From the calm and measured intelligent discourse of cable news to the hard hitting in-depth stories of the Associated Press, the debate is raging.  Should we send more troops to Afghanistan?

The debate is usually very narrowly defined: “Are there enough troops in Afghanistan to win?” or “If we send more troops is winning possible?” Assuming that the war is “winnable,” does that make it right to wage it?

Let’s put the shoe on the other foot for a moment.  If Afghanistan invaded the U.S., and Afghan TV debated about whether the war against the American terrorists was winnable, how would we feel about it?

If Pashtun and Tajik pundits callously debated how many more troops it would take to pacify Washington, D.C., would Americans just accept occupation and greet the invaders as liberators?  Or would we fight to defend our homeland?  The Afghan people are no different than us. No one likes being occupied.

Whether most Afghans agree with the Taliban’s ultra-strict version of Islam or not is irrelevant.  When your country is under attack, you join up with whoever can expel the occupiers.  Find this hard to believe?  Don’t forget how we gave Bush a blank check to do whatever he wanted when our country was under attack.

The common justification for the occupation of Afghanistan has been the Sept. 11 attacks.  We had a responsibility to bring the hijackers and those that supported them to justice, to bring peace to the families of the victims.  We haven’t caught bin Laden in eight years. All we’ve done is kill more innocent people.

Do Americans even know who we are fighting in Afghanistan?  When the Russians invaded Afghanistan in 1979, the U.S. sent hundreds of millions of dollars to train and equip the most radical jihadists it could find.  We funded these radicals through Pakistan’s ISI, and one of our star subjects was Osama bin Laden.  All of these fundamentalists, who we armed and trained 30 years ago are now our “enemies.”

Ronald Reagan called them “the freedom fighters of Afghanistan.”  Now, they are “terrorists.” This is the monster we’ve created with our arrogance and ignorance.  Every time the U.S. sticks its nose where it doesn’t belong, it makes the situation worse.

Now we’re arming and training warlords, drug lords, and criminals to fight the fundamentalists.  But who are we going to pay to fight the warlords 20 to 30 years from now?  When does the cycle of violence end?  Do we ever learn our lesson?

The central government of Hamid Karzai, who just stole an election, only controls 20 percent of the country.  So, if this is the status after eight years, the only thing more troops will do is lead to more deaths of US soldiers and Afghan civilians.  This of course leads to more recruits for the Taliban, and the U.S. has to send more troops.  This bloodshed can go on forever if we don’t put a stop to it right now.

Russia invaded Afghanistan in 1979, and the mujahideen bled their empire dry. President Carter’s National Security Adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, came up with the idea of funding Afghan rebels to draw the Soviets in to defend their proxy government.

Brzezinski describes the game, “We didn’t push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would … That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Soviets into the Afghan trap…”  Russia spent 10 years there, and it bled their empire dry.

Now it appears that bin Laden is laying the trap for us, and we fell for it: hook, line, and sinker.  Will we be the next empire to die in Afghanistan?

As Jeremy Scahill, author of “Blackwater” and an expert on military affairs, said, “The United States occupation is the single greatest recruitment tool for the insurgency in Afghanistan, including the Taliban.”  Does bombing Afghan wedding parties, killing dozens of civilians instantly and suddenly make Afghans want to sing the Star Spangled Banner?  Of course not.  It justifiably makes them want to kill us.

The truth is this: The fewer troops we have there, the less power and appeal the Taliban will have.  Let’s get the hell out of the Land of the Pashtuns as soon as possible, which would give the Afghan people a real chance to sort out their own affairs, and find their own democratic voice.

In an unprecedented move, it was announced recently that the Obama administration would cut the salaries of 25 top executives of the seven largest banking firms in the country. For a presidential administration to propose wage control on a major company is a slippery slope toward government control.

It’s an insult to the free market system. Wage control should not be government-driven, but market-driven. If the company loses money, then the wages should be cut naturally, because there isn’t enough money in the company to sustain the large salaries, but for the government to tell a company what they can pay or not pay frankly is none of the their business.

