I guess I should give a caveat: I am not an Obama fan (surprise, surprise). There’s a laundry list of things I don’t like about him, and in fact the way he and his administration have been handling this crisis are going to be at the top of the list going forward. First of all, I would like to point out that last night was Day 58 of the crisis, and 8 weeks after it happened. It is absolutely ridiculous to me that Obama has waiting this long to speak to the country about what’s happening in the Gulf. For me, this was a “feel good” speech and a Public Relations move for the President himself. There were many, many cushy words but no concrete plans. Speaking in ambiguity, he almost (almost!) makes his speech hard to argue against. It’s hard to disagree with generalities. Because his administration has completely failed as a leader in this situation, the President reverted to doing what he does best: politicizing the situation 2/3 of the speech he gave wasn’t about cleanup or recovery, but about energy policy. (Don’t get me wrong – I’m a huge proponent of alternative/green/renewable energy sources, but last night was NOT the time for sermon.)

The most concrete thing he said last night was he was going to “force” BP to create some sort of an escrow fund to help compensate those who have suffered from the disaster. While I agree that BP should be held responsible for their actions, it sets a VERY bad precedent for a President to promise to the American people that he is going to force a private entity to do anything. Sometimes, I think Obama forgets he is a President, and therefore his domestic policy power is severely limited. Legally, he can’t force BP to do anything. Obviously, BP should (read: will because they seriously need a PR boost) comply and be responsible for the company’s actions. However Obama should not be taking credit for this at all, because it’s really out of his hands.

What the President should have been focused on last night was cleanup and recovery, and we heard hardly any of that. Obama’s insincere proselytizing isn’t going solve anything in the Gulf. It just left us with gushing oil well in the gulf that needs to be plugged, and another in Obama’s face that needs to be stopped up as well.

As always, I’ll appreciate your comments!

Leadership is practiced not so much in words as in attitude and in actions.

–Harold S. Geneen

Related posts:

1. The man with a plan
2. Can Obama lead the next generation?

Follow Y Gen TV on YouTube.

Related posts:

1. The Gen Y vote in 2010 elections
2. How credit card reform affects Gen Y
3. Y Gen heart health

On Feb. 2, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee that he has served with homosexuals since 1968. “I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens.”

In the same hearing, Defense Secretary Robert Gates made clear that any change to the policy would not happen quickly.  A Pentagon review, which can take up to a year, has been ordered to study how allowing gays to serve openly will affect the cohesion and capabilities of the military. But during the review and Congressional debate, the military will discourage third parties from outing gay members.

At the time the law went into effect in 1993, President Clinton wanted to allow gays to openly serve in the military, but he was met with dissonance from Congress and the military.  As a compromise, he came up with DADT.  The “don’t tell” part prohibits anyone who demonstrates homosexual behavior from serving in the military. The “don’t ask” part precludes officers from investigating service members’ orientation as long as they are acting in accordance with military rules.

According to the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, 13,500 gays have been discharged from the military under DADT. It is estimated that another 60,000 homosexuals are still currently serving in the armed forces.

While the military is signaling the time may be right to repeal the long-standing policy, Republicans have vowed to fight against any change. And they certainly left no doubt about their position during the hearing. In particular, Sen. John McCain of Arizona said he was “deeply disappointed” by Gates’ “clearly biased” not-if-but-when comments. He added that while the policy isn’t perfect, the repeal would only increase the military’s stress while fighting two wars.

Interestingly, in 2006, McCain had noted his willingness to change the policy if Pentagon leaders called for the repeal.  McCain specifically mentioned that he would listen to Gen. Colin Powell, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under Clinton, on the issue of whether to end DADT.

In response to the apparent reversal of his earlier position, a spokeswoman for McCain said the senator thought Mullen wasn’t speaking on behalf of the Joint Chiefs, and that he’ll listen to military leaders after the Pentagon review is finished.

The day following Gates’ and Mullen’s testimony, Powell, who opposed Clinton’s attempt to end the ban on gay soldiers by saying it would undermine discipline and order in the military but supported DADT, released the following statement: “In the almost 17 years since the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ legislation was passed, attitudes and circumstances have changed.” He added that he fully supported the approach by Gates and Mullen.

And Powell’s not alone. A June 2009 Gallup Poll showed that 78 percent of respondents aged 18 to 29 are in favor of allowing openly gay soldiers to serve in the military. The same poll showed that 58 percent of Republicans favored repealing DADT.

