The United States Justice Department announced last week that they will stop prosecuting those who use marijuana for medicinal purposes, as long as the users comply with local laws. In a sharp departure from the Bush administration’s stance on marijuana, United States Attorney General Eric Holder said, “It will not be a priority to use federal resources to prosecute patients with serious illnesses or their caregivers who are complying with state laws on medical marijuana.”

Although medical marijuana isn’t yet legalized in Illinois, legislation in the Illinois State Senate regarding the issue has passed. SB 1381, The Compassionate Use of Medical Cannabis Pilot Program Act, passed through the upper house of the Illinois legislature last May. But it wasn’t easy.

According to the bill, a patient with a debilitating medical condition, as diagnosed by a physician, can be issued a registry identification card by the Department of Public Health which would allow them to have no more than seven dried cannabis plants and two ounces of dried usable cannabis. After a roll call vote that followed nearly an hour of debate in the Senate, it was reported that the gallery erupted in applause when the bill passed by a narrow 30-28-1 margin.

The Senate may have lit up with elation, but the Illinois House of Representatives hasn’t been as vocal. Representative Lou Lang, a Democrat from Skokie who is sponsoring the bill in the House, said in an interview that, “If every legislator who told me we should pass this bill actually voted for it, we’d pass it tomorrow [...] but we have too many legislators who don’t have the courage of their convictions.” Essentially, many of the legislators who compose the heavily liberal-leaning House have privately stated that they want to legalize medicinal marijuana, but they are afraid to state the same in public.

In a state where 68 percent of people support legalizing medical marijuana and both the governor and his Democratic primary opponent are in favor of such a bill, it’s puzzling that the state legislature hasn’t been as supportive. Marijuana seems financially lucrative as well, as demonstrated by California, whose medical marijuana industry raked in $2 billion a year from sales and $100 million in taxes. Despite these reasons, though, support for legalization is far from uniform.

Some law enforcement and medical groups are wary of the new bill. The Illinois State Medical Society, for example, is concerned about the side effects of using marijuana medicinally, and so they want to see more research done before supporting such a law. Law enforcement agencies, understandably, are concerned that increased illegal drug trafficking is an almost inevitable component to any new legalization efforts.

Of course, the overarching reason behind the House’s inertia is purely political. Because the primary elections are coming up in February, don’t expect any work to be done on this bill until after winter; many politicians don’t want such a controversial piece of legislation to be a central theme in their primary races. Primaries are especially crucial in the Chicago area, where the seeming inevitability of a Democratic win means the primary is the race that actually matters.

If the bill does pass through the House, Mary Jane won’t be waiting on you hand and foot. Strict laws will be enforced that mimic Colorado’s system of obtaining permits in order to access medical marijuana. It’s important to note, however, that only 47 out the 13,102 Colorado citizens who applied for identification cards to buy or grow marijuana for medicinal use were denied or had their permits revoked. The bill also has a sunset law, a powerful legal check that will force legislators to reconsider the law in three years, in case its use gets out of hand.

While we may have to wait until after the primary elections, Illinois seems close to becoming the 14th state to legalize medical marijuana. So those of you with chronic illnesses that are in dire need of this new bill, you might just be in luck. The rest of you who might have a slightly different definition of “chronic illness,” your luck is probably going to get better, too.

You must be asking yourself (or you should be if you’re at all sane): How could anyone compare a country’s sexual behavior and its foreign policy? More importantly, perhaps, is why does it all matter? It seems as though hornier countries tend not to get involved in other people’s biz; they like to keep their junk in their trunks. When was the last time we heard about one of these guys invading a country in the Middle East or taking down insurgencies in Somalia? Is this because they have a lot of fantastic sex? I think so.

Here’s the list of the ten horniest countries:

10. Mexico

The sex: Our south-of-the-border amigo kicks off this list as the tenth horniest country. Most people start doing the deed (or “horizontal tango,” if you will) around 14 to 17 years of age and you’ll easily find hot and bothered Mexicans at any bar or club. As you get closer to California, you’ll find that more men and women can’t wait till marriage; in Baja California, 54 percent of women and 93 percent of men have pre-marital sex. Damn, and I thought Mexico was Catholic.

The politics: It shouldn’t be a surprise that Mexicans closer to the U.S. like to get down more than the rest of the country, seeing as how Mexico’s largest bi-lateral trade partner just happens to be the United States. Business before pleasure, or the other way around? It doesn’t matter in Tijuana where pleasure just happens to be a big (and totally legal) business.

Prostitution: Legal in some cities

9. Switzerland

The sex: About half of all men and all women in die Schweiz lose their v-cards between 14 and 16, and they don’t stop there. About 30 percent of heterosexual men and women have sex two to three times a week (we’re talking matured adults here, so cut them some slack). Oh, and 350,000 Swiss-folk pay for some lovin’ every year. And you thought those Swiss banks were keeping your money safe.

The politics: Do they have any? And no wonder, too. They’re too busy having sex to care about anything. Except for the Pope. Can’t explain that one.

Prostitution: Totally legal

8. Spain

The sex: The key phrase here is “Sexo Azul” — blue sex, a.k.a. Viagra, and boy do they use a lot of it. In 2006, one 80-euro box of the magical pill was sold for every 17 men. That’s about 1 million total. And don’t think that Spaniards mind this at all; in fact, it’s a common conversational topic. There has yet to be widespread complaint from women.

The politics: You could probably count the number of times you heard Spain mentioned in a politically tense topic. Most of what Spain does politically is focused on being European or being North African (with disputes over Gibraltar). When they realized they were wrong about Iraq, they went back to bed (if you know what I mean). And who could blame them? I’m not too sure anyone would venture too far from home if home was where all the amazing sex was.

Prostitution: Totally legal

7. Malaysia

The sex: A country too cooped up for its own good, Malaysia isn’t exactly the place where one would think to find an orgy. In fact, the Malaysian government only recently allowed for sexual education to be taught in school. But get this: Kids start learning about sex at age four. Yeah, they really cannot wait to get down.

The politics: Chua Soi Lek was forced to resign as health minister of Malaysia when DVDs of him in a hotel room having extramarital sex hit the news. Unlike sex scandals in the United States, though, 10 months later the guy became the deputy president of his party. The DVDs were a hit, apparently. Other than that, Malaysian foreign policy is quite boring. Anti-terrorism, anti-Iraq and anti-blaming Malaysia for funding terrorist groups. They listen to the Brits a lot and like getting together with other Southeast Asian and Islamic states to discuss being Southeast Asian and an Islamic state. What else can you expect from a country interested in sex at four years of age?