I know these are unprecedented times, which call for unprecedented measures. Last year was the worst financial year since the Great Depression, and the federal government took the unprecedented steps of bailing out the seven largest banking systems with the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) and $700 billion.

With so much money riding on the line, it is prudent for the executive branch to keep a sharp eye on the seven companies in question, and it could be done with transparency by embarrassing the seven companies by revealing to the public their exorbitant salaries and bonuses. The government has done this, but to tell them how to run their businesses is just a little too much government interference.

When we allow our government to trample on our freedom for our protection and security, then we are giving up part of our freedom that may never be returned. When we allow our government to tell us how much to pay our employees, no matter how exorbitantly the employees may be charging, then we are giving them a part of our freedom to run our own companies.

In March 2009, the Obama administration, as part of its bailout of the auto industry, ushered CEO Rich Wagoner of General Motors (GM) out of the building and replaced him with board member Fritz Henderson. Talk about regime change.

What business is it of the federal government to tell a company who their top executive should be? Again, these were unprecedented times, which called for unprecedented measures, but how much government interference is too much? When we allow the government to tell us who the CEO of our company should be, then we are giving up our freedom to choose or elect our executives.

In 2002, George W. Bush decided that Palestine needed regime change and said that Yassar Arafat was an obstacle to negotiations and that new leadership was crucial for the creation of a provisional state in Palestine. Again, what business was this of his? Arafat was an obstacle to negotiations and an obstacle to peace, but we had no business telling the Palestinian people who they should elect or not elect as their leader.

When Bush decided that Iraq needed regime change and Saddam Hussein was hunted and brought to trial, what business was it of ours? Hussein was a ruthless leader who had his own people killed and was in total control of his government, but what business was it of ours to go into a foreign country and kick out their leader?

After the disaster of Sept. 11, the Patriot Act was enacted by the U.S. government to protect us from terrorists who take advantage of our electronics, such as telephones, the Internet or any other form of electronics that could be used and abused by terrorists. We gave up some of our rights to privacy so that the government could seek out terrorists.

With the writ of habeas corpus, an American citizen cannot be detained unless they are brought before a judge and proof is shown that this citizen is a threat to society. Proof must be shown within a timely manner, or the detainee must be released. That is our protection under the law, and that is law of the Geneva Convention. Since the members of Al-Qaeda were not citizens of any particular country, George W. Bush’s friend and personal attorney, Alberto Gonzalez interpreted the law to mean that since the detainees had no formal country, they also had no rights either.

Some were kept in Guantanamo prison for eight years with no hearing, no proof and no freedom. What a good example we are setting for the rest of the world for American law and American human rights.
With the recent organizational changes of General Motors and the current pay cuts of banking firms, we are now seeing the government gain more control. With the Patriot Act, we are seeing our freedom of privacy being given up to the government for our protection against terrorists.

When we allow our government to protect us from financial insecurity or protect us from foreign terrorists, we are giving up our personal freedoms which may not be returned in the future. It’s time to take responsibility for ourselves, to check our financial institutions for their integrity, to run our businesses wisely and well, so that government intervention is not needed to set us on the right track.

Senator Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, was the only Republican to vote for the Senate Finance Committee’s bill on health care. Could she be the hope for bipartisanship, and for the party of no?

With its constant obstructionist votes, the Republican Party has become known as the party of no, rejecting every issue which President Obama has raised. In his quest for bi-partisanship he has been met with nothing but opposition from the Republican Party.  Suddenly, there is a breath of fresh air, Senator Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, who voted yes for the Max Baucu $829 billion health care bill. Is there light at the end of the tunnel?

“I think that if we can work continuously together looking at the issues having an honest discussion about the issues and what works, what doesn’t work, that’s what it’s going to take,” said Snowe when asked about bipartisanship by Charlie Gibson in a recent interview.

Orphaned at nine years old and widowed at 26, Olympia Snowe has a certain sensitivity to life’s problems that most senators and/or most Republicans don’t possess. Although widowed in 1973, she remarried in 1989 to then Governor John McKiernan of Maine. The youngest Republican woman ever elected to the U.S. House of Representatives, she was the first woman to have served in both houses of the U.S. Congress. In her 35 years as an elected official, she has never lost an election. She supports legalized abortion and gay rights, but also supports the death penalty and gun control following the Columbine High School shooting in 1999.

