I decided to design this logo when, to my horror, I realized that I maybe the only person on the internet that loves unions. I couldn’t find another logo like this on the internet, so please feel free to bootleg the image :-)

The truth is, though many would hate to admit it, the middleclass is shrinking and the disparity between the filthiest of the rich and the poorest of the poor is widening by the second. And in the process, a ravenous greed devours the middleclass.

… because greed feasts on the middleclass.

There will always be those with obscene wealth. There will always be those so impoverished that their labor will barely sustain their lives. And the wealthy will always exploit the poorest of the poor. BUT the middleclass is, to be quite frank – Superfluous –

Their resources and quest for education present a very real threat to those with wealth, those with real power, those with real agendas. The middleclass is the biggest threat to Greed. And surprisingly enough, they too are consumed by greed.

But unlike those with generational wealth, once the economy nosedived in the toilet, greed had to take a backseat to the sobering reality that though we may have distanced ourselves from the reality of poverty –it’s just around the corner.

How many of us can afford to miss a few weeks of work? How many of us can afford to get sick, or even worse, for our children to get sick? How many of us still think that we’re middle class?

If your spouse were to die, could you support your family? Could you ensure the health of your children, yourself? Greed ate that assurance. Greed consumed that possibility. And the only way for the middleclass to fight back, to prevent itself from being consumed, is to organize.

THE 21ST CENTURY MUST BE MARKED BY A RESURGENCE OF UNIONS.

We have to get unionized!!! Why not? Why not mobilize? Why are the biggest corporations in the world so scared to even utter the word union? Why is no one talking about UNIONS? Because they’re too busy making money, money at your expense. Unions are a means of protecting the middleclass. Unions exist to defend workers, because without workers there are no unions. So if only for the preservation of itself, if someone argues that unions are only out to get your money, just remember that unions need to defend the rights of workers IN ORDER TO EXIST.

JOIN a UNION.
INVITE UNION REPS TO COME TO YOUR JOB.
DEMAND REPRESENTATION.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Big business HATES unions and I hate big business. So I love unions. And you should too. Join a Union.

At the core of President Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign was the notion of hope. I remember Hilary Clinton mocking the then Senator Obama about his lofty ideas of hope, saying, “I could stand up here and say, Let's just get everybody together, let's get unified, the sky will open, the light will come down, celestial choirs will be singing, and everyone will know we should do the right thing and the world will be perfect” (reference).

Interestingly enough, Hillary Clinton made a rather profound point by stating, “…and everyone will know we should do the right thing.” What is the right thing for a war on the other side of the globe? Do we really feel that Palestinian security forces maybe jeopardized? That they maybe compromised by the Taliban? Are we really in fear of further destabilizing the Middle East by extracting troops from the region?

The vast majority of us will never have access to the substantive intelligence necessary to make an informed decision on the war in Afghanistan. So all the pundits and radio host, all the TV stations and bloggers proclaiming the “TRUTH ABOUT THE WAR IN AFGHANISTAN” are nothing more than cogs in the marketing machine, because there is no truth about the war in Afghanistan.

This semester I’m teaching a graduate seminar called International War at Nova Southeastern University and we review various strategies to war, the implications of war, and just war theory. In reviewing the literature, and discussing the current events in American warfare, it dawned on me that since the Vietnam war, American presidents have been playing from the same playbook, year after year after year.

Imagine that you are a football coach and you know that your opponents study your plays after each game by meticulously reviewing the game footage. You would like to ensure that they wouldn’t be able to use this knowledge against you in future games by alternating your playbooks. You would have multiple approaches to executing effective plays. Hopefully, then, this would secure the future success of the team.

Since the Vietnam war, and arguably even before that, the American government has been running plays out of the same playbook and our enemies have know this for decades. Most concisely stated, incrementalism is an approach to the politics of war, which is based on analyzing the success and failures of policies most relevant to the nature of the war at hand. Given the current level of intelligence combined with the most precise data, expected casualties and so forth a decision is made on the level of engagement.

I’m no bureaucrat but I’d say we’re precisely at this point in the game. If it is true, and I think it is, that the U.S. government is taking an incrementalist approach to the war in Afghanistan, and our enemies know that that’s what we always do, shouldn’t we change the game? What, then, is the game? The game is to shape public opinion around an already predetermined level of military engagement.

