Iran Wracked by Waves of Protests

by with No Comment FeaturedGen ZInternationalNews

Since December 28th tens of thousands of protesters have gathered all around Iran. The protests first began in the Northeastern city of Mashhad and constitute the largest outbreak of civil unrest in the country since the disputed 2009 presidential election and the wave of “Green Revolution” protests it caused. More than 20 people have died in the protests, which are still ongoing.

The demonstrations were initially sparked by concerns over the state of the country’s economy and the high prices of staple goods. After the lifting of sanctions under the nuclear deal, there was an expectation among Iranians that the economy would recover from its period of stunted growth, an outcome that has been slow to materialize. Youth unemploymenthas reached 40% and, not coincidentally, young people make up a large portion of the protesters. With all of these factors putting the country’s population on edge, the straw that broke the camel’s back and brought Iranians into the streets came in the form of a leaked draft budget which increased spending to the military and the clerical establishment while cutting subsidies for the poor.

Over the following week the protests developed from being focused on the state of the economy to being an open rebellion against the country’s repressive theocratic regime, with protesters chanting slogans such as “death to the dictator.” The country’s activist foreign policy has also become increasingly unpopular as many of its citizens struggle to make ends meet domestically. Iran has spent billions supporting proxies and allies in the region, such as the Syrian government, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and to a lesser extent the Houthis in Yemen.

The Iranian government has accused the protesters of being sponsored by foreign governments to create social unrest in the country and has cracked down pretty heavily on the protesters, using tear gas, water cannons, and other means in an effort to forcibly disperse them. According to human rights groups thousands of protesters have been rounded up and detained. Those arrested could potentially face brutal prison conditions or the death penalty, in a recent declaration made by the head of Iran’s Revolutionary Court. The regime has throttled internet access and blocked social media and messaging apps that had been used by the protesters to organize. As a result, the information coming out of the country began to slow leading to rumors of the protests dying out, but these turned out to be untrue. The government was also able to mobilize pro-government counter protests.

As of right now it is still too early to determine what will come of these protests. Some analysts are predicting the end of the regime while others expect the protests to fizzle out and amount to nothing. The protests seem to have no well-defined leadership, so it is unclear who, if anyone, would be able to lead a regime change. President Rouhani’s position has definitely been weakened and it is likely that the country’s security apparatus, especially the Revolutionary Guards will have seen their influence expanded asa result of their role in dealing with the protests.

Meanwhile, the US government has expressed support for the Iranian protesters. The Trump administration, which has already been openly hostile towards Iran and the Iranian government, has suggested the possibility of more sanctions depending on Iran’s reaction to the protest. The President has tweeted several times in support of the protests including tweeting that Iranians are finally “getting wise”. The United States requested an emergency session of the United Nation’s Security Council on the subject of Iran. The session was held on Friday and US Ambassador Nikki Haley took the opportunity to put Iran “on notice” that the US would not tolerate any human rights abuses. Other countries such as France and Russia voiced their dismay that the US was bringing what they viewed as an internal Iranian affair to the Security Council.

President Rouhani responded by saying that Donald Trump had no right to criticize Iran after calling them terrorists and preventing Iranians from entering the United States. Iranians don’t really care for President Trump and it’s unlikely that his tweets will have any effect on the protests. American sanctions as well as the United State’s wavering position on the nuclear deal are at least partially responsible for the economic stagnation that spurred the protests.

2018: Fast & Furious Politics?

by with No Comment FeaturedPolitics

Happy New Year! 2018 is here, and 2017 closes out the first year of Trump, a devastating hurricane season, more mumble rap, and of course another installment of the “Fast and Furious” franchise. Using the “Fast and Furious” franchise as a reference serves multiple purposes. Not because I’m a fan or non-fan, or because I even think the “Fast and Furious” franchise is good. It’s because it’s a good reference when comparing highly predictable actions and others that are completely unnecessary. No “Fast and Furious” movies needed to be made after the very first one back in the ancient year of 2001. Given all “Fast and Furious” movies have the same reoccurring scene with a car flying and Vin Diesel jumping out of it, and not even getting a paper cut in the process, the “Fast and Furious” movies aren’t the most surprising and cerebral movies to watch.