In the end, the shift among military leaders and the public may encourage Republicans to reconsider their opposition.  What happens after the Pentagon review is completed and there is an official plan for acknowledging gays in the military? At that point, Republicans, along with Democrats, may vote to make Generation Y soldiers the first to serve side-by-side with their openly gay compatriots.

Related posts:

1. Sotomayor confirmed to Supreme Court

However, that was not the case earlier this month in Tangipahoa Parish just outside New Orleans, where Justice of the Peace Keith Bardwell refused to marry an interracial couple.

Beth Humphrey, 30, and Terence McKay, 32, decided to marry elsewhere and have since hired a private lawyer and filed a discrimination lawsuit against the judge. Additionally, the American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana has insisted on an official investigation by the state’s Judicial Commission to have the judge dismissed from his gubernatorial-appointed position.

“What has come out of [this] is a clear signal that [Bardwell's] attitudes are no longer acceptable, and that [the younger generation] expects and demands better,” said Marjorie R. Esman, executive director of the Louisiana chapter of the ACLU.

Despite the overwhelming outrage and calls for his resignation, Bardwell has refused to step down.

“He’s not stepping down because he believes he hasn’t done anything wrong,” said Zach Schreiber, president of Tulane University’s chapter of the ACLU. “He was brought up by his parents, and they have the same values. His parents have taught him this, and no one has taught him any differently.”

Bardwell’s actions have served as a reminder that racism and bigotry still exist, said Danatus N. King, president of the New Orleans branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. Despite these claims, the judge has asserted that he is not a racist, and he stands by his actions.

Humphrey and McKay were not the first couple to whom Justice Bardwell denied a marriage license. In his 34 years as a judge, Bardwell estimates he has refused to marry about four interracial couples, all in the past 2 1/2 years. He believes that children from these couples would not fit into either race’s societal structures and would, therefore, suffer.

“What he has done and has done several times is a racist act,” Schreiber said. “He’s a government official, although I’m sure his constituents don’t care. There are problems with Louisiana, especially in the parishes outside of big cities, with racism. I don’t know all about that parish, but if they did care about what was going on, I would believe that there would be some sort of action taken against him.”

Esman acknowledged the racial differences and issues that linger in Louisiana but also spoke of the public’s ability to recognize “that it’s not supposed to be that way.” Aside from affirming that Bardwell’s actions were illegally improper, Esman believed the judge’s concerns were unjustified.

“Even if his concerns are justified, he doesn’t have the authority to impose his judgments on children that don’t exist yet,” she said. “He doesn’t make those determinations on anyone else. It’s patently ridiculous to say that children of mixed race don’t succeed, when obviously the president [has].”

No related posts.

The 68 to 31 vote came after about 18 hours of debate over the past three days. The confirmation came as little surprise, since her hearing before the Judiciary Committee last month failed to ignite much controversy. Nine Republicans joined the 59 Democrats present to vote in favor of Sotomayor, while 31 Republicans voted against her. Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, is ill and did not vote.

Judge Sotomayor, 55, is expected to take the oath of office on Saturday, with a formal ceremony scheduled for September. She succeeds Justice David Souter, who retired in June. She follows Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and former Justice Sandra Day O’Connor as the third woman on the Court.

During the nomination process, Democrats pointed to Sotomayor’s qualities that led her from humble beginnings in a Bronx housing project to the pinnacle of her profession. Republicans countered that her background made her too “empathetic,” and that she lacked impartiality.

Political strategists have suggested that Republicans who opposed Sotomayor may face a backlash from Hispanics, the fastest growing U.S. minority. It will be interesting to see if there are political repercussions, especially for Republican senators in states with large Hispanic populations.

Related posts:

1. Souter out, Sotomayor in
2. Sotomayor’s road to Supreme Court
3. Supreme Court rules strip search illegal

Savana Redding, now 19, had been accused by a friend, Marissa, of having given her ibuprofen, which is against the policy of her school in Safford, Ariz. Assistant Principal Kerry Wilson called Savana to his office, where he questioned her about the drugs he had found on Marissa. Savana told him that she didn’t know about any pills and, to prove her innocence, gave Wilson and Helen Romero, an administrative assistant, permission to search her backpack. Finding no contraband, Wilson ordered Romero and the school nurse, Peggy Schwallier, to search Savana’s clothes for any pills.