Prostitution: Legal

6. Italy

The sex: Probably one of the least shocking members of the list, it just isn’t very hard to imagine Italy as a horny country. But would you believe me if I told you that a third of Italians over 60 have sex regularly? Well, they do. And 64.7 percent of young folks want brothels to open up again. Really badly.

The politics: When Mussolini declared Italy a fascist state, most Italians probably didn’t even know what that meant. As Eddie Izzard put it, “They’re into life and football…they’re not fascist!” I can attest to that very statement. When I went to Venice a couple years ago, most Italians couldn’t give two cannolis about politics/foreign policy (seeing that they won the World Cup, I can’t say that I’m surprised). Football, food and sex. La dolce vita, no? Anyway, Italian foreign policy has been trending towards a more involved role, particularly with the U.S. and the EU. They’ve been having some illegal immigration issues with North Africans and are suffering from a weak global economy. But I guess when you’re only having sex a few times a week, you can afford to get involved in a few extracurricular activities.

Prostitution: Legal

5. Poland

The sex: Seven out of ten unmarried Poles admit to sex before marriage, but once they tie the knot, 80 percent of men and only 50 percent of women will admit to it. It bears mentioning that Poland is the home to the Eroticon sex toy festival and the world gangbang record. That latter one should really explain a lot.

The politics: Like pretty much every other country on this list, the Poles don’t venture too far from home when it comes to foreign policy. Other than talking to the rest of Europe and NATO, not too much happens in Warsaw. Except sex toy festivals.

Prostitution: Legal

4. China

The sex: From 2000 to 2008, 5000 sex shops opened up in Beijing. China also hosts a SEXPO where people can check out the latest sex paraphernalia. But they do spread the wealth around: 70 percent of the world’s sex toys are made in China. And need I mention a population of 1.3 billion people? Or can you figure out the connection by yourself?

The politics: This one (and the next one) is an outlier on the list. So far, we’ve had pretty politically reticent countries with very localized foreign policies. China, however, is all over the geo-political map, from trade tensions with the States and nuclear tensions with North Korea to what most of the world would suggest as unethical, amiable relations with Iran. But I’ll make a quick note about both China and its like-minded neighbor at the end.

Prostitution: Illegal

3. Russia

The sex: The thawing of the Cold War was met with a thawing of Russians’ attitudes towards sex. Recent trends have shown that Russians are much more open about doing it and are doing it early. Did the Cold War end because Reagan told them to tear down that wall, or because they felt like sex was more interesting than hemispheric chess?

The politics: Like China, Russia is no stranger to being a big player on the geopolitical stage. They invaded their southern neighbor last summer, for Pete’s sake. They also have a vendetta against the West that always seems to get in the way of Western ambitions, such as missile defense systems or economic sanctions. They also refuse to get rid of Vladimir Putin, who is so damn good at pissing the rest of the world off. They just had to keep him around, even if only for his sex appeal.

Prostitution: Illegal

2. Brazil

The sex: The birthplace of the thong definitely deserves a spot on this list. Who else could come up with the idea of turning four square inches of fabric into an undergarment? Boys start getting down at 12 and girls at 17. (Does that mean what I think it means? I hope not.) I hear that during their annual Carnaval, they do it with the costumes on.

The politics: Brazillian politics has actually been on the up and up as of late. As the only emerging economic power in South America, Brazil has taken front-line stances in almost every geopolitical debate, especially the recent economic meltdown. They’re apparently popular enough with the international community to win an Olympic bid for 2016. Unfortunately for me, this doesn’t fit with the lots of sex = weak foreign policy trend I’ve been going with so far, but you can’t win ‘em all I suppose.

Prostitution: Very legal

1. Greece

The sex: Really? Greece is number one? Frankly I have nothing to say about this. I’m about as shocked as you are.

The politics: I’m still hung up on this “horniest country on the planet” business to even briefly mention politics. Greece really doesn’t do anything other than trying to improve their struggling economy so they can get tighter with the EU (an economy probably struggling from people playing hooky and hooking up). Honestly though, WTF.

Prostitution: Legal

What we can take away from all of this?

All countries on the list are non-interventional in their foreign policies, with the two major (and I mean major) exceptions being our friends China and Russia. Then again, they’re the only two countries on the list where prostitution is illegal. Am I saying that if we want to free Tibet we should get the Chinese government to legalize prostitution? Absolutely not. Correlation is by no means causation, but it is sufficiently interesting.

Why does sex matter? Because how much sex you have affects you psychologically. If someone is affected psychologically, so too are their behavior, decisions and priorities. A society’s behavior, decisions and priorities influence its nation’s politics. Believe it or not, the fact that horny countries tend to behave similarly should be no surprise at all. What does that mean for us (and you, dear sexually frustrated reader)? More sex means more time at home, and that means more time to care about what’s wrong at home. So maybe future generations won’t see another Iraq or Somalia. Just a bunch of sex freaks that care about fixing our problems at home before messing with everyone else’s junk.

My internship with Democratic Congressman Dennis Moore of the Third District of Kansas, though incredibly enriching, was quite possibly the most frightening experience of my life. Given the unique hostility of the political world this summer, I probably would have been safer working alongside the guys from The Deadliest Catch than I was working for a Democrat in Kansas.

From the day I started, I was blindsided by culture shock. Raised in New England, I grew up with a set of values considerably different than those at my new home in the Kansas City suburbs. To clarify just why, it’s important to understand that the entire New England delegation to Congress is blue, while the entirety of Kansas is comparatively anemic: It hemorrhages dark red. The lone exception is my congressman, Dennis Moore, who is a Democrat in a fairly conservative district.

In Congress for over a decade, Congressman Moore is a seasoned pro, especially because of his status as a Blue Dog Democrat. If my internship were at a circus, which it kind of was, then he’d be the guy on the tightrope. Because his district is so conservative, he has to perform the delicate balancing act of championing progressive reform with one hand, while keeping things fiscally responsible and making constituents happy with the other. Essentially, this means there’s always a reason to hate on Congressman Moore.