For example, in a section titled, “Preparing Public Statements Based on Intelligence” it is stated,

“This use of intelligence has been a source of considerable debate. Speeches given by senior Administration leaders did not describe in detail the disparate sources or the complex analytical reasoning that lay behind the intelligence judgments that were cited. Some observers believe that intelligence was simplified to the point of distortion in order to shape the public debate. A former National Intelligence Officer, Paul Pillar, argues that the “Administration used intelligence not to inform decision-making, but to justify a decision already made.” He further criticizes the Administration for “aggressively using intelligence to win public support for its decision to go to war.”

The idea of “containing” the trouble makers is an oversimplified means of describing what we do as Americans, but during the Clinton era, President Bill Clinton attempted the “dual containment” of Iran and Iraq. (reference). Now, if I were a betting man, and I’m not, I’d put all my chips in and bet that President Obama’s military advisors, using the same old playbook, based on an incrementalist approach to warfare are still talking about containment.

So, not only are we trying to “contain Iran” from seeking nuclear capabilities, we are trying to “contain” the war in Iraq and now, I guarantee, it is being suggested that we should “contain Afghanistan” But what the hell does that mean? I sure don’t know. What I do know is that the more those with power try to “contain” those without power, especially those without power living on relatively the same latitudinal line, the more likely those without power are to mobilize their forces and resist containment.

The enemy is expecting to hear us talk about containment. They are eagerly waiting for us to invoke the burden of having to contain them from the rest of us. It’s like the quarantine scene in any apocalyptic movie where those infected have to be kept from stepping out of bounds.

The HUGE problem with this strategy, even as a means of preventing war is that it (1) disassociates their interest from ours (2) it actually reinforces and facilitates anti-West sentiments (3) it make gathering intelligence all the more difficult because outsiders are so easily recognized (4) it forces those with power to arbitrarily justify their “duty” to enforce rules of containment through the restriction of travel, the restriction of trade, the restriction of informational exchange and so on.

In short, it’s the same old playbook and the same plays are being called. Our enemies know this and are unifying around a common enemy. We do not have the right to “contain” and if we begin to use this language of containment we better explain exactly what it is that’s being contained.

I hope that Obama’s discourse on hope wasn’t just another exercise in delivering a great speech, as Clinton may have said during the primaries. I hope he has hope for the Middle East. I hope that he won’t make the same errors of his predecessors by invoking the notion of containment and a protectionist stance. I hope that he’ll initiate diplomatic relations with Hamid Karzai and seriously consider his need to protect his people. I hope that if we do go to war in Afghanistan we’ll take serious note of the protest to the use of UAVs in minimizing civilian casualties. All of these things have already been said, but now is not the time for speaking. Now it’s time for action, but how that action will unfold is yet to be seen.   

I’ve missed the electricity in the air since the November elections of 2008. There was a buzz of excitement in the prospect of electing the nation’s first African American, but there was an even greater buzz in electing a man so committed to Hope, Change and Peace.

President Obama’s a bit too humble for my liking. Without question I think the merits of his accomplishments and the not the prospect of future diplomacy served as the motivating factor in him winning the award.

Obama has galvanized the nation and even the globe to address this call to action. In so many speeches President Obama speaks in term of “this time” and “this moment.” He so desperately wants each of us to understand the importance of the now, of seizing the day and taking full advantage of the possibilities that await.

In engaging an international community in efforts to bolster diplomacy, in speaking with the Muslim world as a friend and not an adversary, in fostering recognition of the other between Benjamin Netanyahu and Mahmoud Abbas, in attempting to reduce nuclear proliferation, President Barack Obama has unequivocally won the award based on his merit.

I am so extremely proud of President Obama and his commitment to peace and diplomacy. His obligations are extensive and his role as Commander in Chief may be at odds with efforts toward a more peaceful world, but until now his commitment to make the world better and safer for future generations is certain.

President Obama, however, faces a huge decision, a decision that will surely shape his legacy and the possibility of a more peaceful world. If President Obama caves to the warmongers, if he views the conflict in Afghanistan as another battle to be fought and won through violence, though he will still have done so much for peace he will have also undermined his very work.