“They asked me to pull out my bra and shake it from side to side,” Savana said. “They made me open my legs and pull out my underwear.” This embarrassing event caused such distress that Savana developed stomach ulcers and eventually transferred to another school. “I never wanted to see the secretary or the nurse ever again.”

Believing the strip search violated her daughter’s rights, April Redding sued the school district. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, ruled that school officials had violated Savana’s Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure, since Wilson had acted too aggressively on vague allegations. Without legal immunity, Wilson, Romero, and Schwallier were open to a personal lawsuit by Savana. On April 21, that case went to the Supreme Court.

In Safford Unified School District v. Redding, the Supreme Court agreed with the appellate court that Savana’s Fourth Amendment rights had been violated. However, the Court also held that Wilson, Romero, and Schwallier had qualified immunity and were therefore not liable for their wrongdoings. At the time of the strip search, “clearly established law [did] not show that the search violated the Fourth Amendment,” Pearson v. Callahan.

So what does this mean? The Supreme Court’s decision didn’t provide clear guidelines on when schools can strip search. Rather, in the future, school personnel should consider the type of contraband in question and whether there is reason to believe it’s hidden in an intimate place. Perhaps this will put an end to strip searches in schools. Or at the very least, give school personnel pause before asking students to reveal sensitive areas.

Related posts:

1. Sotomayor confirmed to Supreme Court
2. Sotomayor’s road to Supreme Court
3. Souter out, Sotomayor in

Right now, their loudest condemnation centers around a comment Sotomayor made while speaking in 2001 at a UC Berkeley School of Law symposium titled “Raising the Bar: Latino and Latina Presence in the Judiciary and the Struggle for Representation.” In that speech, Sotomayor said she “would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”

Her lecture was part of a conference focusing on issues of diversity and the need to increase Hispanic representation on the bench. Taken in context, her comment was just one piece of a discussion about her Latina identity and how it has influenced her presence on the bench. As the president pointed out, in that very same speech Sotomayor emphasized “that it was nine white males who passed down Brown versus Board of Education, which is partly responsible for me sitting here,” referencing the 1954 Supreme Court decision that made school segregation illegal.  “[T]hat’s hardly the kind of statement that would indicate that she subscribes to identity politics.”

But opponents have taken that sentence and run with it. They claim such comments are evidence that Sotomayor will engage in judicial “activism,” relying on personal feelings rather than the rule of law when deciding cases. They also point to the statement as being racist against white males.

President Obama has called such criticism nonsense, defending Sotomayor by claiming that her background and experience “will give her information about the struggles and hardships that people are going through” and make her a good judge.

In early June, Sotomayor made “courtesy calls” to U.S. senators on Capitol Hill, hoping to pave the way for a smooth confirmation process. Her conversations ran the gamut, from bicycling to Nancy Drew books, and even a legal discussion of the doctrine of stare decisis (respect for legal precedent). Naturally, the 2001 speech crept into the dialogue. She assured senators that not only did she make a poor choice of words, but that she’s bound by law when ruling on cases.

Her face time did not dissipate everyone’s concerns. Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, admitted he was still bothered by the “wise Latina” comment. He challenged Sotomayor to prove that she will remain unbiased and base her legal rulings on nothing but legal principles.

But in the end, it’s becoming evident that Graham and other opponents are in the minority. Tom Goldstein of SCOTUSBlog notes that Sotomayor’s record shows genuine balance, so it’s hard to accuse her of being a liberal ideologue. Conservatives, too, are having a hard time rallying the troops when they can’t point to any Sotomayor writings on controversial social issues such as gay rights and abortion.  And then there is former House Speaker Newt Gingrich’s retraction of an early comment that Sotomayor is racist.

So, will the minority continue to raise objections to Sotomayor’s nomination in the hopes of delaying or derailing the process, or will they back off their opposition? Confirmation hearings will begin on July 13. At that time, we will see if the hearings process will be a cakewalk for the nominee.

This is the first article in an occasional series about the Road to the Supreme Court.

Related posts:

1. Sotomayor confirmed to Supreme Court
2. Supreme Court rules strip search illegal
3. Souter out, Sotomayor in

In his introduction, Obama praised Sotomayor as someone who will bring to the Court “not only the knowledge and experience acquired over a course of a brilliant legal career, but the wisdom accumulated from an inspiring life’s journey.”