As a Blue Dog, Congressman Moore gets as much attention from the President as the First Dog. This is simply because without the support of moderate Democrats, President Obama can kiss his health care dreams goodbye. Naturally, Democratic leadership and President Obama spent a lot of this summer trying to lobby people like my boss. Many in the district, however, interpreted this as Congressman Moore getting cozy with Pelosi, a notion not readily accepted in the Sunflower State.

As a Blue Dog, Congressman Moore is generally in favor of health care reform that offers a public option and won’t add to the national deficit. Because these specific conditions weren’t explicitly stated in the original version of H.R. 3200, he couldn’t exactly say he was for or against “the bill.” For constituents who were looking for either a yes or no, this wasn’t the response they wanted to hear.

“Tea-baggers” would literally send tea bags in the mail, protesters would stage rallies outside the office on a regular basis and some constituents even intentionally jammed our phone lines by organizing massive robo-calls. The only break from the action we ever got was when Michael Jackson died — because if Kansans like anything more than heckling their Congressmen, it’s apparently the moonwalk.

Usually, though, it was the interns that were taking the brunt of the heat. Like most interns in any office at any company, a lot of my time was spent at the front desk either on the phone or on reception duty in between projects. Though that’s a cakewalk in some offices, this wasn’t the case for me. I was given the most exposure to unhappy constituents, which is the real reason why this job had me sweating bullets. Taxpayers never seemed so menacing.

Your mother may have once told you, “If you can’t say something nice, don’t say anything at all.” Apparently, congressional constituents are a huge exception. Since I’d never been exposed to widespread conservatism, my experiences with informed constituents were incredibly thought-provoking and educational. The vast majority of calls to the office, however, were from angry people who weren’t interested in having a discussion and just wanted to complain about the Congressman or convey nasty messages to him. Picture a medieval-style raid, complete with pitchforks and torches — that’s what I got everyday via telephone.

To the constituents calling, since I was on the other end of the line, I suddenly became a member of Congress. I was the tangible being on which people took out their rage. I had never realized I was so sensitive! Some of the anger I heard from people had me thankful that the conversations took place on the phone and not face-to-face. Other times, I wasn’t so lucky and had to meet some of these irate people in person.

Being at the front desk, I was pretty much the only barrier between the door and the Congressman. Sounds cool, right? Well, it was until we started getting threats. That’s right, people were so angry over health care that they were actually threatening harm upon Congressman Moore. Every single time that door in front of me opened, I’d take a deep breath, praying that it wasn’t a lunatic bent on violence. It was a reality I struggled to accept.

It wasn’t conservatism that scared me this summer. In fact, I’m grateful for finally being exposed to it en masse. What worried me was that my safety, along with that of everyone else who worked in the office, was compromised because of our Congressman’s political views. Seeing this anger broadcast from town halls on television is one thing, but being there on the front lines made it that much more dangerous and that much more personal. In retrospect, I wish that front row seat had an airbag.

Unlike other, über-exotic financial instruments, credit cards are relatively easy to understand and are directly used by millions of people. There is also a very clear connection between the use of credit cards and economic expansion. Credit cards give consumers access to more money than they would otherwise have, which lets them stimulate the economy through spending or build the economy through investing in a small business. But the positive effects of credit cards do not justify a credit card industry that preys on irresponsibility and dishonesty. The Credit CARD (Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure) Act recently passed by the House and Senate, which curtails credit card companies’ ability to engage in shady and dishonest practices, is a a step in the right direction.

Some of the most drastic changes will apply to students. The bill bans credit cards for minors, unless they’re emancipated. For adults less than 21 years old, they can only apply for a card if they can prove income, and their credit limit is capped at 30 percent of that income. And unless a parent or another adult signs for joint responsibility of the card, the credit limits will be capped at $500 or 20 percent of per year income for students, whichever is greater. Although these reforms will significantly curtail the spending power of students, it will also take away the opportunities for credit card companies to lure young people with the possibility of low teaser rates and increased ability to spend, only to trap them in a revolving cycle of higher interest rates and fees.

But credit card companies’ shady practices are targeting more than just students. Those who pay the entirety of their balance every month, and thus don’t pay interest or any fees, are showered with various rewards and benefits, from airline miles to discounts on gas. But the profit margins credit card companies earn on these customers are low. So, for the customers that only make minimum payments, not only are they hit with interest payments, but their card issuers can change the rates retroactively, and any notification of the change is often buried in fine print that most people ignore or cannot discern.

There are also the infamous low teaser rates, which banks will then raise with little or no clear warning. The bill mandates that any promotional rate must last for at least six months. Another clear example of how credit card companies encourage and then profit off of consumer irresponsibility is by letting consumers exceed their credit limits without any warning. For credit card companies, this makes sense; once a customer goes over the limit, the company can start hitting them up for more and more fees and interest rate increases. Now, under this bill, credit card companies have to give 45 days of notice before interest rates go up.

Even though all these practices are all a little sketchy, they reflect a basic principle. The riskier a cardholder is, the higher interest rates should be. If a customer falls behind on his payments, the card issuer should be able to charge fees and a higher rate, but only to a certain extent. But when you read the practices the bill reforms or bans, it quickly becomes clear that credit card companies aren’t just pricing risk.

For example, the bill mandates that all agreements and terms be printed in 12-point font, that customers not be charged for paying their fees online, that banks have to disclose that only paying the minimum payment will result in higher interest rates, that bills must be sent 21 days before they’re due and that if the check clears at 5 p.m., the bill is on time. Each of these practices that the bill bans have nothing to do with pricing risk, and had everything to do with making it as easy as possible for cardholders to act irresponsibly and then start paying fees and higher rates.

So what are the likely outcomes of this legislation? For one, the credit card industry will be worse off. As the economy took a turn for the worse, companies cast their lots by trying to trick and connive their way into as much money as possible from the people least able to provide it and are now going to pay a price. Also, there’s a chance that responsible and wealthier cardholders, who pay off their entire balances every month and benefit from numerous reward programs, could be negatively affected. Banks are planning to bring back annual fees and pare back on the perks they give to their most reliable customers.

But would this really be so bad? If people are just using credit cards for convenience and rewards, we shouldn’t feel too sorry for them if they’re slightly inconvenienced, especially if it means that credit card companies will stop preying on the disadvantaged, naive and under-informed. A credit card industry that cannot scam its customers will certainly be smaller, but maybe, just maybe, that’s a good thing.

