“Peace for our Time”: A Look at Politics and a World of Plurality and Adversity

Facing yourTransgressions

2009-05-02T23:24:00.000-07:00

Living in a land that boasts of its “strong” and “fair” judicial system, the United States courts are intricate and can be very helpful. The Adversarial Legalism in this country welcomes as many lawyers as it can get, while always keeping in mind that everyone is innocent until proven guilty. However, not all court cases and tribunals are as simple as small claims, car accidents, or robbery. The world is as perfect as its various court systems and that isn’t saying much. Unfortunately, there are governments and political movements that are overcome with power and greed and evil. These types of institutions—many times throughout history—have posed threats to weaker sects of society. And, in some cases, there are mass, state orchestrated violence projected on the feeble minorities. For one example, Nazi Germany, lead by Fascist leader Adolf Hitler began using malicious propaganda against the Jews, homosexuals, and others alike in order to prepare for his Final Solution. Hitler’s plan was to exterminate all Jews and others he deemed as enemies.

After igniting World War II and exterminating millions of people in concentration camps, Hitler came close to completion of his game plan. However, the Nazis and their allies ended up losing the war. The only question after the war seemed to be, who will pay for these atrocities now that Hitler is dead? The prosecution of the Nazis and their allies would have to be large scale, and the selection of the lawyers is a problem in itself. In response to the Nazi atrocities, the Nuremberg Trials adjourned with many Nazi soldiers accused of various war crimes and crimes against humanity.

The trials concluded in 1949 with several members of the Nazi Party convicted for war crimes. The purpose of these war crimes tribunals was deemed to be necessary in order to potentially avoid other atrocities such as genocide or insidious military invasions. However, it wasn’t until 2002 when the United Nations, established in 1945 to replace the League of Nations, when the International Criminal Court was chartered. In response to the war crimes committed in Yugoslavia and Rwanda, the International Criminal Court was applied to these violent incidents.

It is 2009 and the United States of America has still not ratified the International Criminal Court charter established by the United Nations. In fact, it took President Clinton some time before he even recognized the 1994 "situation" in Rwanda as genocide. The 1994 clash between Rwanda's Hutus and Tutsis led to the Hutu extermination of about one million Tutsis. These two factions are virtually identical, yet they have been enemies for quite some time. The Hutus became infamous for their use of machetes and even mass rapes with the intent of spreading the AIDS virus in order to eradicate Tutsi women.

The International Criminal Tribunal of Rwanda was instituted to bring justice to this war torn region. These tribunals are important because they hold certain people and factions accountable for crimes in order to prevent any future occurrences. Maybe, if the whole world knew that crimes such as genocide and mass rape are punishable, then there might be fewer cases of this sort. In 1998, Jean-Paul Akayesu, a member of the Hutus, was convicted of multiple accounts for his role in several cases of rape of Tutsi women.

The United Sates of America's image as an independent nation is respectable and understandable, but we cannot claim to be the free nation and country of justice and hope if we do not support the fair trials of war criminals. People in Rwanda were being executed in record numbers considering the duration of the war. This is something that should never happen again. It would be a milestone step for our young country to take if we stood for international justice.

-Brittain Bush

California Crisis: Water

2009-04-25T22:54:00.000-07:00

As a country facing desperate times, we must begin to understand how water is our most important resource. The Klamath River Basin, which resides on the Oregon/California border, used to be the America's third most productive salmon river. However, due to the four dams and the fight over the land between the native tribes and the farmers, there have been massive fish kills; the most devastating occurring in 2002. The dams have prevented necessary water flow need to sustain the salmon. In addition, the salmon are an extremely significant part of the Yurok native tribe.

The farmers residing in Klamath also use much of the land to cultivate their crops. However, as the fight over land continues between the farmers and the native tribes, fish are dying. Many believe that a large reason for these fish deaths come from the runoff into the river from the pesticides and nutrients used by the farmers on their harvest. As the pesticides are washed away into the river, they become algae blooms that feed on the nutrients in the water. Much of these algae blooms can cause paralytic shellfish poisoning. Additionally, algae blooms have been known to create an aerosol neuro-toxin that can harm humans. On the other hand, these farmers must be able to control some land to continue their work.