The Republican Party has been so resistant to change.  No matter what Obama brings up, they are opposed to it. He ran on reforming the health care system, but the Republican Party wants no part of his health care reform. In his first day in office, Obama promised to close Guantanamo Bay prison by year’s end. Republicans have done nothing but complain about where the prisoners are going to go, and certainly not in Republican neighborhoods.

The economy is showing signs of turning around, but Republicans focus on the high unemployment rate and the sluggish housing market.

The war in Iraq is winding down, but Republicans charge that we haven’t done enough nation building.

Obama has improved relations with Russia, helping to pressure Iran into an open international inspection of secret nuclear facilities. Republicans complained that we were negotiating with terrorists.

After polling 24 countries, the Pew Research Center, showed the improved image of the U.S. in most parts of the world, reflecting a new global confidence in Barack Obama.  The Republicans only pointed to not wanting any part of Europe or it’s socialized medicine.

Even with Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize, Republicans criticized that it was too much too soon.

It’s time for there to be a voice of reason from the Republican Party, a voice like Olympia Snowe.

Although Snowe is considered liberal on social issues, she is more conservative on defense and fiscal issues. An advocate of stem cell research and pro-choice, she is a hawk on foreign affairs, supporting Clinton’s involvement in Kosovo and Bush’s invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, but she opposed the Bush tax cuts of 2003.

She has been a strong supporter of the Obama administration, particularly the TARP funds and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. She has also pledged to work in bipartisan manner on the issues of health care reform and energy.

With Sarah Palin becoming such a disappointing candidate, it is time for the Republican Party to look for more of a stable female candidate, one that is more in touch with the rest of the country. Having served in the Senate for three terms, Olympia Snowe has more Senate experience than Hillary Clinton. Snowe has fundraising ability too, raising $2.1 million seven months before her election to the Senate in 2006.

It’s time for the Republican Party to choose a leader that is more in touch with the rest of the country, someone who is willing to reach across the aisle and not “just say no” to new ideas.  Since the work force is 50 percent women, it’s time to choose someone who represents 50 percent of the work force.

Snowe is a traditional conservative when it comes to assisting the growth of small business, but liberal on social issues like funding for child care and student loans. She’s a well-rounded person, not chained to the Republican Party line, but independent enough to vote her own conscience.

It’s time for the Republican Party to choose Olympia Snowe as the leader of their party.

On Friday morning the news was announced that President Obama had won the Nobel Peace Prize. I felt no anger, excitement or pride. Well, at least not at first. I found myself in a complete state of confusion. The fact that Obama won this amazing international honor was a shock.

The condemning and questioning ensued across media outlets and from pundits. I needed to find some answers myself.

As the President of the United States, Obama finds himself in the middle of some very heated relations and compromising situations.

He aggressively advocates for a nuclear weapons free world and meets with some of the world’s most feared leaders who harbor and test nuclear weapons.

Between Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, North Korea and Venezuela … well to name a few, he has engaged with the leaders of these countries to establish a safe and peaceful relationship with the world. It is far from peaceful, but progress is definitely a word that is no longer alien when discussing the relations with Iran and North Korea. His personal visitations were certainly alien to former President George W. Bush.

America’s image in Europe has been substantially raised since Obama’s inauguration. Relations with Europe in the last decade have been par at best. These are our closest allies in time of need. Obama has worked hard to remind them that we are brothers and have each other’s backs.

Obama believes that he has the confidence to make great change with his personal relations. His personal relations and visitations can transcend the rifts of the past and create a bond that eventually creates trust. It sounds dangerous and hopeless, but Obama’s willingness and risks he takes when visiting the leaders of our “so-called” enemies can be the solvent to miscommunication and reparation.

The Nobel committee chooses a recipient based on the advocacy and efforts to create a strong fraternity between nations. Obama fits this description well.
In any case the last year has been dismal on many global levels. But, the one thing that we do find as a result of Obama’s reach and push for international diplomacy is that it surpasses other leaders around the world.

