Afghanistan will never be conquered

 From Alexander the Great to the Soviet Union, Afghanistan has never been conquered.  On October 7th, 2001, the United States began it's invasion of Afghanistan.  They quickly ousted the Tailban in a couple of weeks.  The U.S. invaded Afghanistan because of the September 11th terrorist attacks, which were planned by al-Qaeda which had bases in Afghanistan.  Ten years later the question that comes up is why are we still there and what is the role of the U.S. government in Afghanistan?

     In June 2011, President Obama announced that the U.S. will begin a gradual withdrawal from Afghanistan.  "Our mission will change from combat to support. By 2014, this process of transition will be complete, and the Afghan people will be responsible for their own security".  What was our mission in Afghanistan?  Was it to go after al-Queda and the Tailban or was it to create a stable democratic government?  Noah Feldman wrote in a Bloomberg.com article titled "Obama Plan Makes Victory in Afghanistan a Reality" states that "Obama is acting creatively and wisely in trying to recast our decade of involvement in Afghanistan as though it had been about bin Laden all this time.  It will certainly be bad for US interests if the Taliban re-emerge as the government of Afghanistan.  It will be very bad for Afghans too".  It seemed to me that the war in Afghanistan was never about setting up a stable democratic government.

     This pass year we have seen many uprisings against totalitarian governments in the Middle East.  These events seem to catch many in the West by surprise.  These movements came from ordinary people, not from foreign troops invading a country.  When has history shown us that invading a country to "help" set up a democratic government has ever succeeded?  The one thing that I wonder is whether the ten year occupation of Afghanistan has made it harder for the Afghan people to develop a democracy.

 Facts:
Alexander the Great invades Afghanistan in 330 BC.
Soviet Russia invades Afghanistan in 1979.
September 11th, 2001 terrorist attacks on the Twin Towers.
U.S. invades Afghanistan on October 7th, 2001.
June 22, 2011 Obama gives a speech on Afghanistan.                                    

                 

The Other Wes Moore

1.  The author grew up without his father, who died from a horrible hospital mistreatment.  After his father died, his mother  moved the family to her parents house the Bronx.  The author describes the Bronx as "the Bronx was in it's post apocalyptic phase, crack-fuelled declining devastation"(p.43).   He didn't do well in school because he was more focused on hanging out with his friends. 

The other Wes Moore grew up with out a father.  The last time that he saw his father, his father didn't even know who he was.  His older brother Tony was like a father figure to him.  Tony tried to keep him out of drugs but that didn't help because Tony was also into drugs.  The other Wes Moore also grew up in a crime driven area.  He dropped out of high school and started to sell drugs on the streets.

2.  The author's turning point was military school.  He went to military school after he was receiving bad grades.  Military taught him to respect adults and how to do better  in society.  If he hadn't gone to military school he would've still be on the streets playing with his friends and he wouldn't be the person that he is today.

The turning point for the other Wes Moore was a program that helped disadvantaged teenagers change their lives.  He heard about this program from a friend who had stopped doing the drug business.  He was amazed at how much the teachers at this program cared for teenagers like him.  He didn't see this point of view on the streets.  The teachers respect for people like him made him feel like he was a different person who was taking a new life.  He stopped selling drugs for a while.

3.  The author's mother helped him to become the person that he is today by being strict on him.  Education was very important to her.  Both his parents and his grandparents went to college.  If he got in trouble she would yell at him.  When he wasn't doing well in school she had enough and decided to send him to military school.  She thought that military school would toughen him up and help him to succeed in life.  She helped him become the person that he is today.

The other Wes Moore's mother wasn't as strict the author's mother.  She couldn't control her son's drug problem.  When she found out about the drugs she flushed them down the toilet and hopped that that would stop Wes from selling drugs.  Unfortunately that didn't stop Wes from selling drugs.  She also gave up on him when he dropped out of high school,  she just didn't have the same strength as the author's mother to help her son.

4. It seemed clear to me that from the story that young people need support and guidance of the whole community to be able to overcome the difficulties in their lives.  The author himself said "it was difficult to find the exact moment that made a difference in their two lives"(P.181).  He did point out the importance and power of stories to change young people's lives.  It might be easy to say that the other Wes Moore's fate would be prison because of his environment.  I like to believe that people can overcome their difficulty.  Society needs to help young people reach their potential.  I wonder how different the story would've been if the other Wes Moore's mother hadn't had her PELL grant cut and she had been able to finish college.  Both boys got into trouble when they were young, and   they both dropped out of high school.  The author's family was able to gather resources to give him the opportunity to succeed.  The other Wes Moore's mother didn't have the resources or the ability to change her son's life.

5.  There are some parts of the book that I liked and some parts that I didn't like.  I enjoyed the other Wes Moore's story more than the author's because his story dealt with violence and the trouble of living in a drug infested neighbourhood.  I didn't like the fact that the author used too much description.  When he was describing someone with lots of detail I would skip over that part.  I just don't like it when authors use too much description in general.  However I thought that this book was influential because he teaches us why the kids in dangerous neighbourhoods wind up in jail or drop out of high school.                                           

                  

Corporations are not people

Last year the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that business corporations have the same free speech rights as a human being.  This decision is a dramatic change in the financing of campaigns.  There has been rising concern over the past decade about the influence of corporations and their political contributions.  The McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law was an attempt to control the influence of money in election campaigns.  I don't think that corporations should have the same right as a human being because they have a unfair advantage over our democratic government, compared to a regular human being.

People who are supporters of the decision like Mitt Romney say " Corporations are people, my friend... of course they are. Everything corporations earn ultimately goes to the people. Where do you think it goes? Whose pockets? Whose pockets? People's pockets. Human beings my friend".  Ken Klukowski wrote an opinion article on Foxnews.com saying that "The Supreme Court's action in striking down the worst censorship provision of McCain-Feingold restores vital free speech protection in America... The First Amendment does not allow the government to silence its critics, and Thursday’s decision would make our Founding Fathers applaud -- they built this country out of a revolution founded upon a critique of oppressive government. But fast forward to 2010, this week, instead of applauding the Supreme Court’s ruling, America’s current president is responding by issuing an ominous threat against our highest court".  It seems to me that both conservatives are missing a vital point, that this Supreme Court decision allows corporations to put unlimited amounts of money into political campaigns.

President Obama said at his State of the Union Address in 2010, that "I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, and worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people, and that’s why I’m urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong.”  I think that Obama's right on this issue.  I feel that this decision makes it harder for ordinary people's voices to be heard in today's politics.  In a Washington Post nationwide poll, 80% of Americans reject the Court's conclusion.  There seems to be a growing concern across the country about the role of money in political campaigns.  I can't help but feel that the Occupiers are an expression of people's frustration with a political system that is controlled by money.

Facts
1. Foxnews.com article "Founding Fathers Smiling After Supreme Court Campaign Finance Ruling"
2. State of  The Union Address 2010
3.  Washington Post Poll