Now back to Happy New Year celebratory feel goods.

2018, will be much like 2017. Don’t be fooled. You just saw “Fast and Furious” 6, don’t think “Fast and Furious” 7 is going to turn into “Saving Private Ryan.” It’ll be another year of a company introducing a new phone and trying to convince us that the phone we already have is worthless, another year of a blockbuster flop and a blockbuster surprise, more mumble rap, a good sports story, a bad sports story, and then there’s Trump. Trump will have a profound effect on the political world, and I when I write world, I mean actual world affairs.

Trump’s first year largely swirled around domestic issues, he couldn’t help himself from not doing anything international. Trump in careless remarks or actions did the following: opted the United States out of the international Paris climate change treaty, one that even North Korea is on board with; during a photo opt shoved world leaders out the way to get in the front row of the picture, and engaged in a Drake/Meek Mill twitter battle with Kim Jong-Un. 2018 Twitter fingers may turn into trigger fingers (to quote Drake), and only Trump will be to blame.

Just like in the “Fast and Furious” movies Vin Diesel and company will not only save the day and get the girl, but will do it in even more of an exaggerated fashion than the previous installment, Trump’s hostile words and eventual actions towards rouge state leaders is getting worse and will continue to get worse by the Tweet.

North Korea is really a sideshow beef for Trump. His true objective is the last truly anti-American state with actual power and influence, Iran. UN Ambassador Nikki Haley and Trump in the final weeks of 2017 quietly gave the “whole world is watching” spills regarding recent protests of the government in Iran. Also, remember Trump campaigned against the Iranian nuclear agreement made under the Obama administration as being a terrible deal. Trump probably doesn’t know where Iran is on a map, but he does know that not much American business is being conducted there and that’s a problem for him. The extreme right, which Trump is clearly a part of, will lead you to believe Iran is a threat to the American way of life and the world is in danger. Akin to fear-mongering and the drumming of danger portrayed by George Bush in 2002, Iran is as much of a danger to the United States as “Fast and Furious” 7 will be nominated for the academy award picture of the year.

Iran really is an energy superpower with geographical and cultural importance that stands in the way of a complete American influenced middle east. Since 1979, and the fall the American-British propped Shah monarchy, Iran has been circled for revenge. Iran has never been surrounded geographically by American favoring states like it is now. Also, Iran had a strong relationship with Russia, one in which could easily go away with an American led and Russian backed military option against them. This is where 2018 could go from terrible Tweets and tax deals to actual boots and blood on the ground. Any unprovoked military and/or sanctions against Iran from the actual United States is completely unnecessary and can be avoided, just as I avoided “Fast and Furious” 7 for the longest until I saw it on HBO. [It was free, so don’t blame me.

Luckily, the 2018 midterm elections might stop the momentum. The Dr. Dre beats drumming for war can easily go to Great Value headphones if war hawk support for actions against Iran is defeated in November. In the meanwhile, in 2018 enjoy a terrible Super Bowl halftime performance, a viral meme, a catchy mumble rap song, and of course plans for another “Fast and Furious” movie. Things won’t change in Washington, especially with Trump in office.

2018 Resolution: Give the Benefit of the Doubt

by with 6 Comments FeaturedSports

In 2018, give everyone the benefit of the doubt. When someone challenges you in any way, whether in person or even on a Facebook post, assign them the best of possible intentions. Never villainize anyone. Imagine everyone as being the proverbial “Good Guy” in their own life’s story and therefore assume that their personal ethical code is meant to achieve the greatest good (for at least them, if not everyone else).

Think about a funeral. When reflecting on the recently departed, it is rare to hear slanderous and humiliating stories of misdeeds. More likely (except in rare cases of the truly miserable), the chatter and reflection on the deceased is almost fictionally flattering and fond.

This “photoshopping of character” is much more tenable postmortem. But it begs the question: why do we ever portray each other in a negative light? Is it to cast aspersions on someone who maintains an ethical position opposite our own? Is it out of jealousy? Is it because we see the possibly harmful ramifications of someone else’s actions and wish to manipulate their behavior via biting criticism?

Whatever the reason, framing another person in the worst possible light can only be detrimental to all parties. 2017 showed us how division and character assassination can be so poisonous and fatiguing to the National psyche. Maybe bridging the divide this year could be so much more attainable by appealing to the best in one another.