If confirmed by the Senate, Sotomayor, 54, would be the first Hispanic and only the third woman to ever sit on the Supreme Court. The daughter of Puerto Rican immigrants, Sotomayor grew up in a Bronx housing project.  At age 8, she was diagnosed with diabetes. A year later, her father died, leaving her mother to raise her and a brother.

Sotomayor rose above her difficult beginnings. After graduating summa cum laude from Princeton University and then Yale Law School, she worked as a prosecutor and private attorney before being appointed a federal judge for the Southern District of New York by President George H.W. Bush in 1992. She became an appeals judge in 1998 for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, which covers New York, Vermont and Connecticut.

Her nomination doesn’t come as a complete surprise, since her name had been floated as a possibility ever since Souter’s announcement on May 1. She was high on the replacement list in part because of her personal story of triumphant over adversity. But she’s not without judicial merit. Supporters say she questions lawyers vigorously and delivers well-considered decisions. Baseball fans applauded one of those decisions in 1995, when Sotomayor ended the major league baseball strike.

Progressive activists already are cheering the pick. “We already know that she is a brilliant lawyer who is committed to ruling based on the Constitution and the law, not on her own personal political views,” said Doug Kendall, president of the liberal Constitution Accountability Center.

Obama supporters may be enthusiastic about his choice, but the love doesn’t necessarily reach across the aisle. Earlier this month, conservative talk radio hosts began questioning her credibility, and anonymous lawyers and law clerks attacked her temperament and intellect.

And last weekend, before Sotomayor officially became the nominee, Republican lawmakers said they would attempt a filibuster against her confirmation. It’s uncertain how far Republicans can go to block her appointment, especially since seven of their 40 members voted to confirm her in 1998.

Obama has said he wants to see Sotomayor confirmed by the start of the Senate’s five-week recess, slated to begin Aug. 7. Almost certainly this means a summer filled with political fireworks, as Democrats and Republicans try to make the case before the public for and against the nominee. In the end, Obama’s pick won’t change the ideological composition of the Court overnight. But the President’s decision to choose an Hispanic woman will likely have long-lasting political, legal, and social effects for the Court and the country.

Related posts:

1. Sotomayor confirmed to Supreme Court
2. Sotomayor’s road to Supreme Court
3. Supreme Court rules strip search illegal

But the transition to the grown-ups table is more than a right of passage. It represents opportunities for access to resources, in this case the good food, the control of when the meal begins, and the privilege of setting the schedule for the rest of the evening. For now, however, I still sit at the kids’ table, along with my college-aged sisters and even an older cousin and her spouse. I probably won’t get to the grown-ups table until one of my family members dies, which I don’t wish for any of them.

Wanting to spend a holiday meal at the grown-ups table is one thing. When it comes to our government and society, however, the lack of youth at the grown-ups table is more problematic. For it’s at the grown-ups table where real discussions happen and decisions are made that affect people’s lives. Throughout U.S. history, many different groups and interests have asked for a seat at that table: the table of access, of privilege and of power. For a long time the table was completely dominated by white, aristocratic, elderly men.

The passage of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution gave African Americans the opportunity to sit at the table. But it took more than one hundred years for the nation to overcome its hatred and brutality, and actually allow African-Americans to take a seat.

With the ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment in 1920, which allowed women the right to vote, gender was ruled out as a basis for excluding someone from the table. And here again, although we were legally allowed to be apart of the conversation, women were discouraged from taking an active part in the political process. Many years passed before women were allowed to take a seat at the table.

More people today are sitting at the table than ever before. America recently elected its first black president, a position that puts him at the head of the table. Other underrepresented groups, such as Gays and Lesbians, are making their voices heard, demanding a place at the grown-ups table. They may not make up a majority of the table, but many interest groups have at least one seat, which affords them a voice in the national dialogue and decision-making process.

On the other hand, today’s youth are continually left out of the discussions and, more importantly, the process of choosing what actions to take that determine our country’s future. Yes, any U.S. citizen who is eighteen and older can legally vote, but how can one expect Generation Y to participate in a process that largely disregards their interests and capitalizes on their perceived unawareness and indifference.

Yet, getting youth to the table is so vital to the present and future success of this great nation. Younger generations are the ones who will fill the full effects of policies implemented today. If Generation Y takes an active role in influencing those policies, we will probably be in a better position to deal with the consequences.