Today, there aren’t many leaders promoting and advocating for peace. One should take note that Obama is an exception.

He makes great efforts to be ever-present in the name of the global community and instill trust with our neighbors on this planet.

Be proud as he has made great strides. Although we see no tangible results, his advocacy has been well noted.

If anything, he deserves it for his efforts. And yes, he has only been at work for nine months, but has more than three years to implement them and change the history books.

Obama has joined the likes of Nelson Mandela, Yitzakh Rabin and the Dalai Lama.

One might ask how Obama has found himself in the presence of these great peace laureates. His results pale in comparison, but Barack Obama is a persistent man, and certainly can be a repeat recipient if he continues his peaceful, personal missions.

udrgwtav4f

Many have speculated that Afghanistan could become this generation’s Vietnam, but it appears the outcome of the  war in Afghanistan will be much different than the Vietnam War. There are many similarities with Afghanistan and Vietnam, but there are many differences too.

Our war with Afghanistan started soon after Sept. 11, 2001, when it was determined that the hijackers who flew into the twin towers of New York, the Pentagon and into the ground in southwestern Pennsylvania were all members of Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is a fundamentalist, Islamic, multinational, stateless group bent on destroying America and Americans. The headquarters of Al Qaeda was located in Afghanistan. The Taliban were creating a safe haven for Al Qaeda. The Taliban is a group of Islamic fundamentalists, from Afghanistan, who were protecting Al Qaeda.

The word Taliban means student. It is a religious and political group that governed Afghanistan from 1996 until 2001 when its leaders were removed from power by NATO forces. In 2004, a new Taliban insurgency group rose up in guerilla style to attempt to defeat the current elected administration.

The guerillas of the Taliban are similar to the guerillas of the Viet Cong in Vietnam. They were also an insurgent group of local Vietnamese and warlords.

Vietnam had a history of foreign occupation from the French and then from the United States. Afghanistan has a history of foreign occupation from the British in the middle 1800’s, the Russians in the 1980’s and now the United States from 2001 until the present.

Both governments of Vietnam and Afghanistan are rumored to be corrupt and they don’t have the full support of their people.
In both cases, it is said to be asymmetric warfare when a weaker side can successfully exert leverage on a stronger military power. Power is not everything. When a military power goes into a foreign nation, they don’t know all the nooks and crannies of the area. They may have air power, but they don’t have land power. It is very difficult to fight a ground war in someone else’s house. The locals know all the hiding places that the foreign military doesn’t.

The terrain is an important aspect. The terrain in Vietnam was tropical, with rainy seasons and incredible heat and humidity. Afghanistan is rugged with mountains and unpaved roads and extreme climate changes.

It is hard to win the hearts and the minds of the local people if you look like a previous occupier. In Vietnam, the United States looked just like the French, and to the Vietnamese, they were the same. In Afghanistan, the United States looks just like the British and the Russians, there is little difference to the local people.

So much for the similarities, the differences between Afghanistan and Vietnam are that the United States was attacked by Al Qaeda and the war is against Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. These are our sworn enemies. Al Qaeda attacked over 3,000 innocent Americans on our soil. Vietnam never attacked us, we were just there to keep the Communists out of Southeast Asia. We had no vested interest in Vietnam, except perhaps the oil of Sumatra and the rest of Southeast Asia.

As presidential adviser, James Rubin recently stated on MSNBC, “The whole world is on our side in Afghanistan; the whole world was clearly not on our side in Vietnam.”

On Sunday, Sept. 27, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the U.S commander in Afghanistan stated on “60 Minutes” that he is fed up with the way the United States has been fighting the war for the past eight years. McChrystal assumed his current assignment on June 15, 2009. Since that time, he has said that the situation in Afghanistan is a little worse than he thought it was. He said the violence in the north and the west is greater than he expected.

He sent a new directive to his troops in writing that stated, “We must change the way we think, act and operate.

“If the people are against us, we cannot be successful. If the people view us as occupiers and the enemy, we can’t be successful and our casualties will go up dramatically.”

“The only way to win is to earn the support of the people,” McChrystal explained. “Conventional military operations designed to kill the enemy can never win this war. Destroying homes and accidentally killing civilians in the process only creates more insurgents and alienates the population.”