Let us refuse to hate those we disagree with and let us refuse to think about the world in terms of good and evil. We are all good. We are all worthy of love. We are all trying to live (and live well). We may have different ideas about what is best, but moving hearts and minds toward their greatest potential can never start with contempt.

In 2018: patience, positivity, optimism, and always the benefit of the doubt.

[2017 In Review] Reactionary Policy Kills Dreams (DACA)

by with One Comment FeaturedPolitics

Congress, which has an approval rating less than 20%, now controls the fate of nearly 800,000 immigrants. Time is running out. Considering this White House and everything that’s going on in the world, it’s easy to forget about this critical issue. A few months ago, one of our contributors wrote a compelling piece regarding illegal immigration and why this President is wrong.

Here’s the original article…

“Just as the DEA’s (Drug Enforcement Agency) work in the “war on drugs” is primarily reactionary, meaning most of their enforcement is done to those who do business after narcotics have entered the United States, illegal immigration enforcement efforts are primarily against the illegal immigrant and not against the structures supporting their illegal immigration.”

To further to my above statement (technically a run-on sentence), drug enforcement stops roughly just 1% of the illegal drugs that enter the United States. Since 1972, the United States via local, state, and federal law enforcement has spent over a trillion dollars ensuring little Johnny doesn’t smoke weed. What do we have to show for it? We have more than 2.6 million people in prison and over half of them are there for drug related “crimes.” That’s more than any other nation, a million more than China. Yes, that China, the one with 1.2 billion people. The one where basic freedoms aren’t allowed and anything and everything will land you in prison; yet, somehow their prison population is one million less. I digress.

Back to illegal immigration.

Remember the classic Denzel Washington movie “Training Day”? It’s classic because it came out 16 years ago – newborn babies who just arrived when it hit the theaters are now driving, yikes! Anyway, there’s a scene in which Denzel is sitting in a restaurant with three judges. One of the judges tells Denzel’s character, Alonzo, about a case in which a man avoided prison because he claimed insanity. His proof was spreading peanut butter between his buttocks, and when hearing about this, Alonzo says, “Well, he earned his freedom.”

So, what does “Training Day” and the war on drugs have to do with President Trump ending DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals)? First, let me explain exactly what DACA is. DACA is an Obama-era program that shields young undocumented immigrants from deportation. The purpose of DACA is to protect eligible immigrant youth from deportation who came to the United States when they were children.

Now, let’s start comparing. First, let me use the “Training Day” reference, and quite frankly, you can find a “Training Day” comparison for anything. When Alonzo said, “he earned his freedom” in reference to getting out of jail, I compare this to children who arrived in the United States via their parents. The children at 9 obviously couldn’t tell their parents, “Naw I ain’t going,” when forced to leave their country for the United States. For that, how can one realistically penalize them? Furthermore, for those children born in the United States, there’s a thing called the Citizen Clause in the 14th Amendment, in which it states, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” Even Trump should be able to decipher that one. Constitutionally speaking and common sense wise, the children have earned their right to be United States citizens. No need to join the military, recite the pledge of allegiance backwards, or take a test in which most Americans would fail, to solidify their citizenship.

That takes care of the children, now the parents.

By definition, an illegal immigrant is a foreigner who enters the U.S. without an entry or immigrant visa, especially a person who crosses the border by avoiding inspection or who overstays the period of time allowed as a visitor, tourist, or businessperson. And though many of us as Americans like to think we’re the greatest and most happening; we do have a lot going on for sure, but people aren’t risking it all to come here to just go to Chick-fil-a or watch a ballgame. No. People come here for a very specific reason. Primarily to land work and a chance to better their current situation. It’s as simple as that. They don’t come here to rape and pillage the American landscape.

Just like the DEA’s work in the war on drugs is mostly against dealers and those involved in the drug trade within US borders, enforcement of illegal immigration is mostly against individuals and not the structure or system which enables their efforts prior to illegally entering our country. Efforts against the businesses and entities supporting the lifestyle of one who is illegal aren’t enforced with the same punishment and veracity. Meanwhile, back at your typical Trump rally, the call to round up the owner of Jed’s construction, who employs and pays illegal immigrants, isn’t as loud as it is to remove the workers he employs who made efforts to come to the United States.