Millions of baby boomers are hitting their golden years, and with country club memberships and vacations to the Greek isles come diminished eyesight, limited hearing and slower reaction times. Putting elderly drivers on the road when they’re facing such diminished capacities is not only dangerous to them, but also could be lethal to other drivers. Texan teenager Katie Bolka’s death was the most visual case of negligent homicide, but she certainly wasn’t the only one. Something should be done to minimize the risk that other such tragedies occur.

Illinois and New Hampshire are the only two states who mandate that elderly drivers, those over 75, appear at the Department of Motor Vehicles or the Secretary of State and take a road test to renew their driver’s licenses. Unfortunately, far too many states have a multitude of restrictions on teen drivers, but none on drivers over age 65. About 20 states have no restrictions on renewals, and Oklahoma actually encourages drivers over 65 to renew their licenses online by waiving their renewal fee.

This is not just an issue of protecting others on the road, but also protecting the drivers themselves. A 2004 study by AAA showed that drivers over 65 were more likely to get in a crash than middle aged drivers, and drivers over 85 were four times more likely than teen drivers to do so. They were also four times more likely to die in a crash. Some may argue that decreasing motor privileges for the elderly is discrimination, but in fact it could lead to longer lives for many.

According to a 1995 study by the Journal of the American Medical Association, the only sure way to decrease fatalities by elderly drivers is to have them appear at the DMV. According to the NHTSA, elderly drivers now make up 9 percent of the total driving population, but cause or are involved in 14 percent of all traffic accidents and 17 percent of all pedestrian accidents.

The U.S. Census Bureau predicts that these numbers will continue to rise. There will be more than 9 million drivers over the age of 85 by 2030 (about 25 percent of the driving population), according to the Census Bureau, which means more and more drivers with less-than-stellar reaction times will be competing with everyone else on the road.

What’s the solution to this problem? Drivers who are incapable of performing necessary duties should not be on the roads. It’s an extreme solution that would prove difficult for lawmakers to back — they wouldn’t want to alienate a huge contingent of the voter base — but it’s something that is imperative for safety on roads and highways.

In the majority of states, once a driver has passed his initial road test, there is only a vision test requirement when a license expires. In Michigan, drivers receive a card in the mail when their licenses are about to expire. The card asks if they would like to renew their license, and it’s about as simple as checking “yes” or “no.”

Even for states with a vision test requirement, it is simply not enough. While a driver’s vision may be corrected to near-perfection with glasses or contact lenses, reaction time and mental acuity are not as easily assessable with a simple visit to the DMV.

The solution is not to completely overhaul the system, but to adopt a more thorough screening for high-risk drivers. Instead of an easy renewal system, all drivers should be mandated to take a road test when they renew their license after reaching a certain age. It would not only make sure that all drivers understand the rules of the road (and minimize those pesky habits like rolling through stop signs), but it would keep everyone safe.

Washington, D.C. has the most thorough laws regarding elderly drivers and renewals, which seem to be fair. After the age of 70, drivers are not only required to pass a vision test, but are also required to have a doctor’s note certifying that they are fit to drive. They may have to submit to a reaction time test, and after age 75 may be required to take a written test and a road test.

Some may argue that the costs of administering extra tests would be an unwise economic choice, but the increase in safety measures would have positive economic effects. The increased costs of administering tests would be counteracted by the drop in medical costs from fewer instances of accidents. Elderly drivers’ vehicle mortality rates are second only to those of teenagers, so they put a huge strain on hospital emergency rooms when accidents do happen.

The average cost of a road test is no more than $60, but the average emergency room visit was $560. This average does not even take into account an injured person who is transferred to the I.C.U. or another wing of the hospital.

Having senior citizens tested will save lives while saving money. The best way to get these laws passed is to write your state or national representatives and inform them of this problem. Let your voice be heard, and help make our roads safer.

Over centuries of tumultuous political history, Afghanistan has come to be known as the “graveyard of empires.” The Mughal, British and Soviet Empires have all failed in their attempts to conquer the center of the Asian web. The British and Indian quests shaped “The Great Game,” a strategic conflict for regional control. The Soviet endeavor slowly dissolved their military strength and led to the end of the Cold War. The continuing American conflict portends similar consequences. Afghanistan is not prepared for a national democracy or a vibrant market economy. The international objective vis-a-vis the imperial graveyard should be prudent and simple: Contain conflict.

As nice as it would be to call you democratically-elected, America hand selected you. Your regime is the product of the Bonn Agreement, a political deal that ensured ethnic balance in the new Afghan government. The Americans sought to jump in bed with the Northern Alliance, a group of moderate Tajik chieftains, and install its leaders as the new democratic government of Afghanistan.

However, the Afghans, a majority of them your fellow Pashtuns, would not accept the legitimacy of any government that did not adequately represent their ethnic interests. A larger political settlement, hatched by the Americans, Iranians, and various Europeans, founded the government that you now lead.

This was all about seven years ago. Since the Americans invaded, overthrew the Taliban and gave you your new job, the veneer of stability has begun to fracture. A multilateral force still has to police the streets and deliver supplies to the Afghan people. NATO and American forces are training Afghan army and police officers in the hope that power will once again reside with the domestic security forces.

This international presence, however, has failed to bring anything more than temporary stability to the region.

The Taliban, once forced to the margins of Afghanistan and the western regions of Pakistan, has reconstituted. The group is responsible for persistently mounting suicide attacks on American and international forces. Corruption pervades your government as drug interests fuel your still feeble economy. Your country has a porous border inviting violent radicals to cross; Afghanistan plays host to periodic bombings and is wanting of any rule of law; your government, paralyzed by corruption and inefficiency, remains subject to American political will.

The Obama administration seeks to increase the domestic and international security forces in Afghanistan, but can a surge bring stability?

There are four interconnected issues that you and the Americans must confront and resolve if Afghanistan is ever to become stable.

Border Control
The purpose of border control is to foster security and stability within Afghanistan so that a government can function. Waziristan, the border area between Pakistan and Afghanistan, is a safe haven for Taliban insurgents. Terrorist bases in the border regions allow for insurgents to attack swiftly in Afghanistan and escape back to refuge in Waziristan, where U.S. troops refuse to go. Without border control, Afghan security remains a fantasy.

Most consider the future of Afghan security to be contingent on cooperation with the Pakistani national government. Turmoil in Pakistani politics and continuing disputes with India have distracted from pressing concerns over Pakistan’s western border with Afghanistan. While the United States has pressured Islamabad to crack down on the haven in Waziristan, and has provided the money to do so, Pakistan has cut multiple deals with tribal councils there who are committed to maintaining the region’s Taliban ties.