McChrystal then  stated  that “civilian casualties … are literally how we lose the war or in many ways how we win it.”

Although Afghanistan is bigger than Iraq, it only has half as many forces as Iraq. McChrystal told “60 Minutes,” that he plans to double the forces to 400,000.

With McChrystal’s understanding of the people of Afghanistan, I think it is possible to win the hearts and minds of the Afghan people and in turn win the war in Afghanistan.

President Obama is a making a mockery of America’s priorities with his visit to Copenhagen, Denmark today. His visit is for one reason and one reason only, to bring the Olympics to Chicago in 2016.

The Olympics are one of the most anticipated and celebrated cultural events in the history of the world. It brings the world together for two weeks to celebrate and support different nations and athletes representing those countries.

I hope that Chicago hosts the XXXI Olympiad in 2016. I would be the first to wear red, white and blue, hoping for an American sweep of the events, but at a time when Obama is facing some of the toughest challenges and divisions this country has ever seen, it’s flat-out ludicrous that he goes to there to cheerlead.

Afghanistan is aching for decisions from our commander in chief. The troops are hoping for more support and quick action so they can handle the enemy and make a successful push. Health care is at a standstill and the recession, well, it’s still a recession. But, hey let’s get rockstar Obama over to Denmark for a day and delay fixing the problems and quagmires this country is currently facing.

Great idea chief. Let’s sell the idea that Chicago, one of the largest and economically ailing cities in America, is equipped to hemorrhage it’s thin wallet. It costs $5 billion to host the games. It most likely will be much more in the end.

Teens are dying in the president’s adopted city and jobs are declining. Health care and war continues to be left by the wayside, but the Olympics, well they seem to be the top priority.

Chicago…ahhhmm I mean the United States is spending $100 million dollars for the bid alone. That money can go to public transit, crippled businesses and social and police programs to combat the astronomical crime rate that has plagued Chicago this past year. If you haven’t heard, 36 public school students have been killed this year. It is a frightening trend that has hit Chicago.

This menacing rate of violence has made national headlines. And, yes it has been brought to Obama’s attention.  He is sending Attorney General Eric Holder and Education Secretary Arne Duncan to Chicago in the wake of the violence.

So Obama, the most famous person on the planet, has made it quite easy to be in many places in such a short time, but not this time. Barack and Michelle Obama should instead take the time to visit Chicago more often and give it the boost of morale that he has given to the rest of the country, although that morale is slowly becoming a redundant press release.

I am really starting to get furious with our president and his knack for meaningless campaigning. What the hell is going on in our country? Does anyone really know? The only ones that challenge him are members of the GOP, and they are the ones that got us into this mess in the first place. Thanks Obama for the rhetoric and smiles. I would rather have you as a talk-show host or motivational speaker, not the commander in chief. If you were the former at least you would be doing a good job.

If there was ever a time that Chicago could use a visit from their hero, their beacon of hope and perseverance, it would be now. But no, he decided to go to Copenhagen to bid for the unsure possibility that Chicago may host the Olympics.

It must be a real burden for you to have to sacrifice your time for a European vacation.

While reading through the Daily Sundial Web site, I came across an article that got me thinking. “Green Paper or Green Thumbs?” is a piece that proposes a solution for obesity, at least on our campus. What caught my eye, however, were the staggering statistics cited and it led me to do some of my own research.

“Green Paper or Green Thumbs?” begins by introducing students’ issues with weight and diet; it struck me, however, that this is not a problem held solely by college students. Instead, college is generally only the beginning in a series of bad habits that contribute to one-third of the United States’ adult population becoming obese. Two-thirds (66 percent) of our great nation is overweight or obese, and we are, by far, the fattest country in the world. The reasons for this are varied yet simple and have been analyzed over and over. For the purposes of this article let us look at the consequences of obesity.