I could not imagine the conflicting nature inherent in the presidency. On the one hand, it requires President Obama to be a proponent of peace, yet, on the other, he has to defend the nation from attack. The question, then, is just how much of a threat is Afghanistan to the United States. It would be good for our government, rather, President Obama to inform the American people of just how grave the situation really is.

If he were to deliver that speech, it may persuade Americans to escalate our efforts in Afghanistan. I don’t see President Obama selling this war. This moment, this time, is for President Obama as it was for General Colon Powell. Will he sell the big war and be forever viewed as another warmonger or will he try others methods of resolving this conflict? His is a burden larger than any I could bear.

Between working 40 hour weeks, raising a family and attending school, how do adults find time for themselves? In a chaotic world, how can we find internal stability and peace?

There has been so much written on global peace and nonviolence, but equally import for each of us is a calm and peace brought about by internal harmony. There are many methods for attain this balance and many who claim that they hold the key to your happiness. The truth is, however, only you can bring about your own peace.

1. Meditation

When I’m feeling stressed I find some quite time. Over the years I’ve found that meditation helps in calming my frustrations and anxiety. There are many methods to meditation. When I meditate I listen to myself breath. I don’t chant and I try not to think about anything. I find the silence, if for only 5 minutes, and allow it to calm and ease my anxiety.

2. Journaling

We are social beings. Unfortunately not all of our feelings are easily expressed to other people. Like meditation, there are many different approaches to journaling. Some people write in their journals everyday or even several times a day. I keep a small pocket sized notepad in my back pocket and document things I want to accomplish and levels of stress that I need to get under control. Recognizing where sources of stress lie and try to defuses those sources through alternative approaches to stress.

3. Projection

See yourself on the beach, receiving an award, accomplishing a difficult task. Professional athletes use projection regularly in an attempt to visualize themselves performing well. I think of the satisfaction I’ll gain in performing a difficult task. If, during the task, I find that it’s a bit too difficult, I think of how I’ll feel once it’s done.

4. Exercise

I love running. After a long day’s work there’s nothing more gratifying than physically purging the day’s stress through my pores. The energy required to exercise forces the body to rest and recuperate. Exercise is a great way to revitalize your mind, body, and spirit.

5. Mind-Body-Spirit

Whether you’re religious or not, we can all seek to maintain a balance between our mind, body and our spirit. If you’re not into formal religion, our connection to the environment or a great cause can serves as a source of satisfaction and involvement. Balancing the mind, body and spirit can lead to a full sense of being and satisfaction.

Some would argue that Ahmadinejad, in rare form, has attempted to enter into a cooperative agreement with the United States. When asked of his willingness to work alongside the United States, Ahmadinejad said, “Peace and security and friendship.  These are principles which cannot happen without sincere cooperation. Everyone should enter into a sincere cooperation.  And work together.” (MSNBC)

The political language represented by the President Obama’s rhetoric, however, has had little impact on Ahmadinejad’s campaign to attain nuclear capabilities. Rather than viewing international attempts to curb the spread of nuclear capabilities as a global process, Ahmadinejad suggests that “…for a state to think that it is the sole maker of decisions and others should follow in its footsteps, that is wrong, they are mistaken.” (MSNBC) Some would argue that the fundamental error in his logic is the assumption that the United States is seeking to regulate the world’s nuclear capabilities, which is incorrect.

As I have written in my discussion of the A.Q. Khan Network, dual-use technologies with nuclear capabilities can present grave problems for international regulators seeking to hamper the spread of potential nuclear weapons. As President Obama said in his address, the world cannot sit by and wait for the United States to fix its problems. Dual-use technologies present a very real threat to international peace and the peacekeeping process.

Ahmadinejad’s primary argument rests on what he considers a double standard, wherein “…the danger lies – in the warheads, which have been stockpiled in Britain, in the U.S., in a handful of other countries. And some states announce that this is where their power rests. And based on these arsenals, they want to rule the world.  We think that if we are fair and just everything will be resolved.” (MSNBC)

The difficulty in mitigating the tensions in perception between the United States and Iran lies in addressing the use of nuclear capabilities, which is easier said than done.  If the West views a nuclear capable Iran as a potential threat to the peace process and potentially destabilizing the region, and Iran views U.S. involvement and attempts to suppress its nuclear capabilities as an abuse of power, there is a very dangerous tension building below the surface.