Fortunately, the stimulus bill, instituted by the Obama Administration, has given 260 million dollars to the California's water resources, 4 million of which is going towards Klamath River complements of Governor Schwarzenegger. Governor Schwarzenegger hopes that this crisis will be handled and that the salmon population will rise again. Salmon are a resource in itself that many native tribes rely on. Water is another resource in jeopardy and algae blooms are destroying this resource along with millions of fish.

April Madness

2009-04-18T23:44:00.001-07:00

Today marked the first day in the NBA playoffs, and already the questions over the MVP and Rookie of the Year award have been answered. With 38 points, 8 rebounds, and 7 assists, LeBron James of the Cleveland Cavaliers proved that they are a force to be reckoned with. James, the favorite for the MVP award this season, delivered with an extraordinary performance, as he has done all year long. Kobe Bryant, last year's winner, has been putting up big numbers, but nothing like King James. Watching James--who wears number 23--I sometimes forget that someone else once wore that same number and changed basketball forever. Whether LeBron scores with a half-court shot or a monster dunk, there is no one as good as he is.

In addition, the rookie class of this 2008-2009 season has been extremely impressive as well. OJ Mayo, the early favorite for the Rookie of the Year award, has since had some slow months. However, Derrick Rose has been coaxed throughout the season and was able to put up 36 points and 11 assists against none other than the defending champs, the Boston Celtics. Although the Celtics were without their star, Kevin Garnett, the Bulls from Chicago just seemed to outplay the Celtics on their own court. Fueled by pure youth, Rose continued to charge at the Celtics and show the world that the Bulls can win even without the previously mentioned number 23.

As the playoffs continue, I hope to see my Laker team destroy the opposition as they open with Utah tomorrow. However, I am afraid to say that Kobe isn't a shoe-in for the MVP award. Nevertheless, I do consider his team to be almost guaranteed in the big dance. Perhaps, the closest thing Kobe will be to the MVP award is if he plays against LeBron in the Finals.

SEALs: An American Superpower

2009-04-11T23:25:00.000-07:00

After reading United States Navy SEAL Marcus Luttrell's book, "Lone Survivor," you can't help but feel slightly at ease to know that there is an elite group of warriors fighting for freedom, known as the Navy SEALs.

In his book, Luttrell articulates the dangers that he and his SEAL team encountered while in Afghanistan during Operation Red Wing in 2005. In search of a high ranking Taliban leader, Luttrell's SEAL team 10 came upon goat herders in some remote field in Afghanistan. However, the SEALs had some doubts about the legitimacy of these goat herders believing that they might be Taliban scouts. Regardless, the SEALs interrogated the herders and continued their mission. Consequently, Luttrell and his team are ambushed by hundreds of Taliban, who had been informed of the American SEAL team by the goat herders. Despite their efforts, every member of SEAL team 10, except for Luttrell, was killed. Luttrell had been taken captive by Taliban forces, but soon escaped only to tell the world of his courageous story.

Recently, Luttrell, living at home in Texas, was involved in a high speed chase following four men who had executed his golden Labrador, Dasy, that had been given to him for rehabilitation purposes. "Dasy," an acronym of Luttrell and his three SEAL team members, had been shot with a .357 magnum outside Luttrell's home. Trained to kill, Luttrell, however, allowed the police to arrest the four men.

America must remember to salute its fallen heroes, but also heroes like Marcus Luttrell. In addition, Captain Richard Phillips, hostage to Somalian pirates, has also been rescued by Navy SEALs. Hopefully, the world can see that we can be a good country filled with good people. However, we will always be protected by the courageous men and women of our military. As the Gadsden Flag says, "Don't Tread on Me."

Losing Afghanistan

2009-04-03T00:52:00.000-07:00

There was much support by Americans of the US invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 following the 9/11 attacks. However, it seems that the US has been losing its grip on the war torn country. As the Taliban are fighting their way back in, hopes for democracy are fading away. Just recently, Afghan President Hamid Karzai signed into legislation a bill that would punish women if they were to leave the house without permission from their husbands.

