Stop Loss & VA, The War in Iraq

Stop Loss & The VA System
I saw the movie Stop-Loss last night and despite the plot of the movie, I was concerned mostly about the issues. The idea behind the movie, stop-loss orders issued by the government, intrigues me quite a bit. This intrigues me because it gives the military the right to order back into duty a member of the military who has already served active time. Yes, this may be necessary since we do not have a draft and casualties are climbing, requiring more manpower, but lets look at the overall picture. By doing this, the government is "backdoor drafting" these fine young men and women, who have already been through the rings of hell in Iraq. As I said previously, they are being placed back into the line of duty because of existing situations that require a certain number of soldiers active over in Iraq. The ability for the government to do this not only disturbing in itself, but so are the repercussions that have followed. We cannot use and abuse our voluntary system of military with these orders, and then not give proper treatment to the men and women upon their return home from war, often injured mentally and/or physically. I wrote last month about the VA (Veterans Affairs organization) and how they improperly handled my Grandfather's situation when he was gravely ill earlier this year. He was elderly, but he did serve in the biggest battles during World War II, including the Battle of the Bulge and the Battle of Normandy. He was wounded while on duty, and came back to endure difficult post-war years burdened by alcoholism and other family issues. Can you blame any veteran for suffering from such ill-fated problems after they are shipped back from war? I have not been there so I cannot explain or fathom the extent to which they hear, see, or feel pain. But I have read, watched movies, and talked to veterans, and through their words I have empathized with them. I have empathized with the bravery they devoted to our country while at war, only to return home in worse condition than they were beforehand, and no one gives a damn except their families and friends. If we are going to continue to stop-loss our soldiers, then we better have the best care given to these men and women upon their return home to our land of the free and the brave. And we better make sure that we are giving them the same opportunities to live post-war, as they have been giving us through the various wars they have fought in to protect and preserve our freedom.

Glory

Glory is the best film I have seen about the Civil War thus far, and undoubtedly a new personal favorite of mine. This movie prides itself as an instant classic that captures a much unknown aspect of our very own Civil War, which our history classes often fail to inform us about.

The movie is based on the letters of Colonel Robert G. Shaw (Matthew Broderick), an officer in the Federal Army during the American Civil War. He volunteers to lead the 54th all African-American Regiment of the Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry. Faced with much opposition in letting his army actually fight on the battlefield, Colonel Shaw does everything he can to prepare his men for battle and make sure they can proudly show their honor of being part of the army. Their training and fighting eventually leads up to the final assault on Fort Wagner in South Carolina. Their heroic actions take them as the 1st regiment into the Fort, presuming they will face the toughest fighting. This not only brought recognition to African-American soldiers at the time, but it helped turned the tide of the war. The 54th regiment wasn't any ordinary regiment, it was full of men with dignity and the willingness to go to great lengths to fight for what they believed in. And that is just what they did.

This movie is going to be added to my list of movies of profound impact because it is a true story in a time of war. As long as you can get past the 1989 quality of the movie, it is a very enchanting historical account of African-American men who will do anything to fight for their freedom, show their courage, and prove themselves to be just as good of soldiers as the Whites. It reminds us that there is so much for us to learn out there about our history as a human race that is not readily available to us. Although it was during a time of brother fighting against brother, it does show that it is possible for individuals, despite race or background, to rise up and unify together to reach a common goal. We can learn from these displays of unification, and adapt them into our current thinking to ensure we aren't blinded by the boundaries that often divide us.

To make matters even better, Matthew Broderick isn't the only wonderful and immensely fascinating performance seen in the movie. Two other well-known and award-winning actors play prominent roles in this movie, Morgan Freeman and Denzel Washington. In conclusion, I recommend Glory with the utmost anticipation that every movie-watcher and/or history buff will thoroughly enjoy it.

Beijing 2008 - Where Sport and Political Arenas Collide

There have been recent reports stating that China announced 19 people died in riots in the Tibetan capital last week and there is much worry about the unrest spreading into other regions. With China’s handling of the unrest in Tibet in recent weeks, it has received much international attention. A major concern revolving around China is the much anticipated 2008 Olympic Games, which will take place in the capital of Beijing in August. The Olympic Games that represent global unity through sporting events between numerous countries, won’t be able to mask the behind the scenes reality that places China in the hot seat. While any Nation who has the capability of helping Darfur, and the will to do so, should step in, China has a special and significant obligation to Sudan. Unfortunately, after five years of constant conflict, they have not done much to show for it. The country has a responsibility to aid in the crisis of Darfur, as it is the country of Sudan’s closest economic, military, and diplomatic ally. So if the country of Sudan cannot pull itself out of this mess, who should be next in line to step in? China.