Just the concept of a nuclear capable Iran cannot and should not lead to military actions; such was the error of the last president and Gen. Powell in attacking Iraq on the basis of WMD, which after later inquires turned out to be fallacious. No military actions should be taken against Iran until they have clearly demonstrated a potential to weaponize whatever nuclear technologies they have or may develop. Preemptive attacks have only tarnished our international reputation and respectability. We have spiraled into an economic depression as a result of or commitments in Iraq, and with an existing war in Afghanistan, there should be absolutely no talks of military involvement in Iran.

It may seem too early to begin planning for life after the recession since so many Americans are still unemployed, but it’s never too early to secure a plan. Part of the problem with how quickly we slipped into this recession resulted from our collective inability to plan and properly manage our money.

When the real estate market was at its peak, with millions of wannabe flippers and novices selling any and every available home, only to reap exorbitant profits, greed and a bit of naiveté set in. We believed that the money would last forever, that homes would always retain their values and that the next five or six figure check was just a flip away.

As we know, however, this was far from the truth. In planning for life after the “Great Recession” we not only have to learn better methods for saving our money, we have to learn to change how we view success.

One can be successful and not be a millionaire.
One can be successful and not live in a mini mansion.
One can be successful and not own a home.
One can be successful and not have graduated college.

BUT one cannot be successful and unhappy.

Life after the recession should be marked with an insistence to increase our collective happiness. Rather than investing so much time and effort into making money, into keeping up with the Joneses, we should look inward not outward.

Real happiness comes from within. It can’t be bought and it’s not for sale. Were we to expend the same level of energy on attaining happiness and living a happier life, we would quickly realize just how successful we are.

To be successful is to be happy. Planning for life after the recession should begin with a desire to attain and maintain personal happiness. Otherwise, we’ll face exactly the same pressures and temptations that got us into this recession in the first place.

The media is saturated with discussions and commentaries surrounding the debate over healthcare reform. Camps have chosen their sides and are fiercely defending their territories. There are those that support universal healthcare and those that don’t, but little if any attention has been paid to educating the public.

I find it interesting that so much time and money has been spent discussing universal healthcare and so little time has been spent engaging the American public in an in depth discussion on how to prevent illness and simple lifestyle changes that can dramatically improve one’s health, fitness, and mental wellbeing.

The question, then, I am left to ask is, “is it more profitable to have a nation of sick people?” Granted, this question is supposed to evoke a certain degree of skepticism, but given how little advertising dollars are spent in educating the public as opposed to the media saturation of prescription medications and OTCs, one is left to seriously question the importance our government and pharmaceutical companies place on our overall health.

 As the old adage goes, “put your money where your moth is.” If the government is expecting the American people to buy into the notion of universal healthcare, then it would be to their advantage to make a concerted effort to educate the public on preventative measures, which can improve our quality of life and lead to a happier and healthier public. Otherwise, one is left to question the motive of universal healthcare.

I remember receiving the Presidential Physical Fitness Award in middle school and the pride I took in being recognized for my achievements. I had that award for many years and only recently lost in during a move. I remember feeling that Ronald Regan, who was the president at the time, had a vested interest in my physical fitness. Because of that simple fitness award, I decided to join the track team. I would eventually get a scholarship for track and field at the University of South Florida, and I am still running today.

My point is simple. That gesture of recognition set me on a path to physical fitness and I understood even in middle school the importance of health and fitness, something I treasure until this day. One is never too young to learn of the many benefits of health and fitness and our government must equally focus on educating and retraining the public to live a healthier and more active lifestyle. Universal healthcare is important to many, but understanding how to prevent disease is important to us all.

As has been widely discussed throughout the media, Rep. Joe Wilson has been reprimanded by House Democrats for interrupting President Obama’s health care speech as he shouted, “You lie!” After the incident, Rep. Wilson apologized to the President and all was forgiven.

A larger debate arose however, a debate concerning civility and respect for the presidency. Much of the anger directed at Rep. Wilson’s comments stemmed from his lack of respect, not for Barack Obama, as a man, but for the position and symbols of power that he holds as President of the United States of America.

