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.

We entreat world leaders to address big issues. You read the entreaty. You learn about the issues. World leaders address them… maybe.

Dear Soon-to-be President Obama:

Violence between Arabs and Israelis has fallen into a devastatingly predictable cycle. Step one, insurgents lob rockets into Israel. Two, Israel retaliates. Three, condemnations and recriminations shoot back and forth between international power players (as Northwestern’s Students for Justice in Palestine and other grassroots organizations send out mass e-mails calling for protests). Four, rocket, mortar and gunfire from both sides continues with increasing intensity. Five, the parties sign an internationally-brokered peace treaty to global fanfare. Six, break the truce and repeat.

The current all-out war between Israel and Hamas in Gaza has followed much the same process of violent retribution, but has found step five – a peace treaty – much harder to reach. The United States has often sought to play a central role in the peace process, but with minimal success. As I write, the attention-starved French President is trying – and failing – to secure a temporary ceasefire between the parties. Egypt, sharing a border with Gaza; Russia, seeking to increase their international diplomatic muscle; and the UN Security Council, looking to secure a peace that abides by international law — all have failed in their efforts to broker a truce. Now that the Israelis have escalated their military response from targeted airstrikes to a ground invasion, it is less clear when and how the war will end.

There is inevitably pressure on your administration to craft a quick and sustainable peace. However, it would not be beneficial to any party – except Hamas – for the current conflict to end in another superficial ceasefire. Israel and the United States label Hamas – Gaza’s governing party – a terrorist organization, refusing to engage in any economic or political relationship. Past American presidents have injected themselves into the conflict with vigor, as have European and international diplomats. Their failures have called into question the very idea of intervention in a conflict that has become absurdly complex.

Critics of Israel point to the huge disparity in civilian deaths between the two parties. While few Israelis have been killed in the fighting, over 600 Palestinian civilians have died. The gap is largely due to inaccurate Palestinian weaponry and strong Israeli civilian protections including bomb shelters and other defenses. While critics of Israel often point to tragic instances of civilian loss such as the recent bombing of a UN school in Gaza, the Israeli armed forces are not malicious and do seek to avoid civilian casualties, focusing on known militant targets. However, it is common for insurgents to hide behind civilians. Of course, Hamas’s detestable tactics do not excuse civilian casualties, but they do put the difficulty of the war that Israel is fighting into context.

Any resolution to the current crisis must consider both short-term and long-term implications: the humanitarian implications for the Palestinian population and the lasting security threat to Israel. A sustainable peace that favors international human rights norms requires a two-state solution. With Hamas in power, a sustainable two-state solution is near impossible. Your administration should arrange – but not direct – two-part negotiations that work toward a quick ceasefire for the current crisis and an internationally-recognized two-state solution.

While the United States should take a leadership role in putting these dual-purpose negotiations together, your administration should not act on its own. Instead, after the United States receives commitments from regional and international actors to take part in the peace efforts, American diplomats should take a step back and express their voice primarily through the UN Security Council. Using the UN as a vehicle will strengthen and moderate the UN’s position in securing peace. It will also serve to quell international criticisms of the United States as a partisan broker on the Arab-Israeli conflict. The United States must make it clear through public statements and actions that a friend to Israel need not be an enemy to the Palestinians.

Any resolution to the immediate crisis must eliminate the ability for Hamas to launch rockets from outposts in Gaza. It must provide for – and secure the delivery of – humanitarian assistance to Palestinians in Gaza, particularly children. The resolution should also set forth a timetable for the Israeli withdrawal of ground troops contingent upon specific benchmarks for the government in Gaza. For example, the government in Gaza must recognize the right of Israel to exist and undergo a verified, internationally-monitored disarmament before Israel withdraws. Other prerequisites for an Israeli troop withdrawal may include open parliamentary elections within Gaza and a peace agreement between Hamas and Fatah.

If Gaza adheres to these terms and others set in the negotiations, Israel should not only commit to withdraw, but also provide economic incentives. If Israel links the destiny of the short-term negotiations to the overarching concerns of the Palestinians, it has a better chance of seeing sustained peace. Israel should consider a timetable for opening up Gaza’s border that hinges upon the Gazan government’s ability to abstain from firing rockets. The United States and the European Union can also offer the government in Gaza aid and trade for keeping the peace. While the government in Gaza would receive carrots for adhering to the proposed peace plan, Israel is offered a temporary reprieve from international law. The proposed plan would sanction Israel’s temporary occupation of Palestine as long as the Israeli government allows the UN to investigate, report on, and respond to the humanitarian circumstances throughout the Gaza Strip.

Whether or not this would improve things at all, let alone bring about a lasting peace, is unclear. One of the biggest question marks is Hamas. I have used “the government in Gaza” because I hope that these negotiations will occur in a post-Hamas era. I do not believe that any peace will occur as long as Hamas bears political clout in the Gaza Strip. However, Israel can use political leverage to promote a transition to more moderate government.