Lately, several people and organizations have reported their willingness to protest the Olympics games in Beijing this summer because they believe that attempts to relieve Darfur must take place before the Olympic Games can go on. To some, this attempt for political reconciliation seems extreme, but for others, they see it as the only way to force China into action. China has the ability to bring peace, security, and hopefully some stability to the people of Darfur. The Save Darfur organization is a huge advocate for speaking against China, as the Olympic Games grow nearer and their efforts to aid in the crisis have not succumbed to much of anything. The Organization, as quoted by their website, has stated that: must take place before the Olympic Games can go on.

“Wherever China tries to sanitize its international image, we will protest and remind the world that China is enabling genocide. And we will not stop until China has brought the Olympic dream to Darfur. Please help us press China by participating in the numerous events and actions leading up the games in August and make sure to check back often for new actions!”

With China having the most probability socially, economically, and politically, to be able to pressure the country to end the genocide in Darfur, China needs to show us that as a rising global power, they will use their position to maintain peace when possible. With the Olympics approaching, which represent global peace and unity, China has an obligation to not only host these games, but to host a movement of peace that will bring an end to the violence in Darfur. As said by UN Members, and agreed by many, China needs to be consistent in its images within both sports and political arenas as host of the world’s sporting games.

Don't Forget About Darfur

And the genocide continues. Prior to 2003, much was unknown to us about Darfur. After the current crisis broke out that year, we became aware of the region, comparable to the size of Texas, lying in the country of Sudan, which borders Chad, Libya, and the Central African Republic. But what news gave us this familiarity of the region was sadly news of rape, violence, terror, starvation, and even death. And now we are here, five years later, with mass murder still occurring, and Darfur has lost its place in the spotlight of world problems.

The current crisis began after decades of small-scale conflict between rebel groups and the Central government that brewed into something much larger. Now the effects of the conflicts in Darfur have mounted to alarming statistics. Taken from the Save Darfur Organization webpage, the statement below is devastating: “This scorched-earth campaign by the Sudanese government against Darfuri civilians has, through direct violence, disease, and starvation, already claimed as many as 400,000 lives. It has spilled over into neighboring Chad and the Central African Republic. In all, about 2.3 million Darfuris have fled their homes and communities and now reside in a network of internally displaced persons (IDP) camps in Darfur, with over 200,000 more living in refugee camps in Chad. These refugees and IDPs are almost entirely dependent on the United Nations and other humanitarian organizations for their basic needs – food, water, shelter, and health care.”

Luckily, a great deal has been done thanks to the efforts of governments and organizations in making progress toward relief and peace in the region. However, this genocide is far from over. Awareness still needs to be spread and action still must be taken. Check out the website http://www.SaveDarfur.org to learn more of the history behind Darfur and the current situation. Also, check out the United Nations website for any updates. You might just be one person, but your awareness and your word can empower others, and this could have a ripple effect leading to the end of violence for the victims of Darfur, and a step closer to a peaceful world. Check back soon for an update on a recent issue that has placed China in the hot seat for its controversial diplomatic handling of the crisis.

Economy in Turmoil

As we are on the brink of the Federal Reserve meeting tomorrow, many people are worrying about the country falling into a recession. There is speculation that yet again, the Federal Reserve board will cut interest rates at their meeting tomorrow in attempts to prevent a recession. But what some people are starting to ponder now is the idea of the Fed accepting the fact that a recession is going to happen and should embrace it instead. According to CNN, several economists disagree with the Fed in using more rate cuts to spur economic growth, and instead believe that a recession might be the “best medicine” for the economy in the long term. The reasoning behind this is that they don’t believe Fed cuts can fix what already is ailing the economy, because it is dealing with a problem of confidence. Since this is a minority view thus far, I will discuss it further below for readers to gain a better understanding of this opposition. The view of the majority coincide with the Fed’s movements and believe that rate cuts help give the market more liquidity and say that such a move is necessary for the weakening economy.