The conventional wisdom is that the U.S. must increase pressure on Pakistan in order to fill in the gaps of its border with Afghanistan. Some consider a stronger troop presence in the region and continued counterterrorism missions with pilotless drones to be necessary first steps to securing the border. However, more American forces near the Afghan/Pakistani border are not the answer, nor are more airstrikes. The key to border security must come from joint local enforcement by the Afghan and Pakistani police and military forces.

The Afghan and Pakistani national governments have difficulty projecting military or police force across their entire countries. According to Afghan historian Amin Saikal, the death of Afghanistan’s founder, Ahmad Shah Abdali, prompted the country to devolve into “microsocieties” led by warlords and ethnic chiefs. The relative ungovernability of several regions within their countries renders local policing necessary and prudent.

In this case, local politics must bond with local policing to mold a new form of international relationship. Tribal councils in Pakistan need to meet regularly with provincial governments in eastern Afghanistan to keep their local populations safe from intrusion by fleeing Taliban fighters. Due to conflicting ethnic and linguistic identifications, the national police force or military from either country would have difficulty policing the border area. Instead, the border guard should be comprised of citizens who know the area and can develop a trust with its residents.

Opium
While strengthening border security may contain the Taliban, it does nothing to confront them. One of the keys to fostering stability and crippling the insurgents will be cutting off their main source of funding: the poppy trade. This trade is not only the lifeblood of Afghan terrorism, but also the livelihood of countless Afghan farmers. It is not nearly as simple as burning poppy fields or arresting warlords; cracking down on poppy farming means exacerbating the poverty of the Afghan citizens we are ultimately seeking to protect.

The soft power branch of U.S. foreign policy has already sought to switch Afghan farmers from poppies to wheat or other more innocuous crops in order to stop fanning the flames of the international drug trade. These other crops, neither as profitable nor as palatable as the poppy, have been rejected by Afghan farmers.

The key problem is that opium interests have tapped into your Cabinet and the highest levels of Taliban leadership. The Afghan government does not have any incentive to challenge them, and in turn does not challenge the insurgency’s backer. At the same time, challenging the opium interests might hurt Afghans more than it helps.

Attempting to rid Afghanistan of opium is a fool’s errand. Any solution must attempt to separate the ordinary farming interests from the drug interests. It is an oversimplification to think that there is no gray area between civilian farming and the drug trade; the two are obviously linked. Our efforts at control must be directed to push those affiliated with the drug traders out of government, which means reconfiguring your Cabinet. If we remove those linked to the drug trade from the national government, the government will be open to pursue stronger law enforcement and social policies that begin a crackdown on illicit trade and an economic transition away from a poppy-dependent system. Cleansing the cabinet, of course, must be coupled with the prioritization of transition toward other commerce.

International Occupation
Afghanistan can both secure its borders and begin to dissolve the foundation of the Taliban without an international occupation. Some defense experts argue that a surge is appropriate for Afghanistan for the same reasons it “worked” in Iraq. A larger presence directly translates into more security and affords localities an opportunity to strengthen their foundations and organize their institutions. The key to the initial success of the surge in Iraq, however, was not the number of troops, but the powerful ascent of local police forces like the Sunni Awakening Councils.

I am not by any means proposing that we flood local Afghan security forces with undocumented arms like we did the Sunnis in Anbar. Instead, I am proposing that we intensify training efforts of local security forces and deploy international NGOs like the International Law Institute to train local Afghan governments in managing a police force, building economic institutions and crafting a federalist political settlement. While the international occupying forces are the primary targets of Taliban bombings, withdrawal will only leave the country more vulnerable to extremism. As the international security presence disintegrates, the Afghan political and security presence will need to strengthen.

Federalism
Throughout history, no strong national government has successfully governed a unified Afghanistan. Though I have no problem trying to defy history, a strong national government in Afghanistan is just not feasible. The forces of the tribal system of local government are too strong for a central source of power to overcome.

However, a national government can and should exist. It should bring representatives from the various localities together in a political settlement of limited authority. The point should be to regulate trade and international affairs, not to set policy for the whole of Afghanistan. There should be a national army and police command, but forces that are funded and trained at the local level. There will of course be difficulty with the loyalty of these forces to the national government. If they report to national commanders of diverse backgrounds, though, it is possible to avoid internecine conflict.

The American model of federalist governance will not work for Afghanistan, but a more regional model might. Power should be highly localized in terms of meaningful policy and development decisions. While the national government will undoubtedly play a role in fostering stability and growth, a negotiated cabinet with shared power might prove less inimical than an authoritative premier. Ultimately, I am saying that your government should relegate more power to the provinces and that you should share more power with a less corrupt cabinet.

If nothing else, these debates reaffirm that your job is unenviably difficult. I fear that your country may become a vacuum, a failed state in a region of incredible instability. The United States cannot repair it. You cannot repair it. You can, however, begin to plant the seeds that will revive the imperial graveyard.

Very truly yours,

Ben Armstrong

Governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana speaks at a rally for John McCain in Kenner, LA on June 3, 2008. Photo by dsb nola on Flickr, licensed under the Creative Commons.

With the Democrats in control of both Congress and the White House, Republicans have to play the unfamiliar role of the opposition party. Their response to President Obama’s $787 billion stimulus package, with a lot of complaining backed up by a few poorly planned threats, shows that the GOP has a lot of work to do if it wants to compete in future elections.

While resistance to the stimulus bill is to be expected, a few Republican governors have taken it a step further. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, Haley Barbour of Mississippi, Mark Sanford of South Carolina and Sarah Palin of Alaska have said that they are planning on turning down some of the funding. “This administration and this Congress are poised to mortgage the economic future of my four boys and the millions of young Americans just like them,” Sanford said in a political commentary piece on CNN.com. “To me, that’s simply not a morally acceptable outcome.”

What Sanford and the others don’t understand, however, is that doing nothing in the face of such an economic crisis would be so much worse. Obama was elected in large part because Americans trusted him to lead the country through its economic struggle. For governors to withhold badly needed money from their constituents is irresponsible, and for them to do it because of partisan differences is just petty.