In other words, just like the DEA fails to stop the drugs from entering the United States, immigration enforcement fails to truly address the support structures that keep illegal immigration alive and well.

Lastly, I’m one who supports reasonable legal immigration efforts. I understand the need to address illegal immigration; but, unlike President Trump I also understand there needs to be more serious efforts and disdain directed towards the elements behind illegal immigration and not the person simply trying to make a buck… even if it’s only to buy a chicken sandwich.

This article was originally published on 8 September 2017.

More on DACA?

Trump Ends DACA, America’s Top Universities Respond

Starving Polar Bears Are Hard to Ignore

by with No Comment CultureFeaturedGlobal

The above image is what a polar bear should look like in their natural habitat. But unfortunately, a photographer witnessed the exact opposite in a recent trip to Baffin Island, which is the largest island in Canada and the fifth largest in the world.

https://youtu.be/hhErgCnHQ9M

Science and climate change shouldn’t be political issues; but apparently, they are very political. Paul Nicklen, a photographer from the conservation group Sea Legacy, recently captured this heart-wrenching video of a starving polar bear seemingly on his last days.

“We stood there crying—filming with tears rolling down our cheeks.” 

Regardless of your politics, this 54-second video is extremely hard to watch. And unless you believe this is a normal lifecycle for a polar bear, it’s hard to deny that climate change is real.

Is it too late to address this issue? And if not, do our leaders have the will needed to propose and implement the drastic changes it would require?

I think it’s important to note that polar bears historically hunt and eat less in the summer due to a number of factors, but this image is extreme, and not normal for most polar bears.

For reference, here’s another shot of what a healthy polar bear should look like…

Is Tillerson Next?

by with One Comment FeaturedGen ZPolitics

Rex might be on the way out. On October 9, 2017, we published an article detailing his troubles with the State Department. Since then, rumors of his feud with Donald Trump have continued. Our initial article below might include some of the reasons for what seems to be his inevitable departure.

[Rex Tillerson’s War Against the State Department]

Rex Tillerson has had a less-than-illustrious tenure as Secretary of State so far. Perhaps it’s because he seems to be more focused on reorganizing the department than on, you know, diplomacy. His striking lack of success has lead many to call for his resignation and for him to be called the “most ineffectual secretary of state since 1898,” by respected Foreign Policy columnist Max Boot. 

The Trump administration has made it exceedingly clear that it does not consider diplomacy a priority. According to some metrics compiled by the New York Times, under Tillerson’s leadership, the department has had its lowest profile in nearly half a century. Democracy promotion has been erased from the State Department’s mission statement and the Trump Administration has made every effort to cut key foreign aid programs. 

Part of the reason the department has been so ineffective is because the administration has failed to fill an inexcusable amount of key positions. Only one Assistant Secretary of State has been confirmed and the vast majority do not even have nominees. (Here’s a list compiled by The Washington Post of unfilled positions.) To put this in perspective the United States is currently facing a nuclear standoff in North Korea without an Undersecretary (or Assistant Secretary for that matter) for Arms control. While the federal government’s hiring freeze has been rescinded it remains in effect at the State Department. Until recently, state department officials were not allowed to serve on the National Security Council omitting an essential perspective from national security decisions. 

Tillerson’s mismanagement of the State Department has caused many senior diplomats to leave, further weakening State’s ability to conduct diplomacy. At the same time, Tillerson has suspended the prestigious fellowship programs that allow bright young minds to enter the department. Some of these fellows have their salaries paid by outside institutions, so Tillerson is essentially rejecting free labor. On top of all these other issues, there is growing evidence that the Secretary of State is on the outs with his boss. According to several sources, Donald Trump has become increasingly frustrated with Secretary Tillerson.

Just like pretty much everybody else in the government, lawmakers on Capitol Hill also seem to be fed up with the Secretary. The Senate Appropriations Committee passed a bill that completely upended the administration’s plans to make significant cuts to foreign aid and diplomacy initiatives – providing $11 billion more than requested. Not only did they allocate more funds than Tillerson wanted, they also included management amendments in the bill that severely limit the Secretary’s ability to reorganize the department. For example, the bill limits the size of the Policy Planning Staff – something that Tillerson had been expanding and that career State Department officials felt was undermining their ability to influence policy.