Currently, our country is in the middle of a great debate on the matter of health care reform. We are searching and searching for this great solution, but perhaps we should be examining the reasons why we need a change to our health care system in the first place. Does obesity not lead to heart disease, diabetes, and stroke? Possibly also cancer, influenza, and nephrosis? Are these not six of the top 10 leading causes of death in America? Our Democrats rave about Canada’s health care system, but it should be taken into account that only 17 percent of Canadian adults are obese; this is half the percentage of obese Americans, and perhaps it has something to do with their “better health care system.”

Now, forgive me for assuming, but is it not possible that when people refuse to take care of themselves, it leads to increased prices for health insurance because it is in higher demand? I am not an economics major, but I’m fairly sure that this is how supply and demand works. It is entirely possible that if our citizens were to take better care of themselves, the prices for health care would go down. More businesses could provide it to their employees, and more people could afford it on their own. Perhaps it is not my place to say, but why are we indulging these people who make themselves sick and eventually angered when health care is not available to them?

“Green Paper or Green Thumbs?” cites that obese people pay nearly double what non-obese people pay in prescription costs, and that obese people account for upward of nearly 10 percent of all medical costs (about $92 billion a year). I have found that this number varies from source to source, but it is never below $92 billion. Around half of these medical costs, or $45 billion, came from Medicare and Medicaid, or, in other words, our tax dollars.

I am not trying to ignore those people who get sick for other reasons. But if we could eliminate a good portion of the hospital bills and beds reserved for patients who, essentially, do it to themselves, perhaps our health care system would not need reforming. Perhaps health care could actually be efficient if medical personnel had the time to focus on people who aren’t killing themselves, but are being killed by something else.

Now, I have several hesitations with Obama’s plan for health care reform as it is, but 300,000 Americans die every year due to illnesses that are so easily prevented, not by a doctor, but by the individual. It just doesn’t seem fair that there are people who take preventative measures against illnesses waiting in line behind those who are virtually inviting them.

Solving the problem of obesity is up to the individual, and everything relies on the choices that are made by that individual. There are so many people who do not have the time nor the money to either cook at home or take their family out for a good meal. When waiting in line at Burger King, however, make the choice to get a salad instead of a hamburger meal, which has all of the fat and calories to fill an entire day’s ration. A meal for four from a fast-food chain generally costs the same as a cheap grocery store meal for those who have the time. In the long run, an expensive but beneficial meal costs much less than the medical bills required to handle the problem of obesity that comes from poor diet choices.

Yes, health insurance is far too expensive. Yes, something should be done. Instead of focusing on the system, however, perhaps we should focus on those people who abuse it by abusing themselves.

The flags of Israel and Palestine with photos of an armed Israeli soldier and an angry youth. Photo Illustration by Kurt Strazdins / MCT

The “two-state solution” seems like a fair way to solve the problem in the Middle East between Israel and the Palestine. The Israel Lobby (American Israel Public Affairs Committee), President Obama, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas all back it so what could be the problem?

Israel gets their state and Palestinians get Palestine. Problem solved, right? Unfortunately, a fair “solution” for a Palestinian state has never and will never be offered by Israel. There is only one fair solution at this late stage with Israelis and Palestinians more intertwined than ever. Separation is not an option. The only answer is full human rights for all Israelis and Palestinians in one secular and democratic state.

The first “two-state solution” was United Nations Resolution 181, passed in 1947. Under the diplomatic cover of the UN, White Western Europe and the US decided to carve up indigenous Arab land, which wasn’t theirs to give away. Israel has benefited from being a colonial settler state from the get go.

Fifty-five percent of Palestine was “given” to the Jewish State even though Jews owned only 8 percent of the land at the time. The “Arab State” would get 42 percent even though they owned 92 percent of the land. Jerusalem was to be shared 50/50, as an international city.

Contrary to popular lies, it wasn’t an empty land. Palestine was a historic civilization; here villages are hundreds if not thousands of years old. Many Palestinian towns were in the process of modernizing. Villages were shared by Christians and Muslims, schools added foreign language courses for children, and sophisticated plumbing and irrigation systems were newly added. Tragically, this beautiful civilization was destroyed. Palestine would soon be lost forever.