Perhaps the Social Security mess we’re in today could have been avoided if baby-boomers were brought into the conversation when these policies were being formulated, instead of them having to deal with its repercussions and surmounting limitations.  Imagine a nation where its leaders consulted and worked with the youth on the country’s education policies.

Fortunately, there have been triumphs in engaging and involving the youth of this generation. Barack Obama’s presidential campaign was a remarkable example of this.  His success and ability to excite the members of Generation Y stemmed from the fact that he made engaging and mobilizing youth a big priority. 

And although this remains a priority for President Obama, how do we ensure that future leaders and institutions continue doing the same thing? It is clear that we must find some way to institutionalize youth involvement on a local, state, national, and international level. I’m not arguing for drastic, Constitution-altering measures. I’m merely asking for youth to be made a priority in this nation.  

The invitation is only half the battle, however. Generation Y also needs to feel like we were invited because our opinions and insights are valuable. We don’t want to feel that we are just desired for show or to fulfill some top-down requirement. Older generations need to communicate that they believe in the value of engaging today’s youth and demonstrate that they take us seriously. If that happens, we will show up to voice our opinions and fight for them.

One must also consider who controls the access to the table. Whites gave citizenship to African Americans. Men gave women the right to vote. The older generations invite the young. Why can’t it be the other way around? Why can’t the youth engage the older generations? Why can’t America have both?

No related posts.

On March 13, the Obama administration announced that it would no longer use the term “enemy combatants” as grounds for detaining terrorist suspects, which suggests a change from the prior administration. Of course, we’ll need to wait and see if these executive orders actually eliminate the use of torture by America.

While many critics of the previous president would like to see torture being addressed more concretely by Obama, his actions thus far seem to be headed in the right direction. And he’s not afraid to shake things up. Obama’s appointment of Leon Panetta as head of the CIA came as a surprise to many, especially since he lacks experience in the intelligence world. As former President Clinton’s chief of staff as well as director of Management and Budget, Panetta doesn’t bring much hands-on expertise to the position. What he does bring, however, is a steadfast contempt for many of the controversial Bush administration policies such as rendition and excessively brutal interrogations. In a 2008 article he wrote for Washington Monthly, Panetta said, “We either believe in the dignity of the individual, the rule of law, and the prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment, or we don’t. There is no middle ground.”

And then there is the growing public outcry for a criminal investigation into the Bush administration’s use of torture to interrogate terrorism suspects and its program of wiretapping U.S. citizens without getting warrants. Obama hasn’t exactly led the charge to determine what persons were responsible for this outrageous behavior, but in the end, he may not have a choice. On Feb. 9, Sen. Patrick Leahy, head of the Senate Judiciary Committee, called for a “truth commission” to look into the Bush administration policies on torture, interrogation and surveillance.

The truth commission would serve as something of a compromise: there would be a formal investigation to satisfy those who demand it, but immunity would be available to those who come forward and confess all. Leahy envisions a commission that not only would allow for prosecution of the guilty, but also set a new standard for government leaders. Leahy gave a detailed explanation about the commission to Rachel Maddow, which you can see below.

[flashvideo filename=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Q568YyRoqQ width=300 /]

So, it seems our time for repentance has finally arrived. Whatever your political stripes, I think it is fair to say that we need to evaluate our past actions. Even if you believe that the former president did nothing wrong, we owe it to ourselves to find out. For the sake of unity and global standing, Leahy’s truth commission may bring us the closure we need. If done properly, it could usher in a new age of political responsibility, as well as help restore the trust Americans have for their leaders.

America was founded under the principle that all are created equal, and that none should endure cruel and unusual punishment under the law. Though we may have strayed, our core constitutional values have a way of reasserting themselves after every trial. I am glad to see that in this ordeal, it appears we have finally turned the corner.

No related posts.

In a January interview with The Washington Post, Crawford explained her May 2008 decision to dismiss war crimes charges against Mohammed al-Qahtani, the suspected “20th hijacker” in the 9/11 attacks. The evidence showed that he was tortured. “[Mohammed al-Qahtani]’s treatment met the legal definition of torture,” Crawford told the WP. “And that’s why I did not refer [al-Qahtani's] case” for trial. In November, military prosecutors said they would seek to re-file charges against al-Qahtani, but since he recanted his coerced confession, it is doubtful he will ever be brought to trial.

