Why Defend Torture?

To whom it may concern,

Over the past few weeks, there have been an increasing amount of attacks on the Obama administration for its change in policy on interrogation techniques (i.e. water boarding and other internationally understood forms of torture). The chief supporter of the Bush administration's approach, Vice President Dick Cheney, is also probably the one who is chiefly responsible for the initial decision. While he claims he is defending the President, one has to wonder who in their right mind would defend the practice of torture. The results of these "enhanced interrogation techniques" are defended by the Republicans without evidence, and usurped by the Democrats through the testimony of former interrogators, lawyers, and other Justice Department officials from the previous administration. Regardless of their effectiveness, which is at best inconclusive, it is bizarre to see a former Vice President in the limelight to defend a decision and a strategy that he no longer has any control over or say in. Until the Bush administration, the United States and its military had been regarded as a beacon for human rights. The Germans marched West in order to be captured by Americans instead of the Russians. The Civil Rights Movement gave the world hope for equality. And virtually every international agreement or treaty for the last century is written with language to bolster human rights protections in foreign countries. With our reputation now tainted by unilateral military action, Abu Ghraib prison, and the torture of suspected terrorists, how will this administration restore our moral standing with the world?

GUNNAR HAND, AICP

The First Response from President Obama!

To whom it may concern,

It was not much and it was automated, but at least I finally heard back from them:

Dear Gunnar Hand:

Thank you for contacting the White House to share your thoughts with President Obama. We are glad to have your comments and hear the thoughts of all Americans.

The President greatly appreciates the outpouring of messages expressing different views from across the country, and from Americans around the world. Some comments are supportive, some are critical, but all reflect the desire of Americans to participate in a dialogue about our common concerns and challenges.

Thank you again for contacting President Obama. We invite you to visit www.WhiteHouse.gov to learn more about the President's actions and views.

Sincerely,

F. Michael Kelleher
Special Assistant to the President and Director of Presidential Correspondence

To be a part of our agenda for change, join us at www.WhiteHouse.gov

Gas Tax

To whom it may concern,

As soon as demand dropped off with the recession, oil prices and profits plummeted from their record levels. At the height of our oil exploitation, the United Stated public began to radically shift their consumption and transportation behavior. More people took transit and in the process converted millions from the single occupancy vehicle. As the economy stabilizes, the federal government should increase gas taxes as a means to finally shift consumer patterns away from our dependence on foreign oil. This strategy would improve foreign relations, reduce the burden on the military, alleviate congestion, lower greenhouse gas emissions, and propel the green industry movement. The petroleum based economy must be replaced by an alternative, renewable energy economy. The profits from the tax measure would be used to bolster the ailing Highway Trust Fund. With this reauthorization would come an opportunity to reform the funding program to completely realign its priorities. Instead of building highways it would promote the creation of a multi-modal transportation network. These funds could transform our entire roadway network into both green streets (storm water management, permeable surfaces, urban forest, and expanded open space) and complete streets (two-way pedestrian, bike, bus, transit, and automobile streets). The monies used to create more capacity for highways should be used to build bike lanes on every street, expand sidewalks and street amenities, and provide efficient and accessible transit options. All of this would feed into a more livable, efficient, and productive built environment that would encourage social cohesion and economic competitiveness.

GUNNAR HAND, AICP

the 100th Day

To whom it may concern,

The 100th day of the age of Obama is now upon us, so I will keep this brief. Speaking directly to the President and his administration, will you maintain the pace of change that you have had in the first 100 days throughout the remainder of your term? Of all the programs that have been initiated, how will you follow through with their passage and implementation? Finally, with everyone else in the world scoring your performance, what is your honest assessment of how you have done thus far?

GUNNAR HAND, AICP

Politics as Usual

To whom it may concern,

Closing in on the coveted, yet arbitrary first 100 days of his administration, President Obama moved one vote closer to an opposition proof Congress. With Arlen Specter now a Democrat and Al Franken nearly confirmed, 60 Senate Democrats are primed to move forward with the full Obama agenda. While the opposition decries the lack of bi-partisanship promised during the candidacy, it is hard to empathize with the former majority who only played partisan politics during their stint as the majority. With the political pendulum now fully on the Democrats side, they must believe that they, along with Obama, have a mandate for change. While the Republicans have been doing some soul searching recently as the opposition, the Democrats, as a super majority, must do some soul searching of their own. A filibuster proof Congress must think long-term in order to maintain its balance of power. Otherwise, drastic passage of legislation or general poor performance could easily swing the majority the other way in the next election. While the Democrats feel like they need to make up for lost time, they should at least attempt to reach out across the aisle. And the Republicans must formulate some sort of alternative strategy other than just saying “no” in order to maintain their relevance. Will this administration continue to seek bipartisan support, or simply move on with politics as usual?

GUNNAR HAND, AICP

A New Protest

To whom it may concern,

During the build-up to the Iraq War, the United States and the world saw some of the largest protests in history. While this huge show of force brought attention to public sentiment, it did nothing to change the government’s course of action. Subsequent protests have been ineffective or marred in violence, usually accredited to improperly termed "anarchists". These traditional forms of protest have done very little to effect real change as they did in their 1960s heyday. Since that time, protests have been incorporated into the government’s highly controlled permitting process. The effectiveness of the traditional protest has been squandered by this sponsorship of the State. What are missing from these acts of civil disobedience are the sit-ins and boycotts of the Civil Rights Movement. Instead of walking around and screaming for a day, the protests must begin to take action to produce the desired changes. Otherwise, we are simply venting our frustrations. Past protests fought injustices, racism and prejudice that were visible and painfully apparent. The fight today is much more clandestine, which makes it very difficult for a protest to truly connect to an issue and identify with the broader public. What is needed are new, imaginative and pro-active ways to express displeasure with the government. One such example is the nascent Flash mob movement. With so much at stake, how will the federal government respond to these burgeoning populist movements in the future?

GUNNAR HAND, AICP

Reinstating the Draft

To whom it may concern,

At the height of the Iraq War, there was a movement to reinstate the draft for the armed services. This measure was being discussed for several reasons. At the height of the Iraqi insurgency, recruitment was at an all time low. And as a means to deter current and future military action, a mandatory draft would directly link the public to such decisions. For many of those who initially protested the war, it was a very cerebral exercise in futility. For those who were in the armed services, it was their duty, responsibility, and job. For the families of the servicemen, it was a day they had been preparing for. The US high command had learned their lesson well from Vietnam. Now we are engaged in a prolonged war on terrorism with literally no end in sight. A mandatory draft would create an very tenuous balance between approval and protest. It would engage the public and promote good citizenship. It would actively promote participation in our democracy. Without it, the wars we fight would be solely determined by our leaders, our generals, and the military industrial complex. Without a volunteer military, a prolonged war would be virtually impossible. We would be forced to do what was never done prior to this war on terrorism; We would have to develop alternatives like economic sanctions, political and diplomatic pressure, multi-lateral engagement, and the strengthening our defenses at home. 9/11 did not happen because the terrorists are particularly smart, but because we were embarrassingly stupid and without foresight. Will the draft ever be reinstated in the United States?

GUNNAR HAND, AICP