Many critics of the bill even claim that this particular piece of legislation advocates the husband to rape his wife if she were to attempt to leave him. The law would only affect Shiite Muslims and not Sunnis. UNIFEM, or The United Nations Development Fund for Women, believes that this law is in direct violation of human rights. This bill could possibly reverse everything that Americans and Afghans have been fighting for since 2001.

There have been many positive political and societal changes in Afghanistan that have given women more power and freedom. This legislation could negate all of that. We cannot lose Afghanistan almost as much as they cannot lose themselves. Passing this bill would a be a victory for the very evil that was cast away from Afghanistan.

Stephen Mack's blog

America's New Sports Hero

2009-04-02T10:32:00.000-07:00

Mohammed Ali. Knute Rockne. Lou Gehrig. These men have left their mark on the sports world in very similar ways. Although these three men participated in very different sports, they each made memorable moments through their respective famous speeches. America might possibly have its new sports hero in the 21st century: Florida Gator Quarterback, Tim Tebow.

Standing at 6 foot 3 inches and 240 pounds, Tebow is built unlike any other quarterback in college football. Tebow raised eyebrows in Gator Nation in the 2006 season when he backed up starting quarterback Chris Leak. However, Tebow wasn't necessarily throwing many passes. Instead, the coaching staff utilized his size and fearlessness to run with the ball. Many of these plays consisted of Tebow pounding his way through the goaline resulting--many times--in a touchdown. It was this style that gave Tebow the chance to help win a 2007 BCS National Championship over Ohio State. In the following season, The Gators would not be selected to the BCS game. Nevertheless, the team would find some solace as their starting quarterback, Tim Tebow was named Heisman winner.

As a USC Trojan, nothing bothers me more than to not see my Trojans in the BCS Championship game year after year since the loss to Texas in the Rose Bowl in 2006. Apparently the BCS has some "logical" method in selecting its championship teams. In addition, I will quite possibly never fully understand this method because my Trojans not only usually have as many wins and losses as the selected BCS Championship teams, but they also are nearly unstoppable in the Bowl season. Enough of this. Back to Tim Tebow.

There is no denying the fact that Tim Tebow is a true competitor and knows how to win. In this past college football season, the Florida Gators suffered an excruciating loss to Ole Miss at home. However, in a press conference following the loss, Tebow gave a brief but inspirational speech regarding the rest of the season. He said, "I'm extremely sorry...I promise you one thing...you will never see any player in the entire country play as hard as I will play the rest of the season. You will never see someone push the rest of the team as hard as I will push everybody the rest of the season. You will never see a team play harder than we will the rest of the season." These words were simple, concise, but were filled with determination of a work-horse.

The rest is history. The Gators won out beating the country's top ranked Alabama team in the SEC championship game. Florida then was selected as the BCS number one team against number two, Oklahoma. Not even Oklahoma's stunning offense could overwhelm Florida. In addition, it wasn't too surprising that Florida's quarterback, Tebow, threw two touchdowns for over 200 yards and rushed for over 100 yards in the victory.

Today, Florida head coach Urban Meyer has decided to glorify Tebow's speech with a placard of the entire oration in metal. It will hang there on the wall and shine in its immortality. Hopefully, with one more season at Florida in his pocket, Tebow can shine as well. His legacy continues.

Narcos: Drug Cartels and Trafficking from the Latin Americas.