Jindal in particular needs to be singled out for his decision, as Louisiana has a bit of a history with poor government response to its troubles. His opposition is aimed at stimulus money meant to expand unemployment insurance. In a state still reeling from Hurricane Katrina, denying unemployment insurance just seems wrong.

Political ambition may also factor into this defiance. Three of the four governors mentioned — Sanford, Jindal and Palin — have been brought up as likely contenders for the 2012 presidential election. Their opponent, of course, will be the incumbent Barack Obama. To win the Republican nomination in a few years, a candidate will have to prove to the conservative base that he or she stood up to Obama and is willing and able to defeat him.

If the stimulus doesn’t work out as planned, these three potential candidates can use the issue the way Obama used the war in Iraq during his run — they were opposed to it from the start. By refusing funds, however, they are trading financial aid for potential political capital.

You know these are strange times when Arnold Schwarzenegger emerges as the voice of reason. In an interview with ABC, the California governor said that the President needs “team players.” “You’ve got to go beyond just the principles,” he said. “You’ve got to go and say, ‘What is right for the country right now?’” Citizens have seen the economy spiral further and further downward; they want the government to do something.

This is where the governors in question are bound to fail. It’s more than fine for them to argue over portions of the bill. It’s their duty as the loyal opposition to fight for conservative principles. In the end, though, refusing money from the bill just looks irresponsible. It would be unfair for GOP politicians not to stand up for their ideals, but it’s just as unfair for Louisianans, Mississippians, South Carolinians and Alaskans to be denied economic aid because their leaders are too partisan to see the need or too arrogant to care.

I’m obsessed with Rod Blagojevich. Guilty as charged.

My adoration began when I wrote about Blagojevich (henceforth to be called Rod) for NBN and my Broadcast Writing professor forced me to watch an inordinate amount of local broadcast news. With each new update on the impeachment proceedings, I fell a little bit more in love with that mass of over-gelled hair and that horribly goofy grin. With each new sound bite of his faulty but impassioned reasoning, a sense of glee rushed over me. I could not stop laughing.

In case you haven’t noticed it yet, Rod is hilarious. He’s completely foolish and he doesn’t even know it. He’s a quasi-politician turned village idiot whom we can all find joy in laughing at. I found myself actually enjoying watching local broadcast news. Last time I turned on the TV, Rod was shown walking aimlessly on a sidewalk in Chicago as if he were lost. (Um, don’t you live in this city? LOL.) The fact that soon he would leave the airwaves and return to the boring, unpublicized life of regular civilians saddened me a little bit. Then it hit me — Blagojevich should have his own reality television show.

Imagine my joy when I heard that Rod had actually been offered a job in reality! According to politics and pop culture blog La Figa, the creator of VH1’s Shooting Sizemore and Showtime’s I Can’t Believe I’m Still Single, Terence Michael, wants Rod “to call [him] ASAP” about starring in his own reality series.

My visions of Rod’s shift into the entertainment industry may actually come true. The impending transition should not be too difficult for him. The media has already made references about his similarities to people in reality television. Time magazine even dedicated an entire article to the correlation. Plus, the salary should be inviting for a fallen politico such as himself: With the possibility of his pension being denied, money could be an issue. Rod is bound to make more in television than in his first post-impeachment gig as a pizza deliveryman.

This show would probably air on VH1 or Bravo and be rerun regularly on Sunday afternoons. Cameramen would follow Rod around as he tried to regain footing in the world. Now that he’s been banned in Illinois, is he going to pursue politics in a small town in the middle of Kansas? Or will he go into the business sector, perhaps starting his own clothing line, or better yet, hair product? How has his relationship with wife Patti been affected by all this? I bet they’d even have an episode or two featuring Rod facing the pain of trying to reconnect with his father-in-law. (“Hey Dad, how’s it going?” “Well Rod, remember that time I basically launched your political career and you ended up being an anchor of idiocy who brought down my princess’s reputation? Yeah, I’m still not over that.”) All ordinary life situations would be infinitely more interesting simply because of Rod’s involvement. Example: Rod learning to pay bills with money instead of favors. Rod at a PTA meeting trying to engage other parents’ in shady playdate deals. The list goes on.

Yes. I can already imagine it: Rod talking into a camera, explaining his ridiculous actions as if he were acting under a perfectly respectable mindset. Only now, he won’t be ruining the lives of ordinary Illinois citizens, just the select ones who choose to get involved with him. Everybody would love to hate this show. It’d be like I Love New York or The Simple Life, where at first you thought “How is it possible that my brain cells are dying so quickly even though I’m completely sober?” but 72 minutes later, you found yourself cursing the day Megavideo limited free video watch time. (Seriously, it sucks.)

The Rod Show will be awesome in so, so many ways. Next will come the Rod Blagojevich segment of The Fabulous Life Of…and guest roles on How I Met Your Mother. But maybe the best part is the image of our embattled former governor walking down the red carpet with Janice Dickinson on one arm, Brody Jenner on the other. Rod Blagojevich: From a superstar in his own head as a politician to a superstar in his own head as an entertainer.

But even I have trouble coping with the numbers. The 22-day offensive into Gaza is estimated to have killed 1,300 Palestinians and wounded 5,000 more. Tens of thousands have lost their homes. During the attack, conditions in Gaza deteriorated to medieval levels. Swollen prices of scant food and fuel resources led to massive hunger. Two-thirds of Gaza’s 1.5 million people lacked electricity, and some 400,000 still don’t have running water. B’Tselem, an Israeli human rights group, estimates that more than half those killed were civilians. How do you reconcile all that with 13 dead Israelis?

How pro-Israelis reconcile the disparities

The typical answer I get from American Jews is about justification. Gaza is controlled by an Islamic government, Hamas, whose charter promises to destroy Israel and replace it with an Islamic Palestine. Thousands of Hamas jihadists smuggle Iranian-bought rockets through tunnels in Egypt, a country that generally looks the other way. The rockets are indiscriminately fired at Israeli civilians, about one million of whom are in range. So it shouldn’t have come as a surprise that when Hamas formally ended a six-month truce, fired more rockets and killed a civilian, Israel fought back. Logic says that any nation in the world has an obligation to defend its residents from assault. Yes, the casualties are lamentable, but the basic right to self-defense remains unchanged.

This is usually where the dialogue ends. If you’re an American Jew, the expectation is that you defend Israel as an affirmation of its right to exist. For example, on Jan. 9, about 3,000 people rallied in Chicago in support of Israel. Sallai Meridor, Israel’s ambassador to the U.S., prepared a video message for the event.