Now to be sure not everything Secretary Tillerson does is awful. His willingness to distance himself from Donald Trump’s remarks on Charlottesville is admirable and some of his reorganization initiatives do make a lot of sense. But the State Department still needs to serve its primary function – namely advancing US diplomatic interests – something it has not been able to do effectively under Rex Tillerson’s leadership. The decline of America’s diplomatic arm can only lead to an increased reliance on hard (military) power. A Senate report sums up this issue pretty nicely: “The lessons learned since September 11, 2001, include the reality that defense alone does not provide for American strength and resolve abroad. Battlefield technology and firepower cannot replace diplomacy and development.” 

This article was originally published on 9 October 2017.

“Sending Them Back To An Impoverished Land Is Simply Cruel!”

by with One Comment FeaturedPolitics
First Nicaragua, now Haiti…

On January 12, 2010, Haiti experienced a devastating 7.0 magnitude earthquake that ravished the island, killed more than 200,000 people, and displaced more than 1.5 million residents. Immediately following that earthquake they had a cholera outbreak that killed an additional 9,000 people, and just last year Hurricane Matthew slammed the island and damaged 80% of the homes. Considering the impact of the initial earthquake in 2010, Haitians were granted temporary status in the United States.

Their temporary protected status (TPS) was extended by John Kelly, the previous Secretary of State and current Chief of Staff. However, it was set to expire on January 22, 2018. With that being said, I think we’d be foolish to believe the extensions would continue considering Trump’s campaign stance on immigration. Also, for the past few months administration officials have been echoing his position on immigration, specifically mentioning their intent to end special programs like TPS that allow Haitians to stay and work in the United States. And not just Haitians, Nicaraguans TPS ends January 2019, and a decision for Hondurans and El Salvadorians is expected to be made soon – in all, roughly 325,000 people representing 10 countries.

On September 18, 2017, members of South Florida’s congressional delegation, both Democrats and Republicans, including Frederica Wilson and Marco Rubio, wrote a bipartisan letter to the acting Secretary of State Elaine C. Duke requesting an 18-month extension (July 2019) for the 60,000 Haitian immigrants in the United States. And last night, the officials from the Department of Homeland Security announced plans to do just that.

Their bipartisan letter stated…

“The government of Haiti has outlined plans to rebuild the country and boost economic activity, and the United States remains steadfast in assisting Haiti. In order to allow full implementation of these efforts, and given the ongoing extraordinary conditions in Haiti, we urge you to extend the TPS designation for 18 months, within all applicable rules and regulations, for Haitian nationals who are currently living in, and contributing to, our great country.” 

This letter was signed by 10 members of South Florida’s congressional delegation, from both parties. If there were no plans for an additional extension, is 18-months was considered a win? Also, do Florida Republicans like Marco Rubio deserve credit for joining their Democratic colleagues in signing this letter?

Why did they decide to write a letter? Well many Haitians here in the U.S. under TPS reside in South Florida. Many of them work in healthcare, and according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, their immediate absence would cause a shortage in labor, which would likely have a negative impact on South Florida’s economy. 

When asked about this sudden announcement, Gary Coichy, a Haitian American and marketing professional in NYC, said…

“How quickly do we forget the catastrophic earthquake that struck Haiti in 2010. TPS has allowed these Haitians a new sense of hope, a new start. No statistical data can point to Haitians causing violence or committing any act of terrorism. This action by the U.S. Government is inhuman and illogical. There’s ways to monitor this program and ensure they go through the due process to become legal Aliens. Sending them back to an impoverished land is simply cruel!” 

Is there anything that can be done? Is this an example of Trump over-stepping with his aggressive immigration agenda, or should such policy decisions be viewed as customary and inevitable?

Regardless of how you might feel politically, it’s hard to believe that Haiti’s economy and infrastructure will be prepared to welcome and support 60,000 people in just 18 months.