2009-03-02T13:29:00.000-08:00

Despite the diversity in Los Angeles, any Angeleno would agree that traffic sucks. It's quite possibly the only part of an Angeleno's day that makes he or she think that LA isn't a city of perfect weather and beautiful people, but instead, one big, loud, parking lot.
In Mexico, traffic might be perceived a little bit differently. Drug trafficking is another problem that not only negatively affects Los Angeles—due to its closeness in proximity to Mexico—but also all of the United States of America. The recent increase in civil instability in Mexico is also affecting our country in several ways; including the drug trafficking as well as the multiple U.S. government and private authorities and elements that are involved with the drug cartels and highly unequal distribution of wealth in Mexico. The drug cartels in Mexico, namely the Sinaloa Cartel, are very successful and brutal businesses, who believe that their power is derived from their products, money, and military-style weaponry.
However, the main source of power that these cartels maintain comes from its top consumers: Americans. The drug dependency of our great American citizens is what helps these cartels thrive.
The violence that has inundated the streets of Mexico is increasing as Mexican authorities augment their anti-drug agencies. Although these ruthless cartels are killing people in record numbers, America must understand that much of the illegal drugs purchased here come from these cartels. By purchasing these drugs, Americans are fueling the narcos with funding and worst of all, weapons. Since December of 2006, Mexican President Felipe Calderon has built up police and military forces alike to stand against all Mexican drug cartels. Since then, over 9,000 people have lost their lives due to the cartels pushing back against the government. This is everyday life in towns like Tijuana and Culiacan. As more and more Americans buy drugs this risk of this violence spilling into American border cities increases. It is up to our government to protect its people from this seemingly uncontrollable violence. It seems as if the Obama Administration will have one more problem with which to concern themselves. All Americans must do is decide whether obtaining their drugs is as important as the horrific violence.

The Public Intellectual: George Will and Conservatism

2009-02-21T22:15:00.000-08:00

George Frederick Will, a conservative American columnist and public intellectual has led a career that has supported politicians like Ronald Reagan and Robert Dole. However, he doesn’t always see eye to eye with every single Republican on each particular issue. For example, Will expressed many concerns about the recent Bush Administration’s Iraq policies as well as John McCain’s former VP, Sarah Palin. Will shows his strength as a non-partisan public intellectual by telling his readers that Republicans, like the ones mentioned previously, do not always make the best decisions. Accordingly, Will refuses to be labeled as a GOP cheerleader. His ideas and beliefs regarding politics have shaped his philosophy as a conservative who searches for the truth and transcribes his perspective of a free and safe America.

After receiving his M.A. and Ph.D. from Princeton University, Will was well on his way to becoming one of the most well respected columnists in the country. George Will has won many literary awards for his writings, many if which deal with politics. His power as a strong and intelligent conservative voice still grows today. His 1977 Pulitzer Prize award for his commentary is just one of many awards that distinguishes Will as a true American and praise-worthy columnist.

George Will does not muddle his writings by blurring the line between politics and religion. In fact, he does a very good job at discerning the two from his arguments and columns. Will, however, does believe in many things regarding politics. Such beliefs include that although the new war in Iraq wasn’t the best decision by the Bush administration, the American military should stay there until there is stability. A failed state of Iraq means civil unrest and makes Iraq even more dangerous to us in the future. George Will does his best to tell the story how it is and will use strategic rhetoric to get his point across.

< http://townhall.com/columnists/georgewill>.

Why The 2nd Amendment is So Important

2009-02-21T22:04:00.000-08:00

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution specifies the right to own and bear firearms, and to form a citizen militia. This right is an individual right and not a right of the state. It is considered a civil liberty in which it is fully protected by the United States Constitution.

Civil liberties are “Those personal freedoms, including freedom of religion and freedom of speech, that are protected for all individuals. The civil liberties set forth in the U.S. Constitution, as amended, restrain from taking certain actions against individuals.” The Bill of Rights, or first ten amendments, is in place in order to protect the rights of the individual, and without these rights written into the Constitution, it would not have been ratified and states would not have signed the constitution. It is a right and a civil liberty to own and bear firearms, we must protect this right because this is not only the right to own a firearm but is a right to protect and defend ourselves. The Bill of Rights is in place to protect our rights and the Second Amendment is in place so we can protect ourselves.

The Bill of Rights is made up of the first ten amendments of the constitution, which shape the notions and beliefs that Americans and the Founding Fathers have held true since the birth of our nation in 1776. These rights are individual rights, and not that of the state, to say that the Second Amendment is a right controlled by the states is to nullify the other nine amendments of the Bill of Rights. For years there have been arguments whether or not the Second Amendment is protecting a states right to regulate a militia, or an individual’s right to own firearms and form a militia. In a recent Supreme Court case District of Columbia v. Heller the court upheld that the Second Amendment of the constitution protects a person’s right to own and bear firearms.