Let’s think about the implications for a minute. All American citizens, especially those related to the victims of 9/11, were counting on our government to bring the guilty to justice. However, rather than using legal, appropriate means to discover what happened, our leaders exercised inhumanity. They broke U.S. and international laws, and allowed our honor to be tarnished due to their actions. Many of us would consider those actions sufficient to warrant removal.

However, for those who believe that this behavior was warranted by the situation, consider this question. Even if you hate terrorists, and you want to see them rot in prison for the rest of their lives, what have we accomplished? In an ironic twist of justice, our weakness in choosing anger over restraint has virtually assured that men like al-Qahtani will never be tried. Our leaders are responsible for preventing our justice system from prosecuting the criminals being held there. And that, by any account, is inexcusable. 

The conditions at Guantanamo are by no means the lone example of torture. Indeed, the Bush administration amassed a large number of incidents, such as the shocking conditions at Abu Ghraib, or the hundreds of complaints received by the office of former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in regard to the practice of torture.

Perhaps the most telling example, however, is not an incident but a series of internal memos nicknamed the “torture memos.” In essence, these documents advocate the use of “enhanced interrogation.” This comes as little surprise, given the number of episodes we’ve already seen. What might come as a shock, though, is that the Bush administration actually re-defined torture in order to legalize their actions. That’s right: upon receiving legal advice that the Geneva Conventions would not support its policies, the American government advocated for a new definition with only the most severe violations qualifying as torture, like killing someone or inducing a heart attack. Sleep deprivation, water boarding, 20-hour daily investigations, freezing temperatures, were not considered torturous. According to the memo, “physical pain amounting to torture must be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death.”

As a proud American citizen, I find these facts genuinely disheartening. Especially difficult to reconcile is the notion that our country’s standing among the world has suffered because of the actions of its government. The America I know, the land of diversity and opportunity, would not embrace the torture of other human beings. Regardless of ideology, as a nation, we must pay more attention to what our government is doing in our name.

No related posts.

In the rapidly changing 21st century, American values have come under fire. Have no doubt about it; our Constitution and individual liberties have faced almost a decade of subtle decay in the name of security. Not so sure? Consider this: today, the government can tap your phone lines, monitor your Internet activity, search you without a warrant, arrest you without charges, and hold you indefinitely without counsel. All these things Americans have accepted in the name of protection.

While many Americans may be uncomfortable with the changes at hand, we allow them to persist. This may have more to do with public perception than lack of organization or motivation. Underneath each modification of civil liberties, we have chosen to see a noble aspiration: our collective safety.

Yet not every new law threatens our freedoms. To be fair, we must acknowledge that the balance of government power and individual liberty is likely something that changes to fit the times. The citizenry has often been the catalyst of these changes. When Rodney King was beaten in March 1991, public outcry resulted in new groups, such as Copwatch, that attempt to limit police authority. Conversely, crime conditions in mid-90’s New York City impelled the public to demand a drastically increased police presence in the city.

Through all of these changes, however, Americans continually strive to maintain the dignity of human rights that has made our country a strong, morally sound example to the world. Despite the variety of each election cycle, with our perpetual oscillation between liberal and conservative ideals, a majority of Americans do not tolerate abominable acts directed towards other human beings. Thus, we face a discrepancy. Citizens have accepted measures that are designed to increase security at the cost of their rights. At the same time, Americans on the whole decry human rights violations when they occur.

At the crossroads of these conflicting forces is one of the most controversial issues of our time: torture.

Imagine that a bomb is set to go off in one hour in your hometown. You have captured the man responsible. He isn’t telling you anything, and why should he? He expects to die, like everyone else who does not flee the city. Would you resort to using force? Just how far would you go to learn where the bomb was hidden?

Likewise, imagine that you are a citizen of Iraq. A non-discerning CIA agent has accused you of being a war criminal, and you are taken into custody. Rather than being given a lawyer, a trial, or even formal charges, you are subjected to humiliation. You are blindfolded, deprived of sleep, and subjected to waterboarding. Every right you have is disregarded.

Both of these examples illustrate the immense diversity of circumstances that must be considered when taking a stance on torture. Like with most dilemmas, extreme conditions cause our sense of morality to break down, and we are capable of doing terrible things. Though never fully justified, actions taken under intense stress are at least understandable.