The injustice of “partitioning” away over half their land was apparent to the Palestinians; they summarily turned down the offer. Can you blame them? Who would willingly give up more than half of their country? David Ben Gurion, Israel’s first prime minister, organized a secret group called The Consultancy, whose Plan Dalet was the blueprint for Ethnic Cleansing. The founder of the State of Israel foreshadowed what was to come, “We must expel Arabs and take their places.”

This “expelling of Arabs” was the Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, and is remembered as the Nakba (Arabic meaning catastrophe or disaster). In all, approximately 800,000 Palestinians were forced from their country by psychological torture, brute military force, random terrorist attacks, biological warfare, and ultimately wanton civilian massacres such as the one seen in Deir Yassin. In what could be seen as the perfect metaphor, the Palestinian village of Khayriyya (Arabic for “The Blessing of the Land) was demolished and in its place, the garbage dump for Tel Aviv was built. Approximately 13 towns and 419 villages were ethnically cleansed so Jewish Zionists could “take their places.”

In response to the refugee crisis, the UN passed Resolution 194 in December 1948. It guaranteed the right of all the refugees of Palestine to return to their homes at the earliest possible date. This “right of return,” for the approximately 800,000 refugees and their descendents is sacred, absolute, and non-negotiable.

The second attempt at a “two-state solution” was in 1949. The UN’s Palestine Conciliation Commission made the unconditional return of all refugees, along with a 50/50 split of Palestine, the conditions for peace. According to Israeli historian Ilan Pappe’s book, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, everyone accepted this as a fair solution, “The US, the UN, the Arab world, the Palestinians, and Israel’s foreign minister.” So who prevented peace? Prime Minister of Israel, David Ben Gurion and King Abdullah of Jordan had other plans to divide Palestine between them.

In 1967, Israel occupied the remaining 22 percent of Palestine they didn’t cleanse the first time around (The West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip). Forty-two years later this now amounts to the longest military occupation in modern human history. Israel almost immediately started building colonies on this occupied land. Currently, there are almost 500,000 Israeli settlers living in illegal colonies in the Palestinian territories of the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

Every last one of these settlements is a violation of Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which states an occupying power cannot transfer its population into an occupied territory.

The occupation continues, and the Palestinians are barely clinging to life. You may hear a lot of talk on the news about Obama’s demand for an Israeli “settlement freeze.” But this plea for Israel to put an end to the colonization of Palestine is nothing new.

Israel’s participation in 2003’s Road Map for Peace required Israel to “dismantle settlement outposts erected since March 2001” and to “freeze all settlement activity.” Since the occupation began in 1967, and President Lyndon Johnson called settlements “an obstacle to peace,” every US administration has subsequently denounced settlements.

If Israel knows the US offers only empty threats, why would they stop their takeover of Palestine? Are Jim Crow-style, Jewish-only villages and roads, and hundreds of humiliating checkpoints the way to peace?

Isn’t a “two-state solution” nothing more than segregation all over again? It seems like it’s a terribly racist thing to say, “These people can’t possibly live together; they have to be separated (equally).” The two-state solution is nothing more than “separate but equal” on a grand scale.

“Supporters of Israel” advocate a racially and religiously pure state for them and them alone. I hear talk of establishment of a Palestinian state, and a “democratic Jewish state.” Could America be a democracy for an African-American minority if we were officially a “White Christian Nation”? Of course not. So, why is segregation glorified in the Holy Land?

Stay tuned for Part two: Israel and Palestine already live in one state. Let’s make it official (and fair).

When Kanye West took the mic from Taylor Swift at the MTV Video Music Awards (VMAs) and proclaimed that Beyonce had one of the best music videos of all time, I was convinced that it was another MTV scripted “reality” moment.

That’s when celebrities started tweeting about the incident. Pink said, “Kanye West is the biggest piece of shit on earth.”  Heidi Montag went so far as to say she “saw the devil in action.” It was then that I realized MTV had not planned one of the few entertaining moments of their otherwise horrendous two and a half hour show.

When P Diddy started reading the nominees for “Best Male Video,” the crowd booed and jeered angrily at the mention of “Kanye West,” who was nominated for his video “Love Lockdown.”

