The Confederate Flag: It May Seem Passive, but Should Be Avoided

In the United States, Flag Day celebrates the adoption of the first American flag in 1777. However, about a century later some people would commemorate a new type of flag day: Confederate Flag Day. Confederate Flag Day typically refers to commemorating the adoption of the Confederate Flag. The controversy around Confederate Flag Day revolves around what the Confederacy and the Confederate flag itself stand for. Many people who display the Confederate flag argue that slavery was a past wrong and dreadful part of United States history and display the flag as a representation of their Southern heritage. Others are offended because one of the reasons Confederacy originally existed was to uphold the institution of slavery especially in newly acquired territories.

I realize I am at a risk taking a side this issue, but I feel that I must express my own views on this controversy in order to delve deeper into the issue. While I know people who are comfortable with proudly displaying this icon, and do not intend any harm, I feel that people in favor of displaying this flag refuse to acknowledge what the Confederacy stood for in the late 19th Century. The Civil War broke out in the first place because the Confederacy was in favor of expanding slavery in the territories whereas the Union opposed it. The war took place between the slave states (members of the Confederacy) and the free states (members of the Union). As long as it is conceivable that the flag of the Confederacy can represent a battle to maintain slavery, then people should refuse to display their flags. I feel that this is more than conceivable. The Confederate flag is a symbol of the Confederacy and had the Confederacy won the Civil War, slavery would have lasted longer.

If you are still not convinced consider another controversial icon - the swastika. If you think it is fine for someone who has Southern heritage to display the Confederate flag, are you comfortable with someone of German heritage displaying the swastika? Most people would say no because the swastika was the icon of the Nazis during the holocaust. Although there is far less controversy behind the swastika in that the vast majority of American believes that people should not display the swastika, I do not see the Confederate flag as much different.

As a result, I do not see why Americans who are proud of their Southern heritage would choose to display the Confederate flag, which has been known to create tension. We have made great progress over the years, we are now one nation united. Why display a symbol that divides us instead of Old Glory, the United States flag?

The Bluff Game: Why the US and Israel will not attack Iran

For the past few years, the relationship between the United States and Iran has been tense to say the least. Bush has been full of hostile rhetoric indicating that Iran is a threat that must be dealt with. When asked about Iran, Bush has been very discreet about how he plans on dealing with the country while holding that the option of air strikes remains on the table. Israel has not been much friendlier to the Iranian regime. While sounding seemingly less hostile towards Iran than Bush has been, some prominent Israelis are also provoking threats to Iran. Netanyahu, a prominent leader of the conservative Likud party and a frontrunner to replace Olmert as the next Prime Minister of Israel has expressed feelings of aggression towards Iran and some of his support has come as a result.

From the perspective of the West, Iran has been perceived as a country that disregards international law, offers few rights to women, suppresses beliefs in opposition with the dominant regime, and, with the help of Russia, has been working on its Bushehr nuclear reactor. While both the United States and Israel would like to see an Iranian democracy that is open about its nuclear ambitions, both countries know that an attack on Iran would spell out political suicide. There are a few hard facts that political leaders are confronted with that are unknown to the average person. While I might have been convinced that Bush was truly planning an attack on Iran a year ago, recent events prohibit such a possibility. In December 2007, the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) report surveyed Iran and concluded that not only was Iran not a nuclear threat, but even if Iran were to work on developing a bomb at full capacity, it would probably not even be able to weaponize its fissile materials until 2015. Several years ago, Bush attacked Iraq by arguing that Iraq had WMD with a strong nuclear program. Whereas in Iraq it took intervention to realize Iraq was not a threat, in Iran, Bush already knows Iran poses no WMD threat. If attacking Iraq wasn't bad enough, attacking Iran would be far worse. Thus, post-NIE, it is inconceivable that current or future leaders from either the United States or Israel are planning an attack on Iran.