In order to do so, it must convince Arab states interested in a two-state solution that the goal will not be met under a Hamas regime. Stratfor — a private intelligence provider — has reported that Arab states have begun to consider Hamas as more of a threat than an ally. In order to achieve a more economically fluid, politically peaceful Middle East with a Palestinian state, Hamas must go – and powerful Arab states can make this happen. Increased support for Fatah – coupled with a rhetorical campaign labeling Hamas as enemies of peace – could put Hamas even further on its heels. While I do not insist that your administration get involved in regime change, it must maintain that Hamas is not a friend to Palestinians seeking peace.

Moreover, the prospect of a two-state solution seemed impossible during peacetime. It would be crazy to look for a lasting solution when the two parties cannot even agree to stop bombing each other. While it may be tempting to focus solely on the most recent conflict, a temporary ceasefire would do nothing other than provide a time-out for both sides to regroup and plan more devastating attacks. When the sides come together to discuss how and when to stop their most recent explosive escapades, it will be a fitting opportunity to confront the more pressing underlying regional problems that the parties face.

On both sides, many close to the conflict have become divided and partisan. The parties’ interests seem so sharply opposed that peace is only possible in a matter of decades. Many programs today focus on the next generation. They seek to feed tolerance and teach reconciliation. But need we give up on the current generation of fighters? These are the times and the people that shape the perspectives of today’s youth. Your administration must make it clear that its desire for peace is stronger than its commitment to protect Israeli interests.

Happy New Year,
Ben Armstrong

Could Bobby Jindal be the new face of the Republican Party? Photo by Marc V. Genre on Flickr, licensed under Creative Commons.

Conversely, after eight years of a Republican-dominated Washington, Democrats across the country are elated by their return to power. Not since the early days of Bill Clinton have Democrats controlled the House, Senate and White House. This immense shift in power, however, is not just bad news for the GOP. It could potentially be detrimental to the entire country. For example, six out of the last eight years have been under Republican control in both Congress and the White House, and that full control threw the U.S. into controversial situations with little opposition. In a two-party system in which one party is virtually ineffective, balance of power becomes a moot point.

So how do the Republicans prevent the tables from turning completely? What does the ailing GOP do now?

With no clear leader at the helm and a major identity crisis looming, the Republicans are heading into an unknown abyss. Congressional races in 2010 will undoubtedly be an important opportunity to regain Republican control in Washington — after all, the incumbent president’s party has lost considerable strength in the House in 23 of the 26 midterm elections since the beginning of the 20th century. But the GOP will also focus on developing their candidates for the presidential election in 2012 to give the party a feasible figurehead.

The party’s 2008 presidential candidates arguably paled in comparison to the unprecedented field of Democratic candidates, which included an African-American, a woman and a Hispanic man. In contrast, the Republicans put forth the usual suspects in their primaries: older, uninspiring, white men who simply seemed out of date compared to the Democrats. But dissatisfaction with the Republican candidates was prevalent within the party as well. A battle raged between social conservatives and pro-business fiscal conservatives, with both sides represented by at least one candidate (Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney, respectively), and no clear compromise between the two. McCain ended up assuming the role of the “compromise candidate,” but not before a frontal assault from the right.

In 2012, the GOP will need a candidate around whom the party can rally, but who doesn’t polarize independent or even Democratic voters. Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, the 37-year-old Indian-American who is both a staunch social and fiscal conservative, has generated the most buzz. His youth and exotic background appeal to voters seeking a fresh face, and his conservative credentials would secure support from his likely voter base. United Press International has already called Jindal and his family “the other Obamas.” If they are to compete with what could very well be a successful incumbent candidate in 2012, the Republicans must put forth a formidable and competitive challenger.

Another option could, of course, be McCain’s former running mate, Sarah Palin. She isn’t necessarily damaged goods after her defeat in 2008, but she didn’t emerge unscathed. National focus on her “Troopergate” scandal and her constant lampooning on Saturday Night Live contributed to a somewhat negative reputation throughout the campaign, but, as Richard Nixon proved in 1968, presidential victory is possible even after previous defeat. Palin would first need to boost her political credentials before even considering another run at the White House, and the opportunity may present itself soon. As Alaska Senator and convicted felon Ted Stevens seems poised to win reelection, he also faces probable expulsion from the Senate, according to Majority Leader Harry Reid. If this is the case, Palin could very well run in a special election to fill the void – and in Alaska she would likely be the front-runner, touting her experience as both governor and Republican vice-presidential nominee. Time in the Senate would give her more foreign affairs experience and at least an introduction to Washington politics, both of which many considered her to lack during the general election.

After they find a suitable leader, the Republicans must also reconsider their voter base. Following the skillful assembling of a younger, more diverse coalition by the Democrats, the Republicans have no choice but to court potentially neglected voters– and soon– in an effort to expand their now-shrinking voter base.

Obama won the popular vote by almost eight million votes en route to winning the electoral vote 364-162, with Missouri still counting votes. Though the majority of white voters and Protestants still turned out to support McCain, fewer did than in the 2004 election, according to New York Times polls. Additionally, while 43 percent of Hispanic people voted for President Bush in 2004, only 31 percent supported McCain this time around. This, combined with overwhelming turnout among black and young voters, contributed to a rejuvenated Democratic voter base and, in turn, gave Republicans a grim look at a future of potential electoral disappointment.