Louis C.K…. Forgive or Forget?

by with 2 Comments CultureFeatured
[Balance is the goal of this article, not division, or an attempt to go easy on a millionaire who has been accused of and admitted to sexual misconduct. People want to put everyone in one of two bins, and it’s not always that simple.] 
The current Women’s movement promoting equal rights, equal pay, and an abolition of sexual abuse/harassment is unquestionably good and long overdue. Women are uniting to win elections, overturn sexist laws, and now publicly destroy powerful Men who are guilty of the most vile and sexist offenses.
This battle will not be won by simply bringing down the bad guys. This battle can only be won when our collective society changes its behavior, its words, and its tone. 
I remember when “fag” was a regular part of the American Language – used as an insult. Obviously, the insult was that being “gay” or “homosexual” is a terrible thing to be, so “fag” was equivalent to calling someone terrible.
The movement to end the stigmatization of the LGBTQ community required that “fag” be dropped from colloquial usage. I remember this transition. Really good, non-homophobic people had to retrain themselves NOT to say “fag” as it had become so pervasive a word that even LGBTQ people used it derogatorily at times.
Monkey see, monkey do. We are a very imitative species. So, when Men are trained to aggressively pursue Women by their fathers, by the media, by their own primal urges, and often by Women themselves (50 Shades of Gray), it means that Men will not easily be retrained into the modern Gentleman that currently Progressives demand.
Is this any excuse for rape? Sexual abuse? Using power to coerce Women (and Men as did Kevin Spacey) into compromising situations?
NO. Inarguably, NO!
But as we clarify the lines of sexual engagement in the 21st Century, let us all be very clear about the nuances of these situations and what is at stake. When we take down criminals or bad actors to shift the status quo towards a more enlightened society, let us be sure the collateral damage is minimal. Let us use a very specific brush to address villainy and not such a wide brush that every Man (and some Women) are swept into the mix, subject to irreversible, debilitating public shame and scrutiny, regardless of the severity of their misconduct.
Because: not every sexual misconduct is exactly as terrible as the next. For instance, a Man who aggressively pursues a phone number at a bar is not as terrible as a Man who stalks, beats, and rapes a Woman. Furthermore, a Man who gropes a Woman’s genitals without consent is worse than a Man who asks a Woman if he can masturbate in front of her and then does not proceed to do so when he is denied permission. 
So, let’s address Louis C.K. and the damning New York Times article that just came out alleging he sexually abused 5 Women over a decade ago (which he has since admitted to). Louis C.K.’s entire career now seems doomed because of his actions, but only if his actions are unforgivable and his behavior unchanged.
From his response letter, it’s clear that he knows what he did was wrong. He also clearly stated why he was wrong, why he mistakenly thought he was justified at the time of the misconducts ten years ago (all the Women either gave consent or rejected his offer to masturbate in front of them at which time he ended his pursuit), and why it was wrong that his manager tried to suppress the accusations just to keep their business aspirations undamaged.
Although this admission of guilt and the ensuing apology does not absolve him, Louis C.K. has handled this situation the way we hope every person accused of wrongdoing would handle it: by admitting the guilt, apologizing, and trying to make amends.
Should he be let off the hook entirely? Clearly, no. Should he be banished from the art world and public society forever because he pursued sexual fetishes with Women he misread? That will be up to the personal sense of justice from every individual who reads about Louis C.K.’s behavior and his recent response letter.
Some might want Louie to go down in flames for these misconducts.
Some might see his actions as mistakes that deserve condemnation, but not crucifixion.
Some might not see anything wrong with what he did at all (Trump is still our President after all and has admitted to doing much worse – physically and sexually assaulting Women without consent – and he’s still the President).
I realize this is a sensitive issue for many and that taking any kind of position which might cast favorable light on a Man that has admitted to sexual abuse (even if not as severe as Weinstein or Spacey or Trump) could elicit a negative reaction, but I implore all Women and Men to try and see everything as clearly and unbiased as possible.
Louis C.K. has been recognized as a powerful ally to Women over the past ten years since his misconducts, but these revelations to the public in this current amplified climate all but assure that he will be ineffective as such moving forward.
Can we accept Louis C.K.’s apology and let him continue to have a voice in artistic and moral discussions moving forward? Once again, it’s up to you and your own personal sense of justice. 