Rate Cuts – The Opposition

There is increasing speculation among economists that the country is already dipping into a recession and future rate cuts by the Federal Reserve Board won’t be able to prevent this from happening further. According to CNN, "The problems the markets are facing are not due to interest rates being too high. It's a lack of confidence," said Barry Ritholtz, the CEO and director of equity research for Fusion IQ. They say that rate cuts are causing a sharp decline in the dollar, which in turn are causing record prices for commodities such as oil, which we have seen dipping into consumers’ pockets as gas prices soar across the country. Even food, beverage, and transportation prices are going up, putting a squeeze on the disposable income of consumers. Although prices in these items have risen minimally over recent years, decreasing home prices and tighter credit has put a crunch on consumers’ pockets. Further rate cuts are speculated to just add “fuel to the fire” and won’t help the real problem that is ailing this economy, which is a lack of confidence in lending, with significant distrust among lenders.

According to CNN, one of the critics of Fed cuts is even on the Federal Open Market Committee that meets to decide interest rate moves. Dallas Fed President Richard Fisher, who was the only one to vote against the rate cut in January, has continued to talk loudly about inflation fears recently. He thinks the Fed shouldn’t be as worried about a recession as it has been., and is expected to vote against another rate cut. He says the Fed’s obligation should be to prevent inflation from happening in order to sustain long-term employment growth. Fisher also hinted around at the problem of the weakening currency in our country by saying that "In today's world, where investors can move their funds instantly from one currency to another to avoid depreciation, the price central bankers pay for high inflation is much higher than in the past.”

My Proposal

The Fed Reserve Board has already made significant cuts in rates and I think this has done enough to try to pump liquidity in the market and increase consumer spending, but not enough to fix the problem. I do believe too much is too much, and that further rate cuts will harm the economy of our country. I am taking the view of the minority and saying that we are facing a problem of confidence within our economy, and that can only be fixed in the short-run by lowering rates. So what happens if we don't lower rates further? Yes, we might have to endure short-term pain in our country in order to have long-term growth and gain after all. I think this is a natural cycle of any free-market economy. Going back to 2001, when the Federal Reserve faced a major decision following the burst of the dot.com "bubble," and the terrorist attacks of 9/11, Alan Greenspan had to face a similar dreadful problem. He made a decision to lower interest rates and sustain them at a low level. Now, the after-math of his decision has been passed to Ben Bernanke, as the new chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. Currently, Mr. Bernanke has already been masking the problem by lowering these rates again and again, and tomorrow he has to decide whether to continue to do so, or let nature run its course. If he decides to give our economy another dose of a "quick-fix" like Greenspan did following the events of 2001, our economy will possibly be helped in the short-run, but might just mask a problem that will inevitably have to be faced sometime in the future, and be much worse. On the contrary, if he decides to let the market run its natural course, it will hopefully revive itself from all the short-term "quick-fixes of the past," and will turn around to give us a positive, long-term economic outlook. I think this view is hard to fathom and looked down upon because of the fear of the near future and the pain that consumers will have to face. However, I believe it is a sacrifice we must make to prevent a worse crisis in later years due to continually masking this problem by lowering rates. Then confidence will just naturally find its way back into the markets.

Hope for the Economy

We are only a day away from the Fed meeting that will make the decision of whether to cut rates or not. Only time will tell if their actions will prove or disprove these notable economists’ and will either help or hinder our weakening economy. Follow the news to see what action they decide to take, and continue to follow the markets as it has been predicted to be an economical roller-coaster for the next couple of years. Hopefully, Ben Bernanke and his counterparts will push our country in the proper direction, and will balance the least amount of financial burden on consumers’ wallets during this time of turmoil. What stance do YOU take on the economy?

The Democratic Showdown

After the Mississippi primary unfolded on Tuesday, Senator Barack Obama increased his lead over Senator Hilary Clinton in the race for the Democratic Presidential nomination in delegate counts by 131 delegates. This win follows his win in the Wyoming Caucuses from last Saturday, giving Senator Obama his second win in a row. Therefore, Obama currently leads Clinton 1,611 to 1,480 in the total delegate count, and the race remains tight between the two candidates, with the next primary a long 38 days away in Pennsylvania.

