinions. As far as Iran, I tend to think that the Obama’s administration strategy has so far been a good one. Diplomacy is necessary; the silent treatment and bullying of the Bush administration played directly into the hands of Ahmadinejahd and other conservatives who played the role of victim for their own political benefit. However, the administration cannot forget that the Islamic Republic is in many ways a totalitarian regime. Discussions of human rights and political freedoms should be treated with equal importance as discussions of Iran’s nuclear program.