Some argue that such a display of insubordination undermines the global perception of power and authority that the President wields. Others suggest, however, that though Rep. Wilson’s comments were inappropriate, he was within his constitutional rights to voice his opinion. Further, many have stated that this outburst hasn’t been the first of its kind. 

It is purported that U.S. global dominance is weakening as a result of the war in Iraq and the economic fall initiated by a shoddy real estate market. Many are now arguing that America’s presence as the global superpower is slowly being dwarfed by China the U.K. and the EU.

Within politics, perception is reality. If the U.S. is perceived to be weakening from our inability to complete our military objectives in Iraq, and the global economic crisis has it’s origins in the United States real estate market, and, furthermore, our President is being openly disrespected by a subordinate, at what point will our enemies decide our weakness is their advantage?

The president of the United States holds the most powerful office in the United States and some would argue the free world. It’s not simply that Rep. Wilson challenged the President but that he disrespected the President by calling him a liar. Certainly, the U.S. isn’t a totalitarian state and individuals should express their disagreements, but to interrupt the President and call him a liar in front of an international audience of observers send a dangerous message. It says that we are weak. 

Below are the videos of my presentation, "On the Legal Status of Genocidal Intent" presented at Nova Southeastern University on September 10, 2009. The panel discussion focused on the events in Darfur and the legal implications of states that endose or foster acts of genocide.

Part I of My Discussion

Part II of My Discussion

A public health option (PHO) is government-introduced competition into the marketplace, wherein the government provides health benefits and health insurance as any private company might. Introducing this level of competition into the marketplace encourages rate reduction because to remain competitive, private insurance providers would need to compete with the plans offered by the U.S. government. Furthermore, in some states, private insurers have a near monopoly on the industry. If the Public Health Option were introduced into those markets, such insurers would have to lower their rates to compete with the government’s PHO.

There are, however, some concerns with the PHO. First, some argue that the federal government’s nearly limitless access to taxpayer dollars give it an unfair advantage in the market, as traditional providers cannot subsidize their revenues and services with arbitrary appropriations of taxpayer dollars. For private insurance companies, their costs, and ultimately the cost of our premiums and copays, are regulated by a complex ratio of claims and capital generated by new and existing plans.

Those who argue against a PHO for these reasons suggest that the federal government would detract from their ability to gain new customers by offering alternative plans, premiums and policies. The response to this critique, however, is that that’s precisely what the federal government intends to do. For private insurers to remain competitive, they would have to reduce their rates, which could be problematic because some argue that the federal government is partially immune to market conditions since its access to taxpayer dollars serves as a source of revenue outside of the market.

There are others who suggest that a PHO would encourage doctors to provide their services through the government’s PHO rather than through a traditional private insurer’s PPO or HMO, and as such, the government would encourage private doctors to become government doctors. Though the previous argument has some basis, this argument lacks any real validity. First, one should note that a doctor, as with any health care plan, retains his/her private practice. What the doctor does agree, however, is to provide that service either as an in network or out of network provider. Depending on the plan you select, you will either pay lower rates and deductibles (if any) for in network providers and slightly higher rates for out of network providers. Though I haven’t read anything specific to this point, I would imagine that the same would hold true for a PHO.

For example, if I have a PPO with a leading insurer, and the government PHO is offering a similar PPO, which is $50 less per pay period, I would have to wait until the end of my enrollment and then I could switch to the PHO PPO. If, while I am on the PPO I decide to visit an obviously out of network PHO provider, I would expect to pay the same rates I would were I to visit any out of network provider. In my understanding, all PHO providers would be considered out of network providers, which already exist in the insurance marketplace. Thus, there is no threat that all doctors will become government doctors, rather they would simply provide their services through the government PHO. Those with traditional PPOs could still visit these doctors as out of network providers.

I agree that there is a lot that is unclear in a proposed PHO but if the President were to fully explain its structure, there may be much less resistance. Some of the questions President Obama should be prepared to answer are (1) How will in network and out of network designations affect rates for non PHO policy holders? (2) Will the government institute similar in network, out of network plans, and if so how will that affect deductibles and copays? (3) Finally, can doctors offer their services through the PHO and private insurers or is that inherently a conflict of interest?  

Originally Published at Blogcritics.org