There are several issues that have come about lately regarding these two campaigns, one of them being a topic I wish to address. This issue involves the inevitable remarks on gender and race that we all knew would appear in this campaign at some point. On Wednesday, Geraldine Ferraro, the Finance committee member of the Clinton campaign, and former Congresswoman, stepped down from the Clinton campaign due to the remarks she made about Senator Barack Obama and criticisms she has received over it. Here is the full letter that was written from Ferraro to Clinton:

Dear Hillary –

I am stepping down from your finance committee so I can speak for myself and you can continue to speak for yourself about what is at stake in this campaign.

The Obama campaign is attacking me to hurt you.

I won't let that happen.

Thank you for everything you have done and continue to do to make this a better world for my children and grandchildren.

You have my deep admiration and respect.

Gerry

According to the Andersen Cooper 360 blog, Ferraro, in an interview with the Daily Breeze of Torrance, California, was trying to defend her earlier remarks from critics. “Any time anybody does anything that in any way pulls this campaign down and says, ‘Let’s address reality and the problems we’re facing in this world,’ you’re accused of being racist, so you have to shut up,” she said. “Racism works in two different directions. I really think they’re attacking me because I’m white. How’s that?” Inevitably we all saw this coming. Remarks and attacks on gender and race in the Presidential campaign that involves a woman and a black man. In Ferraro’s case, I think it is very offensive for her to negate Obama’s success by saying it is simply due to the fact that he is black. Her initial comments included the fact that “Obama is doing well because of his message and a good campaign. But she clearly stated that he’s successful “in large measure” because he’s black.” In the past, we have seen Black nominees run for office and not be successful. This time, Obama is clearly successful thus far. So is it really because he is black? No. It might give him votes (as shown in the recent Mississippi primary where blacks voted for Obama 91 percent to 9 percent) but it is clearly not the ultimate deciding measure of his success. Obama made it this far because of his message, his stances, and his ability to be a leader. We can prove this through the previous wins he has incurred in states that have a white majority population – North Dakota, Washington, Utah, Iowa, Connecticut, and Vermont. Lastly, I respect Senator Hillary Clinton for taking the initiative to respond to Ferraro’s remarks by addressing to the public that her campaign does not endorse or back up Ferraro’s beliefs.

We the people of the United States of America should not be so focused on the issue of gender and race, but of the human being that is running for office. Whether you vote Democrat or Republican in this race, ask yourself these questions about the candidates. Are they capable of leading our country emotionally and physically through the strenuous times that we have endured as a whole over recent years? Will they help us as citizens maintain the liberty and courage we need in this country? If you can answer yes to these questions, then make yourself blind to their gender and their race. Make yourself see what the actual issue of importance is here.

Kiva.org - $25 business opportunity

In spirit of the new Oprah reality television show that I posted about earlier today, I decided to add a post about an organization that was brought to my attention because of Oprah in November 2007. The organization, called Kiva, was started in October of 2005 by Matt and Jessica Flannery, and is based in San Francisco, California. Kiva is a nonprofit organization that allows people to lend money via the internet to small businesses in developing countries. The word “Kiva” is a Swahili word that means “unity,” which the founders decided to name their organization after they spent time in East Africa.

How it works (according to the http://www.kiva.org website):

"Kiva lets you connect with and loan money to unique entrepreneurs in the developing world. By choosing a loan on Kiva, you can "sponsor a business" and help the world's working poor make great strides towards economic independence. Throughout the course of the loan (usually 6-12 months), you can receive email journal updates from the entrepreneur you've sponsored. As loans are repaid, you get your loan money back.

Kiva partners with existing microfinance institutions. In doing so, we gain access to outstanding entrepreneurs from impoverished communities world-wide. Our partners are experts in choosing qualified entrepreneurs. That said, they are usually short on funds. Through Kiva, our partners upload their entrepreneur profiles directly to the site so you can lend to them."

Below is a diagram from the website that illustrates the flow of operations within the system:

For a recent idea of how well Kiva.org is thriving with participation I found a statistic to show that people are listening and getting involved. According to Wikipedia, “As of February 3, 2008, Kiva has $21,432,835 in loans from 242,166 lenders. A total of 32,457 loans have been funded. The average loan size is $564.19.”