Therefore, Generation Y, the question we must ask is simple: how dire is the situation? Have global circumstances justified America’s decision to disregard not only our own Bill of Rights, but the Geneva Conventions and a multitude of other laws as well? As always, the final decision lies with you. However, our cohort has been presented with the first truly potent threat to the Bill of Rights in years. The responsibility to be informed lies with us all. 

No related posts.

The first step is appointing Secretaries charged with overseeing the environment who are markedly different than those under the Bush Administration. Obama’s picks — Dr. Steven Chu for Energy Secretary, U.S. Sen. Ken Salazar for Interior Secretary, and Lisa Johnson for EPA Chief — raised a few eyebrows on all sides when they were first announced. And while I may harbor some concerns of my own, anyone with even a slight record of voting for or promoting “green” policies shines next to the Bush administration’s failure to enact or enforce worthwhile environmental regulations.

Before his appointment, Chu was best known for his work on clean energy. A professor of Physics at the University of California, Berkeley, and the director of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Chu won a Nobel Prize in Physics in 1997. At his confirmation hearing before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources last month, Chu easily maneuvered between the roles of scientist and politician.

Because of the failing economy, Chu backed off his idea to drastically raise gas taxes. He also endorsed (albeit halfheartedly) Obama’s stance on government setting caps on emissions rather than levying a carbon tax to curb them, alleviating worry among critics that he will haphazardly pursue energy goals. Despite these concessions, I am excited about what he will bring to the Department of Energy. Given his scientific knowledge and background, Chu can bring a realistic attitude to the development of renewable energy and biofuels that will allow us to become energy efficient and independent.

Before being tapped by Obama to head the EPA, Jackson was a member of New Jersey Gov. Corzine’s cabinet from 2006 to 2008, serving as Chief of Staff to the Governor and Commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. Appearing before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Jackson promised to restore scientific and legal integrity to the battered agency, a direct slap at the management under Bush. To drill home the point, Jackson said in her opening statement, “Science must be the backbone of what EPA does. … I understand the laws leave room for policymakers to make policy judgments. But if I am confirmed, political appointees will not compromise the integrity of EPA’s technical experts to advance particular regulatory outcomes.” 

Jackson’s supporters point to her involvement in the passage of the Global Warming Response Act, which aims to cut greenhouse gases in New Jersey 20 percent by 2020 and 80 percent by 2050. Her detractors suggest the law is inadequate and has too many holes through which industries can slip. Critics also take umbrage at her lack of progress on cleaning up New Jersey’s toxic waste, although it seems the real problem lay with a small budget and an uncooperative governor. My hope is that being under Obama’s leadership Jackson will approach environmental issues with the urgency they deserve.

Unlike the Energy Department and EPA, the Department of the Interior is an agency that many Americans are confused about. It is charged with protecting wildlife and endangered species and overseeing development of energy resources. It was also in the news last year because employees were accused of rigging bids, partying with oil company employees and exerting political influence on endangered species decisions.

Salazar has promised to shift the agency’s focus from partying to protecting the animals under its purview.  But still, Salazar came to the nomination process with less support from environmentalists than his colleagues. Although he has fought to preserve public lands and rivers, opposed leasing public lands for commercial oil shale development, and fought against natural gas drilling in Colorado’s picturesque Roan Plateau, there are some who question his environmental credentials. Kieran Suckling, one of the founders of the Center for Biological Diversity, a nonprofit conservation group, described Salazar as a man “who has fought against federal action on global warming, against higher fuel efficiency standards, and for increased oil drilling and oil subsidies.”

Suckling notwithstanding, I believe Salazar’s track record shows potential. I like what he said at his confirmation hearing, telling the senators on the Energy and National Resources Committee that his priorities will be reorienting Interior from a focus on fossil fuel toward alternative energy and following the rule of science.

I look forward to seeing what Chu, Jackson, and Salazar accomplish over the next four years.

No related posts.

Brad Burnett on Inauguration Day

It indeed is cliché by now, but we were witness to history with the swearing-in of Barack Obama as the 44th President of the United States of America. I was fortunate to have a front seat to this momentous occasion, as I was able to travel to Washington, D.C., for the inauguration.