Republicans, who usually best the Democrats in voter turnout, must first ensure that their base turns out more in future elections. Furthermore, reconciliation with certain alienated groups, like Hispanics, will be crucial to increasing the voter base and guaranteeing electoral victory. Inevitably, there will be some who are disenchanted with the Obama administration and the Democratic Congress, so the GOP should try to attract those voters. But Republicans will also need to try to recapture the days of Reagan, when 59 percent of voters aged 18-29 chose the Republican ticket. In 2008, McCain was able to win the majority of voters aged 60 and older, but Democrats either beat or tied Republicans in the other three main age groups.

But perhaps the direst issue for the GOP to consider during this period of reconstruction is their ideology. In recent years the Democrats have run on a progressive platform of more modern policies. They have encouraged the advancement of alternative energy, stem cell research and developing science and technology to prepare future generations for a 21st-century economy. In contrast, the Republicans have focused too heavily on their traditional conservatism: second amendment rights, overturning Roe v. Wade and opposing stem cell research and gay marriage. The GOP’s positions on many of these issues are slowly but surely alienating a large population of voters who want to move past them.

This has been the trend since 1964, when southern Democrats abandoned their party after the passing of the Civil Rights Act and joined the GOP. Upon signing the bill, President Lyndon B. Johnson said, “I know the risks are great and we might lose the South, but those sorts of states may be lost anyway.” Johnson was right in that “those sorts of states” would not adjust to the changing times. In subsequent elections, the Republicans capitalized on the southern Democrats’ disenchantment and eventually adopted them into their camp. Sadly, it seems to be those same sorts of voters that are holding the GOP back today, preventing it from adjusting to the times and becoming a more progressive party for the future. Granted they are the party of faith in tradition, but they must reconcile their conservative values with a changing world without deserting their basic platform.

These next few years will be telling for the once-grand Republican Party. A new wave of untapped politicians will surely be sent into battle to regain power, and the potential of a new, unifying ideology will help the party remain a viable contestant for years to come. The end result, ideally, will be a balanced and more effective two-party system.

Photo by Joshua Davis on Flickr, licensed under Creative Commons.

In May, the California Supreme Court recognized that gay people had the right to marry, sending shock waves across the nation and sending Ellen straight to the wedding registry. Of course, that also got social conservatives up in arms and they managed to get Proposition 8 on the ballots, defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman. While thousands of gay couples rushed to the altar, both sides on the proposition started raising money. Each campaign brought in more than $35 million, making it the most expensive measure on any ballot in the nation.

Going into the election, Proposition 8 looked like it was heading for defeat. It was lagging in the polls and Obama’s popularity meant that millions of new liberal voters were filling out ballots. However, the measure passed with 52.4 percent of the vote. That outcome is raising all kinds of questions.

Analysts are wondering how Prop 8 passed, with so many factors working against it. Some think that the new slate of Obama voters may not have been as liberal as people thought. There may have been a Bradley Effect, only with sexual orientation instead of race. And some are even wondering if Sean Penn could have changed the race: Penn is turning in an Oscar-worthy performance in Milk about Harvey Milk and his challenge to California’s Proposition 6, banning homosexuals from teaching in schools. The movie won’t be released until late November to garner some Oscar buzz, but some wonder if an earlier release of the movie might have turned the tide against Proposition 8.

Whatever the reason, it’s the outcome that really matters. Even though the state is still counting as many as 2 million mail-in ballots, opponents of Prop 8 are already gearing up for a fight. The ACLU is urging the state Supreme Court to overrule the proposition on the grounds that it is unconstitutional. Gay rights groups are organizing protests and some cities are even prepping for a legal fight that would erase the proposition. And some counties are refusing to stop performing same-sex marriages until the state tells them to stop.

California’s case is interesting because it was going to the ballots to overturn the courts. This wrinkle of public opinion versus legalese adds another complication, meaning the legal fight is sure to be long. A lawsuit has already been filed and more will undoubtedly follow. Even though two other states (Arizona and Florida) passed measures against gay marriage last week, California is set to become the battleground for the fight. There’s no telling how successful these challenges will be, especially after the unpredictability of last week’s vote.

There’s a good chance that this fight will be taken to the federal courts. The current atmosphere makes it unlikely that proponents of gay marriage would bring it to the Supreme Court immediately, but the marriage issue is almost sure to end up being settled on the national stage, no matter how many politicians recite the “states’ rights” line. Whether the case comes out of California or another state, Prop 8 will certainly come up in any discussion.

For now, though, it’s unclear what will happen to the thousands of couples that were married in California when it was legal. Domestic partnerships will still be allowed, but it’s unclear if the marriages will be voided, or if they will continue to be recognized. Even more confusing is the option that they would no longer be recognized in California, but would be in other states. The last option is the most likely, but one that can also raise some philosophical questions about what a marriage really is.

As the marriages are in flux, so is the legal status of Proposition 8. However, California has captured the nation’s attention on this issue and this will likely become a seminal moment in our generation’s most defining social battle.