When the Constitution was being written some colonies such as Virginia would not sign it unless specific rights were protected for the people. Consequently, the fifty-five authors of the Constitution added the first ten amendments in order clarify for the people their individual rights, and ratify the constitution. The Second Amendment was added in order to protect individuals right to own and bear firearms, much like the rights to freedom of speech, religion and press, the right to own and bear a firearm is an individual right. When the states were thinking about ratifying the constitution Tench Coxe, a political economist and delegate wrote in the Pennsylvania Gazette, “Congress shall have no power to disarm the militia. Their Swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American…The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” During this period it was clear that the right to keep and bear arms was seen as a right of the individual, and not the state. The amendment was put in place in order to ensure that Americans would be able to defend themselves, and allow the individual the tools to do so. The same holds true today. Self-defense classes are just one reason that the Second Amendment is in place. Americans have the right to defend themselves and the right to do so with firearms. In John R. Lott’s, More Guns, Less Crime,” Lott shows the reader how guns and gun safety knowledge are important factors and the more people know about guns, the safer they are. Gun control activists would dispute this with the notion that guns on the street contribute to gun violence, injury and death. According to the NRA, crime is greatly decreased in states that have concealed weapon carry. This is because people in these states are able to defend themselves and exercise their Second Amendment right. Cities such as Dallas, Texas have extremely low crime rates, which one might argue is partly due to the fact that law-abiding citizens can carry firearms, as well as prevalent gun safety awareness. At the end of the day, gun safety is the important term to understand and not gun control.

During the American Revolutionary War it was the civilian militias that were responsible for some of the most casualties of British soldiers. At this time the British were still set in their ways of traditional warfare where they got in firing lines and opened fire on each other standing face to face with the opposing army. During the revolution, the colonists presented the British with a particular version of guerilla warfare where they did much more moving and did not expose themselves, often shooting from behind trees and running to new positions in order to avoid enemy fire. This was all made possible by there ability to own and bear there own firearms, without this they would have been helpless and worthless in the war effort, which could have adversely affected the outcome. A lawyer, Revolutionary War militia officer, legal scholar, and U.S. District Court judge, St. George Tucker, wrote, “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and this without and qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government.” He clearly believed in the Second Amendment was an individual right that could not be taken away by either state or federal government.

Even though we are no longer fighting the British on our own soil, there is still a need to be able to own firearms. Firearms are utilized for a variety of uses that are largely overlooked such as law enforcement, hunting, and the shooting sports like trap and skeet. These activities promote responsibility when handling firearms, and when youth are involved, teach them lifelong lessons on gun safety and responsibility. In reference to a question regarding who should have guns and why, Ted Nugent, an avid sportsman, outdoor enthusiast and board of directors for the National Rifle Association writes in his book “Ted, White and Blue: The Nugent Manifesto, “A good law abiding citizen, not convicted of a felon. The Second Amendment of our Bill of Rights is my concealed weapons permit (Nugent). He strongly believes that it is our right as Americans to be able to defend ourselves and the government should not be able to tell you when or how you can defend yourself. In a periodical entitled, “Firearms and Health: The Right to Be Armed with Accurate Information about the Second Amendment,” Vernick and Teret believe that firearms are not dangerous and more people are killed yearly in car crashes than by guns (Vernick, Teret, 1773).

Through the proper use of firearms, one can defend himself to the fullest and ensure safety of himself, his family, and his property. For hundreds of years Americans have fought foreign enemies, defended our property and defended our rights through the use of firearms. The people that are fighting so hard to take away this right would never have rights if it weren’t for firearms.

Anti-gun activists believe that there is no longer a need for people to own and bear firearms, and that the Second Amendment is intended for the sate to be able to regulate an armed militia, and that the right to bear arms is only when involved in a well-regulated, organized militia. They try there best to come up with evidence to support their argument, but the right is protected by the constitution and the 9^th Amendment states that the people possess other rights than those enumerated and therefore the constitution does not give these rights, it simply protects rights that Americans have had all along. In Aaron Zelman and Richard W. Stevens’ book, “Death by Gun Control,” both authors write that many governments throughout history whom have taken away their citizens’ right to bear arms end up slaughtering their own citizens. These citizens had no way of defending themselves from an all-powerful government. In many cases, the only thing that follows is genocide (Zelman 78). In the first Second Amendment Supreme Court case U.S. v. Cruikshank (1876) the court upheld that the right to keep and bear arms is not granted by the Constitution, but is a pre-existing right that the constitution simply protects in the Bill of Rights. The right to keep and bear firearms is a “birth right of Americans” that cannot be taken away.