For more information on this organization, visit their website: http://www.kiva.org

Also check out one of the co-founder's blogs: http://socialedge.org/blogs/kiva-chronicles

If you have the ability to buy 6 drinks from Starbucks, you have the ability to give someone economic independence. Think about it.

Oprah's Big Give

As I sat down to watch Sunday night TV this past weekend I noticed a new show featuring one of the most recognizable names in show business - Oprah Winfrey. It was the second episode of the show called "Oprah's Big Give," combining Oprah's heart-warming philanthropic ideals with reality television. Here is a summary of what the show entails, taken from the ABC website:

"In eight one-hour episodes, a diverse, determined and competitive group of ten people are given the challenge of a lifetime — to change the lives of complete strangers in the most creative and dramatic ways. In this intense competition, the contestants criss-cross the country, scrambling to find ways to impact the fates and fortunes of unsuspecting people who are in for the surprise of their lives. Lives will be changed in the blink of an eye as contestants race against time to create once-in-a-lifetime experiences and also give away hundreds of thousands of dollars. Who will be the lucky few to get a "Big Give"… and who will get all that cash? The series premiere, "Episode 101," kicks off in Los Angeles, where Oprah hands ten contestants sealed envelopes with only a picture and the name of a complete stranger. Under intense pressure, they must give big to change this person's life in just five days. The contestants must use their creativity and resources to generate the most powerful and sensational ways to make a real difference, and with the clock ticking, the competition, drama and emotion mount and the contestants' stamina, creativity and drive are tested. This first dramatic challenge will send one person packing. Throughout the episodes, Oprah makes multiple special appearances and turns up in various locations to surprise the contestants with dramatic new twists and turns. "The show is fun, entertaining and powerful television with a real heart," said Winfrey. "America will just love the heart of this show." As the competition tightens, big Hollywood stars join "Oprah's Big Give," raising the stakes and turning up the heat. Celebrity guests include Jennifer Aniston, John Travolta and Jada Pinkett-Smith, tennis legend Andre Agassi, skateboarding idol Tony Hawk, racing star Danica Patrick, plus more. At the end of each hour, the contestants must face a panel of three expert judges who will judge them on their leadership, accomplishments, creativity and presentation. They include world-renowned "Naked" chef and philanthropist Jamie Oliver, NFL star, nine-time Pro Bowler and Boys & Girls Club Hall of Famer Tony Gonzalez, and wife of Chris Rock and charity founder Malaak Compton-Rock. In the end, there is only one rule in "Oprah's Big Give": YOU EITHER GIVE BIG OR YOU GO HOME. In every episode, the contestants must each find innovative and ingenious ways to impact the lives of strangers, or they risk elimination at the hands of the judging panel. As the episodes continue, the "gives" get even bigger, the guest stars get brighter and tensions mount, all culminating in the exciting series finale where The Biggest Giver will become the biggest winner. What the contestants don't know — and only viewers do — is that Oprah Winfrey will surprise The Biggest Giver with a whopping $1 million prize."

As I watched the hour-long episode of “Oprah’s Big Give” on Sunday night, I had mixed emotions about the new show, luckily more positive than negative. First, I must admit, I do enjoy watching people make a difference in others' lives on reality television rather than the majority of these new "brainless" reality television shows. Second, as we all know, Oprah always has good intentions, as I am a huge fan of her work. However, although I am a fan of Oprah and her new show, I am somewhat skeptical of turning charity work into a race for big bucks.

While some of the contestants do seem to be deeply touched by their philanthropic work, whom I respect, others almost blatantly showed us their concern for the monetary reward at the end of the contest. I am almost certain the goal of this show is to inspire people to take action, which I am hoping it will do in significant amounts. But I do not want this show to give individuals' the wrong impression of taking action in peoples' lives. In reality, the majority of the time when you want to make a difference, there is sometimes more hard work involved and not as much recognition as portrayed on television. At the end of the day, there is usually no monetary reward but perhaps just a smile on another person's face.

My message to you is to watch the show, whether you dislike it or not, and take ideas from it. See what action you can take and remember the real meaning for doing what you do. I am extremely interested into see how this show unravels and the feedback it will receive from its viewers. Give it a whirl, and see what you think. The show airs on Sunday nights on ABC from 9:00-10:00pm Eastern time.