T.I. was also nominated. Currently, T.I. is in jail for illegally purchasing several machine guns and silencers. When T.I. was announced as a winner the crowd cheered and roared with enthusiasm for the rapper who “couldn’t be with us tonight.” Eventually the crowd stood to their feet in a prolonged ovation.  Granted, Kanye interrupting Taylor Swift’s speech was both incredibly rude and disrespectful, but it was absolutely appalling at how loving the crowd was towards T.I., a convicted felon.

The next day the loathing feelings towards Kanye only grew exponentially. Tim McGraw told CMT Insider, “[Kanye] needs an ass whoopin’.” Later, Kelly Clarkson blogged a surprisingly vicious rant directed towards Kanye, stating “I’ve seen you do some pretty shitty things, but you just keep amazing me with your tactless, asshole ways. It’s absolutely fascinating how much I don’t like you. I like everyone. I even like my asshole ex that cheated on me over you…which is pretty odd since I don’t even know you.”

The celebrities who began to bash on Kanye seemed to forget that he ruined the VMAs for Taylor Swift and became more interested in insulting him. Their comments took on a life of their own.

Who was this man everyone seemed so hell-bent on ruining?

A proud “mama’s boy,” Kanye attended college for three semesters before dropping out to sign with Roc-A-Fella, which was reluctant to sign him because he doesn’t fit the typical rapper profile. He chooses to dress with preppy attire and never shied again from his middleclass upbringing with no pretense to gangsta ties. He encourages kids to follow through with their education. The Kanye West Foundation helps combat the severe drop problem in high schools by helping under-served students unleash their creative ability and reach their full potential by partnering with community organizations. One of Kanye’s self-described goals is “to inspire up-and-coming artists to go against the grain.”

This is the man the President chooses to call a “jackass” and radio stations ban? Kiss 95.1 in Florida announced they were removing all of Kanye’s music from their playlists. I wonder if they ever considered banning all the artists with overly violent or sexual songs, such as Lil Wayne’s provocative hit “Lollipop,” which was one of the top ten most played songs on the radio during 2008. I was reminded of how the audience did not boo, but clapped, when Wayne leaped up on stage to receive a Grammy for Best Rap Album of the Year. Wayne claims himself a member of the Bloods, the violent gang responsible for thousands of murders in Los Angeles. A red bandana hung from his jeans as he gave his Grammy speech.

Nevertheless, what upset me most was the way celebrities and other musicians were so quick to jump on the Kanye Hate-Wagon and rip him apart. True, Kanye was wrong to jump on stage (even if the show would’ve otherwise been a snoozer). Yet, here is an artist who wrote the song “Roses,” a bedside account of his experience when his grandmother was hospitalized. Kanye is one of the few artists we have today who relies on music, not image or a train wreck public life, to sell albums. His music spreads positively and Kanye is a walking example of how to have the confidence to believe in yourself.

In Greenwich Village, Kanye was willing to risk his “street cred” by standing up for gays after a consciousness-raising encounter in a clothing store. Meanwhile, all his colleagues seem passionate about is bashing him.

Musicians used to be passionate and have something to say.  None of the celebrities self-righteously piling on Kanye, “nobly” ripping him to shreds with vicious comments, are willing to take a stance on anything of political importance. They won’t risk alienating a single fan by standing up for health care or holding Congressman Joe Wilson in check after his outburst during Obama’s speech. It’s time they get their perspective in check and take a stand for what’s actually important.

So, just before I was about to apply for welfare Obama came in for the rescue…hehe just kidding!

Recently, our president-elect had one of his fireside chats with the nation through YouTube, and the main topic of this chat was his great plan to save the economy by creating an “Economic Recovery Plan” that will create 2.5 million jobs!!!

This “Recovery Plan” entails: rebuilding our infrastructure, improving our schools, and reducing our dependence on oil. We have heard all of these before.

This is supposed to “create millions of jobs by making the single largest new investment in our national infrastructure since the creation of our federal highway system in the 1950’s”

And how much money are we talking about….? Currently there is no price tag on it but according to The New York Times it is supposed to cost somewhere from $400 to $700 billion!

That’s a lot of mullah that we don’t have right now. Either way, if this does pass, it brings hope to 2 million people who have lost their jobs this year alone!