“In this war against terror, the front is first and foremost in Israel in the south,” he said, as reported by the Jewish United Fund. “But it’s not only there. It’s every place in the world. It is here in Chicago. And in this front, you are the soldiers, you are the officers and there in Chicago you are sending a very important message to the terrorists that terror will not prevail.”

And that’s really the crux of the matter: American Jews feel that if they don’t support Israel unconditionally, they give credence to the attitude that the Jewish state doesn’t have the right to exist. They oversimplify the issue, using phrases like “if the Palestinians put down their weapons today, there would be peace tomorrow; if the Israelis put down their weapons today, there would be slaughter tomorrow.” It’s a hyper-sensitive reaction bred by a culture of perpetual insecurity, and the roots are easy to find.

Why history makes the conflict so hard to resolve

A cursory glance at Jewish history reveals a consistent, global tendency to persecute and expel the Jews. Zionism and its search for a Jewish state were in motion long before the Holocaust prompted large migrations to Israel. The concept of a Jewish homeland, one that can safeguard Judaism, is essential to understanding Israel. The country is only 85 miles long at its widest point (it takes all of 90 minutes to drive across Israel), and it’s surrounded by hostile nations. It is constantly threatened by terrorist groups who target Israeli civilians.

Pro-Palestinian demands run directly counter to the Jewish defensive intuition. The Palestinians, Arab refugees originally displaced in the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, have grown to a population of more than 4 million. In the West Bank, Palestinians face rampant poverty and unemployment. The Gaza Strip, which in 2005 was unilaterally evacuated of all Israeli settlers, is still economically controlled by Israel. In neighboring countries, Palestinians are in varying stages of citizenship and economic restriction, often living in overcrowded refugee camps. With the exception of Jordan, these Arab nations refuse to fully absorb the refugees as equal citizens. Palestinians demand the right of return — they want to resettle the homes their parents left 60 years ago, even though these areas are now either gone or replaced by different families. More importantly, absorbing these masses of angry refugees would make the Jewish people a vulnerable minority in a country that was intended to be their stronghold.

American views of Israel back up Jewish support

The grand diversity of American two-party politics has only sustained countless cycles of Israeli-Palestinian bloodshed. A mainstream attitude toward Israel, dictated by mutual economic interests and cultural-political ties, has made both Democratic and Republican administrations firmly “pro-Israel.” Since Truman, both parties have ensured through funding that Israel maintains a military edge over its enemies, and both have consistently supported keeping Jerusalem a united capital city under Israeli rule. Republican and Democratic platforms urge the isolation of Hamas until it recognizes Israel’s right to exist and ceases terrorist activities.

While the American mainstream media has maintained a supportive status quo, the far left has veered sharply against Israel. This group of journalists, academics, and activists organize anti-war rallies that feature Israeli flags whose Stars of David are replaced with swastikas. Leftist news sources such as Democracy Now! and The Nation portray Israel as a colonial outpost hungry for expansion. Here at Northwestern, an NU Left meeting last week invited panelists to discuss the conflict in Gaza. Israel was blamed entirely, and Palestinian terrorists were portrayed as noble freedom fighters.

So where can an American Jew stand?

American Jews find themselves in a perplexing political situation. The mainstream “pro-Israel” attitude further perpetuates conflict by dissolving any real pressure on Israel, which is allowed to act destructively in a cycle that ultimately creates more hostility and reactionary violence. It convinces Palestinians and Arab nations that Israeli aggression is unchecked and therefore unstoppable. And it doesn’t allow for real criticism of Israeli policy. On the other hand, American Jews cannot possibly support the far-left approach that demands the total dissolution of the Jewish state and absolutely no Palestinian concessions.

The result is a massive number of young Jews who don’t know where they stand. The two vocal groups that emerge after an Israeli-Palestinian crisis are absurd. Staunchly right-wing Jewish communities defend disproportionate acts of Israeli aggression and justify the expanding settlements with Biblical claims to the land. Pro-Palestinian groups refuse to acknowledge the role of Hamas terrorism and seek to make Israel a secular state that will allow the Palestinians to resettle in virtually nonexistent homes. So, for fear of betraying the Jewish state, those American Jews caught in the middle stay quiet. They don’t speak out against the level of aggression in Gaza, and they don’t mention Israel’s obligation to protect its citizenry.

Stepping towards real dialogue

One of the first ways to begin real dialogue is to recognize that extremists on either side are part of the problem, according to Eboo Patel, the founder of Interfaith Youth Core, who wrote an article about the “status quo rules for Middle East engagement.” “Hamas is a destructive force to Israelis, and a destructive force to Palestinians. Muslims should feel no obligation to defend them. The militant settlers are murder to Palestinians, and also murder to Israel. No Jews should feel like they have to defend them either.”

This is the first step in distinguishing loyalty from reason. A Jewish consciousness confident enough with its own identity that it can seriously criticize Israeli policy must be developed. This should be the role of young American Jews. We need to realize that examining Israeli policy isn’t denying its right to exist, but rather helping it move toward a state of sustainable peace and security.

In Gaza, the debate has primarily been: was it an act of disproportionate aggression, or was Israel acting in justifiable self–defense? Our discussion needs to expand to a level where we can answer “yes” to both these questions and move on. Yes, Israel has a right to defend its citizens. In a situation where the international community will not or cannot force acts of terrorism to stop, Israel must act. But lashing out against the entire civilian population of Gaza isn’t just wrong, it’s ineffective. Just 10 days after the truce, Hamas was rebuilding its tunnels and firing rockets that have already killed an Israeli. With every botched attack, Israel loses international credibility. And martyrdom only gets more popular as Palestinians have less to lose.

Yes, Israel’s reaction was unreasonable. But pro-Palestinian activists must stop defending Hamas militants as “freedom fighters.” These inhumane tactics are wholly ineffective at reversing Israeli policy — if anything, Israel’s restrictive system of checkpoints and economic sanctions only strengthens policy. The more threatened Israelis feel, the more likely they are to elect right-wing extremists who truly don’t care for Palestinian human rights and will continue settlement expansion into Palestinian territory.

The young American Jews caught in this debate must be vocal about their discomforts with Israeli extremism. We need to embrace an American administration that will put pressure on Israel to find alternative solutions. And we must appeal to the other side for mutual understanding before real deliberation toward peace can begin.