Neglecting the Second Amendment has consequences that are overlooked by gun control activists. Hunters utilize guns in their sport, and to take away these guns would cause a chain reaction of problems. Every year hunters provide millions of dollars to the conservation of land and species. Anti-gun activist use the term “assault rifle”, and say that they do not have hunting or sporting use, when the term itself is loaded language meant to gain support against guns. Assault rifles are simple semi-automatic weapons, which means for each pull of the trigger a shot is fired. Some hunting rifles are semi-automatic, which to anti-gun activists classifies as an “assault rifle.” By strictly regulating guns, activists use rhetoric to blindly promote the loss of crucial funding for habitat and conservation. The attacks on rights protected by the Constitution are more than mere attacks on the right to keep and bear firearms, but attacks on American’s right to be free. The government regulation or prohibition of owning firearms would be a breach of our rights as American’s. Personal interest groups such as the National Rifle Association fight to defend our Second Amendment right. The NRA and its members strongly believe that the right to keep and bear firearms is an individual right protected by the Constitution and are willing to provide millions of dollars in order to defend this right. The NRA not only provides funding for the defense of the Second Amendment, but supports the shooting sports and provides many shooting and safety programs.

The shooting at Columbine high school drew a lot of attention to the issue of guns and youth. The event definitely put guns into a negative light and anti-gun activists came out of the woodwork wanting to put bans on all firearms and enforce strict gun control policies. The event was shocking, but you are more likely to be struck by lighting than killed in a school shooting. The NRA has a solution for youths and it is simple: firearm safety. Children that are taught firearm and shooting safety treat guns with much more responsibility. It is the misguided youths who are never taught this responsibility that goes along with handling a firearm that end up being reckless and shooting up schools. This is not to say that if you teach a child how to use a firearm that he won’t be irresponsible, but it greatly reduces the probability and along with greater education comes a greater respect and responsibility for the power a firearm.

Pro gun control activists argue that guns are bad because they kill people. Guns can kill people, but the guns don’t just get up out of the closet walk down the street and shoot someone. People kill people. According to the National Rifle Associations website, firearms are involved in 0.7% of accidental deaths. That is less than the number of people killed on bicycles and tricycles. More people die driving cars than from guns, but there is no legislature to control cars. The reasoning behind some arguments of gun control activists simply aren’t supported by facts or statistics.

The right to keep and bear firearms is a liberty that is clearly protected by the Constitution, and is not a right of the state but a right of the individual. An individual has the complete right to defend himself whether he/she is against the British or a home invader. The federal or state government cannot be allowed to enforce when and how free law-abiding citizens can protect themselves. The use of firearms is a timeless American tradition that must be defended equally to that of our tradition of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. One of our founding fathers Benjamin Franklin once said, “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” The Second Amendment protects that liberty and safety that all Americans enjoy, and as long as it is the right of an individual to keep and bear arms, we will all continue to enjoy those freedoms.

Bibliography

Smith, Edward C, and Barnes, William R. The Constitution of the United States. Barnes

&Nobles, 1966.

Nugent, Ted. “Ted, White and Blue: The Nugent Manifesto.” Regnery Publishing, 2008.

NRA Gun Safety Rules. < http://www.nrahq.org/education/guide.asp>.

Guncite, June 29, 2008 http://www.guncite.com/

Lott, John R. and Lott, John R. Jr. “More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and

Gun-control Laws.” Published by University of Chicago Press, 2000.

Vernick, Jon S. and Teret, Stephen P. ““Firearms and Health: The Right to Be Armed

with Accurate Information about the Second Amendment.” American Journal of

Public Health. December 1993, Vol. 83, No. 12.

Zelman, Aaron and Stevens, Richard W. “Death by Gun Control.” Mazel Freedom

Press 2001.