The first hint of just how extraordinary the inauguration would be happened during the “We Are One” pre-inaugural concert. It was incredible to be in such a sea of people; I had never seen that many people in one place. The mood of the crowd was also striking. It was surprising to me just how friendly everyone was. There were so many people packed so tightly together that I was sure there would be at least a few short tempers. But, much like the theme of the concert, everyone seemed to be one and there were smiles everywhere. It was refreshing to be around so many happy people.

The anticipation and excitement continued to build until Inauguration Day. Inauguration Day started for me at 1 a.m. on Jan. 20. A group of us who had secured tickets planned on taking the last train into D.C. so that we could get there before the rest of the crowd. We had received bad information as to when the last train left, so we ended up having to stay in a 24-hour McDonald’s until the trains started back up at 4:10 in the morning. We were able to get onto the first train out when they started running again. It was already packed. By the time we had gotten to the Capitol, people had to be literally pushed out of the subway car because there was no more room in the train. And this was on the first train out!

Six hours later and we were in the Silver ticket area behind the Capitol Reflecting Pool. The view of the stage was not very good from that vantage point. The only thing between the massive crowds and a nearly empty Capitol Reflecting Pool was two waist-high plastic “chain link” fences. As expected, these barriers did not last long and there was a stampede along the sides of the Capitol Reflecting Pool. The U.S. Capitol Police eventually established a second barrier and I watched the inauguration from just north of the Reflecting Pool.

Tall trees obscured my view of the stage and the large projector screens, but being in the throng of people and hearing history being made was incredible. Honestly, Obama’s taking of the Oath of Office was a bit anti-climatic. It might have been because I could not see it very well, nor hear it well due to all the people around me screaming their heads off. Or maybe it was my overblown expectations of what it would be like, the fact that I had not slept in over 36 hours, or that the oath is very short. Whatever the case, I was left with a feeling of, “That’s it?”

For me, the most exciting and emotionally gratifying part of the whole program was the Inaugural Address. Obama is a very dynamic speaker and I could listen to him all day. What struck me most, however, was not his delivery; it was his words. He speaks to the heart of every American, whether Republican, Democrat, or Independent. He also speaks to the world and I think he served both the American people and the world very well with his first speech as President of the United States.

All in all, 16 hours passed from the time I left the apartment in Maryland where I was staying until I got back. It was worth every second. I do not think the importance of what I witnessed will really sink in for some years, but I know I will be telling my grandchildren long from now about when I watched history take place with the swearing in of America’s first African-American President.

No related posts.

But Obama did not use a silver-tongue to add a silver lining to the “gathering clouds” under which his oath was taken or the job that lay before him as the 44^th President.  The crowd, expecting a more upbeat outlook, was jolted back to reality by Obama’s somber speech. He talked of the war, the economy, healthcare, education, and energy, claiming, “these are the indicators of [our] crisis.” He cautioned Americans that the challenges we face are real and serious, and they can’t be easily fixed in a short amount of time.  But he offered hope, saying that “They will be met.”

Over the past eight years, we have heard many Presidential speeches that gloss over the hardships, the sacrifices that must be made to solve our problems. While it may seem encouraging at the time to hear a happy report, it only leads to doubt and suspicion when the truth is anything but happy.  President Obama advised that “this is the price and the promise of citizenship”; we must accept the bad news and revisit our responsibilities to our country and to each other.

Obama addressed one of my biggest concerns during the inaugural speech: how will he  inspire a nation that has become so cynical?  It seems as though we have lost faith in politicians, the system, our parties and our votes.  We expect to hear more bad news everyday. Even Generation Y, being young and considered inexperienced in this world, has become jaded.

The most reassuring aspect from the speech is the realistic commitment to bring the country back to the programs that restore our faith in the government.  Yesterday all generations were called upon to demand more of their government.  Obama said, “The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works.” That one line reached beyond party boundaries into the very heart of our problems as a country.  We must make government work for all the people.

He spoke of our need to forget our intolerances and mend the rip that has divided our country for eight years. He reminded us that preceding generations faced communism, fascism, and the perils of war not with weapons but with convictions. President Obama reassured us that our ideals are more powerful than any force that can stand against us. Yesterday, his words empowered us with the belief that our voices can and will be heard. He lifted us above the crisis.

January 20, 2009, was a day when even the most cynical person could look at a crowd of 2 million standing strong and together, facing the hard task of rebuilding America, and be comforted by the President’s words.

No related posts.