The Life And Times of Bowe Bergdahl

by with One Comment FeaturedGlobal

Bergdahl is going home. Getting to that answer has taken the Army more than three years – after the Obama administration traded him for five of the worst terrorists in Guantanamo. There’s a lot to unpack in this.

Working backward:

Bowe Bergdahl was a dumb kid who did dumb kid things. While that’s true, sometimes dumb kid things get you killed or land you in prison in awful places of the world – just ask Otto Warmbier who went to North Korea against all advice, was imprisoned for stealing a poster from his hotel hallway and was released by the DPRK after 17 months in his final days after what seems to have been massive brain damage from torture. Neither Bergdahl nor Warmbier deserved such consequences, but that’s beside the point – sometimes the costs of bad decisions are too much to bear. I don’t fault the military judge who decided five years in the awful place Bergdahl was locked away was enough. That military judge was making a decision based on facts and circumstances and American justice. I probably would have given prison time, but that isn’t the painful issue to me. The painful issue is that we traded to get Bergdahl back at all.

The decision to trade him back fits with President Obama’s core beliefs. They are beliefs I don’t demonize, but in this application, I deeply disagree. President Obama pardoned or commuted huge numbers of people whom he believed were US citizens who were in jail beyond the bounds of justice. This fits solidly with that tenet of justice he holds dear. It’s a good concept, and while I may not have made those commutations, the decision to do so is not outrageous and is consistent with much of his world view. The decision also fits with President Obama’s longstanding view that Guantanamo should be closed. Releasing five of the worst inmates in the entire place certainly seems to reduce the level of need on many of the other members. Again – his concept of American justice is not invalid, but in practice these people were there because short of murdering them, there seemed no other way to remove them from a world of free people those individuals were determined to kill and maim. They were not in prison to serve time, but to keep them away from those they would harm. In one stroke, the president moved closer to both of those objectives which were noble in concept, consistent with good values and extremely dangerous to the long term safety of Americans and the West.

Most of those prisoners in Guantanamo were captured at great risk to American lives. By all rights, they should have died on the battlefield in Afghanistan rather than being captured. That we went to such pains to take them alive was due to an over-arching need for information about the attacks they had just unleashed on the US and a sense of fear that they had more already in planning. In trying to learn what we could from them, we did a number of things America says it doesn’t believe in – including torture and indefinite extra-judicial detention. That was misguided and horribly unfortunate, but we are at much greater risk for their release.

Also at issue is the precedent we set by trading so many high profile people for such a marginalized soldier – captured by his own criminal act of desertion for reasons that still seem either frivolous or simply disingenuous. Such actions show that the way for terrorists to engineer further releases is through further capture of American citizens. In the coming years we will likely re-learn what the hostage negotiators of the 60s and 70s learned about negotiating with terrorists: it breeds more negotiation with more terrorists.

Bowe Bergdahl didn’t deserve another term in a US prison, but he did deserve to spend whatever time was due with the Taliban until a US force could find him and mount a real rescue operation that kept those evil men we had separated from society in a place where they could do no more harm. It wasn’t the prison Bergdahl deserved, but it was the right and rational consequence of his circumstances. The “Taliban Five” are already largely back plotting death and destruction to the West – and they are among the few free, living people alive who remain from the pre-9/11 days who are really, really good and experienced at doing just that.

Additionally, we’ve set the precedent that any American traveling abroad is a living, breathing ticket to release the worst terrorists ever to speak the words “Death to America.” President Obama did truly act in a manner that’s consistent with most of what we value as Americans in making what I’m sure was a hard choice. Unfortunately for us, I fear no good deed will go unpunished.