When I found out that I would be getting a ticket to attend the presidential inauguration, I was ecstatic. Fully aware of Barack Obama’s eloquence, I expected that hearing his undoubtedly historic speech in-person would be the highlight of my trip, if not the highlight of my life. What ensued, however, was a journey that brought me from spotting snipers to buying action figures, from singing Bon Jovi with a girl I’d just met to contemplating the logistics of rebelling against the government. The entire trip, not just the speech, was what made the experience.

In order to get into Washington, D.C., I had to fly home to New Jersey and spend my Sunday morning on the Amtrak to D.C., Joe Biden-style. Both the flight and the train were filled with Obama supporters, and none could contain their excitement about the historic event. I felt a little bad for the few Republicans who must have been traveling with us, but to the winner go the spoils, and our spoils included obnoxiously-sized buttons and lots of chanting.

Arriving in the capitol, the first thing I noticed was that there were cops everywhere. The entire city had turned into N.W.A.’s worst nightmare: Many streets were closed to make room for the police cars, bomb squad trucks, F.B.I. vans and Humvees that were constantly patrolling the area. A pastime among many visitors was pointing out the security snipers that were strategically positioned on buildings all over the city. It was like a game of Where’s Waldo, if Waldo wore a black jumpsuit and was capable of blowing your brains out from 1,000 yards away.

I had arrived in time to see the We Are One concert, which kicked off the inaugural events. Anyone who had taken John McCain’s “Celebrity” ad to heart would have probably suffered a coronary at this show’s star-studded guest list. Performers from Bruce Springsteen to Garth Brooks to Shakira appeared, interspersed with readings by the likes of celebrities such as Steve Carell, Tiger Woods and Samuel L. Jackson.

It seemed to me that most of the musicians simply played their patriotic tune and left, which left it up to U2 to provide us with a personal message. After concluding “Pride (In the Name of Love),” which contained an awkward shout-out to Joe Biden of all people, Bono stared solemnly into the audience and told us that the American Dream is a dream shared by “Europe, Africa, Israel… and Palestine!”

Monday held no official events, so the Mall turned into a bizarre bazaar of Obama kitsch. Some items were standard: t-shirts, buttons and hats. Others were a little more out-of-the-ordinary: One could purchase Obama soap, sunglasses, and a lotion titled “O-Balm-a.” Some products were just inappropriate. Can we now sex up our lovers in Obama-themed lingerie? Yes we can!

Local shops and citizens selling shirts out of their vans weren’t the only ones who got to participate in the whimsy of unbridled capitalism. Several larger companies incorporated the inauguration’s imagery into their ads. Metro stations were plastered with posters with the tagline “Embrace change.” Pepsi handed out scarves and buttons that said “Hope,” but with the “O” replaced by the Pepsi logo. Given the Obama campaign’s success with taglines and branding, expect a lot of corporate piggybacking while his approval ratings are still high.

Generally, the entire event was a huge Obama lovefest. I had expected to see a lot of protesters or pamphleteers, but all I got was a few fundamentalist Christians with signs and a bullhorn. A crowd had gathered as one of them screamed about how God had turned his back on America. Their signs called attention to “baby killing women,” “porn freaks” and “sports nuts,” among others, to let them know that judgment is coming. A few college students eventually started to drown them out with an Obama cheer.

On the other side of the spectrum was a man who continuously waved around a huge sign that said “We have overcome.” This man, who was white, was very popular among those looking to take pictures. I asked myself inwardly whether or not a white man could really decide that “we have overcome,” but decided not to ruin his moment by voicing the question.

Even though I had a ticket, I still had to wake up early the next morning to get a good spot for the inauguration. My day started at 5:30 am, but it began even earlier for many other people. If you’ve ever seen one of those Animal Planet shows where they have clips of migrating wildebeests, you might have a sense of what it was like to crowd through the closed-to-traffic city onto the Mall. I then waited in line for two hours before I was able to pass through a security checkpoint and get my place about 150 yards from the Capitol. Many complained about the cold, but January’s subzero temperatures in Chicago had forever altered my perception of weather. Ten degrees in D.C. was balmy by comparison.

In line, I was surrounded by groups of friends and relatives. Being a lone ticket-holder, I was forced to live vicariously through their conversations; my most in-depth communication at the time was telling a family from New York that I was from New Jersey. This all changed when a woman behind me, upon seeing the security gates up ahead, cried that we were halfway there. The girl standing next to me and I broke out simultaneously into the chorus of Bon Jovi’s “Livin’ on a Prayer,” and we bonded instantly. She and her friend were freshmen at UCLA, and they kept me sane through the grueling waiting process.

Once we got in, the buzz on the Mall was all about the president-elect, although no one called him by his name; Obama was simply referred to as He. “When is He going to take the oath?” strangers would whisper to one another. “Will He be walking out with Michelle?” “What do you think He’ll say in His speech?”

The crowd grew restless as His appearance was delayed by superfluous things like a classical music performance, the introduction of those on the inaugural planning committee and Joe Biden being sworn in as vice president. Looking backward at the millions of people assembled to watch, I began to think about what would happen if we were an angry mob instead of a hopeful one. We could have easily stormed the building and probably taken control of the federal government. Worried by my own line of thinking, I nearly panicked when I saw a man pull out a small briefcase and assemble what looked like a high-powered sniper rifle. It turned out to be some huge, ultra-slick camera –- he must have been able to capture every one of Obama’s shiny white teeth with a zoom like that.

Finally, it was time for the speech itself. I remember liking it, although nothing specific was all that memorable. There was no real standout moment, like FDR’s “fear itself” line or JFK asking us what we can do for our country. Obama said that the economy will improve with work, that he will change Bush’s general policy positions and that America can beat terrorists. Don’t get me wrong: All of these are good points to make. In the end, though, we know the reasons we voted for Obama and Obama knows what he was put in office to do. The speech served as nothing more than a reaffirmation of the new president’s purpose over the next four years.

Walking out into the densely packed streets of downtown D.C., I heard a number of people telling family and friends that they had “witnessed history.” I think this is selling the public a little short. The massive crowd, more so than the speech, is probably how this inauguration will be remembered. While Barack Obama achieved a great deal to get to where he is today, he couldn’t have done it without winning all of those votes. My point is that, for all those who watched this moment, either from the Mall, on a television, over the Internet, or across some other medium, you really didn’t witness history. You made it.