Additionally, Israel is currently in an unusual state in the international arena when it comes to its display of hard power. Israel has maintained a status of nuclear ambiguity in the Middle East in that Israel has not been willing to disclose whether it has nuclear weapons or not. As crazy as this may sound, Israel's ambiguous posture has been successful in preventing large-scale conflict from arising in the Middle East. In the Middle East, the alliances of the United States are shady at best…except for Israel. Israel is the United States' largest ally in the region and if either Israel or the United States were to launch an attack on Iran, the other would likely get blamed. Due to Israel's close proximity to Iran coupled with the fact that Israel neighbors countries that are not exactly best buddies with Israel, it is safe to say Israel would be the first one to suffer from retaliation if either the United States or Iran launched a strike on Iran. Sooner or later the cat will be out of the bag, and Israel's nuclear ambiguity will be no more.

Simply by looking at the immediate aftermath of a war with Iran spells out trouble. There is no reason to believe rogue nations such as Syria or Jordan would stay silent if they notice Iran gets militarily targeted by enemies. An attack on Iran will provide Middle Eastern countries that loathe Israel with an excuse to try and wipe Israel off the map. Even a small risk of a full-scale Middle Eastern conflict is something that anyone should seek to avoid, and a strike on Iran seems to provide the likely catalyst for such a war. So while the United States and Israel may flex their muscles all they want, bet your money that neither will throw a punch.

Time to Consult Nader!

The elections are coming up sooner than ever and in addition to Obama and McCain a third candidate is getting some weight, Ralph Nader. Most people have essentially waved Ralph Nader off as joke candidate. While he may or may not be a joke as a candidate, some of his views are of huge importance. In fact, I would argue that Ralph Nader is someone that the United States should seriously consider consulting. Ralph Nader is an experienced lawyer and has already run for President four times before making him a prominent political figure. His view would be vital in areas where he has had strong stances on especially involving environmental issues. Consulting Nader could help convince conservative hardliners to moderate their stances or at least compromise on some issues that the United States federal government has been trying to pass, but failed due to right-wing opposition. One issue of paramount importance involves alternative energy incentives. The federal government should start consulting Nader over domestic policies to provide a fresh perspective on issues that can only be found outside of Washington.

Now more than ever the federal government must seriously consider the views of Green Party/Independent activist Ralph Nader. The energy crisis is something that can be postponed no longer. We have seen the concerns and predictions that Nader has been heralding all along become a reality. We look outside the car window and notice that the gas station is charging us over four dollars for a gallon of unleaded gas! To say that this is a crisis that should continue to go unnoticed is absurd. Hybrid vehicles that combine standard gasoline with other fuels have helped reduce our oil dependency, but it does not go far enough. It is clear that the United States federal government should adopt greater incentives for consumers using alternative energies. Who better to consult over capitalizing such ideals into policy than Ralph Nader? He has been extremely adamant about the need for establishing a new diversified energy policy.

Don’t get my wrong, I by no means plan on voting for Nader in 2008; however, he has some important views on issues and if I had the opportunity to sit down and talk to him on environmental issues I would do so in a heartbeat. Unfortunately, I do not have such a luxury, whereas the United States federal government does. Yet lawmakers, who have the potential to make serious change in United States energy policy refuse to even listen to Nader. Members of both the Democrat and Republican parties should realize the problem associated with depleting non-renewable natural resources. If people of power are not going to ignore how vital this issue is, then hopefully Nader once consulted could at least convince a few more heads to turn in the right direction.

This may seem absurd for the most powerful political body in the United States to consult someone like Nader, but let’s not forget that it has been done before. While normally someone such as the President consults his Cabinet or other prominent advisers in Washington, it is not too unusual to see people or organizations outside of Washington to be consulted over policy issues. In fact, consultations with Nader are nothing new. Jimmy Carter consulted Nader over assigning advisers when discussing the makeup of the Executive. The consultations I propose are not nearly to that extreme. The make-up of Washington is fine as it is, but could use a word of advice and Nader might be just the one to do it.

If the United States federal government were to consult him, it would certainly legitimize him in the political arena. This may in turn give him some additional support in the November 2008 election. It is unclear, however, whether he will gain enough support to steal a victory from Obama. Nonetheless, it is still a concern that should be considered.

References:
CNN News, June 6, 2008 http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/06/poll.mccain.obama/index.html?iref=newssearch

“Green Party 2008 Presidential Candidate Questionnaire,” February 3, 2008

Marcello, Patricia Cronin. Ralph Nader: A Biography pg. 82