Defining Black Republicans

by with No Comment CultureFeaturedUncategorized
Two Facebook friends of mine… Catherine Z…. She’s a young black woman who is supportive of the current NFL player protests, solid approval of President Obama, and is indifferent regarding universal healthcare. One of her profile pictures was the 2008/2016 split Obama first family portrait. And her most current post states “Yessss ‘Auntie Maxine,’ get em!” Safe assumption – she either votes Democrat or leans to the left. She also has a master’s degree in finance and works for an accounting firm.
Second Facebook friend… Matt Y… Despite Matt only having a high school diploma with no college education, he actually works for the same accounting firm with Catherine. Surprisingly (or maybe not surprisingly), they have the same title and role. Matt is nearing retirement at the age of 56. He thinks the NFL player protests are inappropriate for a sporting event, doesn’t agree with universal healthcare (though will take part in Medicare), and feels the media has attacked Trump more than any other president. His Facebook profile pic is a bald eagle, in fact, none of his profiles pic are of his face, just run of the mill patriotic stuff. His most current post states Trump has eliminated 5 trillion dollars of debt (which if he did do that, it would be 25 percent of the 20 trillion-dollar national debt) since taking office. Spoiler alert, Matt votes Republican.
They argue on Facebook, well, their respective friends argue, about everything from climate change, Hilary Clinton’s emails, and the ultimate fun-filled topic ‘Black Lives Matter.’ Catherine and Matt represent the viewpoints of people who look like them, with very little middle ground.  
So how did we get here as a nation? 
Our nation is divided politically into a two-party system. Both the Republican and Democratic parties have stockpiled their support mainly based on demographics that currently exist due to the racial and gender divisions in our nation’s history. The Democrats don’t make any secrets about who they’re for. They’re for freedom of sexual orientation, women, Black folk, Latinos, and those born after 1970.
The Republican party profoundly professes the opposite. They promote the adages of “small government,” “states’ rights,” and “fiscal responsibility,” and they claim not to see color, gender, or other demographics. However, the recent history of Republican talking points and policies show the exact opposite of the aforementioned adages. Republicans have made significant efforts in derailing the progression of any group or person that doesn’t identify as a White Christian male. Historically, Republicans were the party against prohibition, the party in which 80% of its members voted to pass the 1964 civil rights bill, and of course, started as the party for emancipation. Fast forward, and the Republican party since Nixon has doubled-down on its whiteness in every sense of the word. With that being the situation at hand, “You a Black Republican?,” was a very common response I received from all walks of life between 2006-2012. I know Q Tip on an old tribe record once said,”Never give a date.” However, I want to make it clear that I was a Republican only for a certain period of my life.
So how does a young black man born in the Democratic stronghold of Maryland end up being a Black Republican? Like most Black Republicans, I think it’s important to state that my political ideology at an early age was shaped by personal political preference without the thought of demographics. 
I strongly believe the government should be conservative in its actions. I believe the government should not be quick to act or change without careful review, which is the very definition of political conservatism. I believe the federal government should be small, tax in an appropriate manner, and spend on services that directly benefit the people. Fiscal conservatism and social progression was the hallmark of the Republican party. The party was hijacked by extremists and flat-out racists in the late 1960s. From that point forward, the ranks of Christian conservatives and now the Trumpbots have taken over the party. Black Republicans don’t personally harbor those radical feelings, so they ignore the ape pictures of Obama and extremists like Representative Steve King who pose questions like, “Where did any other subgroup of people (other than white) contribute more to civilization?” Yes, he said that without any pushback or criticism from his fellow party members.
Unlike Trump surrogates, when Black Republicans talk about “fiscal responsibility” it’s safe to assume they truly are talking about the government mismanaging resources. They really do think the Democrat party has been a crux to black people via sponsoring aid programs like food stamps and housing aid. For this, they reject social programs and reject the party of help, the Democrats. Their outlook and desire for a Black America, nondependent of any government resource, is their calling – it was mine. Black Republicans don’t want to tackle racism. They don’t want to accept the fact most political mindsets and policies in this nation are the product of demographics, not pure ideology. Lastly, Black Republicans have a strong belief that overly presenting race as an issue is a pillar of the issue itself. 
The recent surge of radical divisions along demographic lines during the 2016 Presidential campaign has caused many Black Republicans to reconsider their affiliation with their party, or at least with a party that does not denounce blatant racism. Wedge issues like the NFL player protests and the removal of Confederate flags and monuments have exposed the true mindsets of many. A danger most Black Republicans ignored; yet, prominent Black Republican’s like Michael Steele to Colin Powell, have publicly denounced such sentiment and have thankfully not sided with their party. With that being said, they are still Republicans – a decision and position that speaks volumes.  
Want to read similar content from the Left, Center, Right? SUBSCRIBE for only $2/month.