From the Eisenhower Administration to the Obama Administration, the embargo has shifted in intensity. Before taking office, President Obama has shown an inclination toward a more forward approach in engaging Cuba and less intense restrictions. In contrast, many past administrations have perpetuated the embargo to the same degree as if it were 1968; President Obama has chosen a new path toward diplomatic and economic inclusion, which represents a shift from a stagnant Cold War mentality to a more forward, progressive approach. To be specific, President Obama’s administration has created initiatives, outlined in an omnibus bill, which would relax travel restrictions  in Cuban family members.

A Gallup poll suggests that since 2000, many Americans favor ending the trade embargo with Cuba, with 51% favoring and 38% opposing it. The trend in the poll shows the opposing group steadily decreasing while the former holding steady. While this may not translate into meaningful change in regards to the embargo, it does create a favorable atmosphere in which President Obama can harness and mold the embargo to reflect popular expectance.

President Obama is at a crossroads in which direction to take the United State’s relationship with Cuba.. The affirmation of the Cuban embargo may prove to be less politicized as opposed to developing ties with Cuba. Nonetheless, the advantages of engaging Cuba is significant from businesses perspective and diplomatic ties are beneficial, especially with a country so close to our borders. Reversing the outdated, Cold War paradigm is also in line with American public opinion. In the past, methods of exclusion have produced tense and rigid structures that require even more energy to maintain, such as the arms race between the United States and Russia. In other words, the old context for the Cuban embargo should not affect President Obama’s decision to develop economic and diplomatic ties with Cuba.

Historically, American foreign policy towards Cuba has been a process of negotiating with financial incentives in return for political reform and, as the Cuban embargo demonstrates, Cuba has been resistant in conceding to these demands. Instead, the United States’ foreign policy on Cuba has partitioned relations and created a “West versus the Rest”  mentality. However there seems to be a divergence from the past with the emergence of Castro’s younger brother, Raul Castro, as the provincial leader, and a more diplomatically inclined President Obama, the prospects of bilateral agreements on economic sanctions being lifted seems plausible. At the very least, a small but important step will have been developed for future leaders to shape and mold to their preferences.

The consequences of the Cuban embargo were felt almost immediately by all Cuban business owners, ranging from small to big, as well as the many investing companies from abroad. Cuban reliance on sugar export to the United States further affected the Cuban economic structure. President Obama should not take this area for granted. This economic area serves as a conduit for future diplomatic exchanges. Also, this area could potentially lift the burden that the United States has placed on the Cuban economy. Economic sanctions will only continue to promote slow development of revenue earning sectors in Cuba and restrict access to both Cubans and Americans to markets of labor and manufactured products. Such sanctions, as history has shown, will reluctantly force Cuba turn to other nations who can provide access to their markets – as Canadian companies have done so in the 1990’s.

The benefits of the Cuban embargo may have been relevant during the Cold War. Today, however, it seems to be more of an impediment to Cuban-American families and companies who seek entry into Cuban markets. The consequences during the onset of the Cuban embargo and Cuban Missile Crisis may have proven to be detrimental to our national safety.

President Obama has engendered a more diplomatic and forward-thinking approach in integrating states that have been on the fringe of international relations, such as Cuba. The Cuban embargo is undoubtedly a symbol of the Cold War era. It is time for a new chapter in Cuban-America relations to begin and President Obama has written the first page. The rest will depend on Congress and future administrations.

Szilard pens a satirical fiction which is set in the backdrop of secret collaboration between top Soviet and American scientists who have miraculously discovered a way to decipher the dialect of dolphins, the most intelligent species on earth. Naming each dolphin after letters of the ancient Greek alphabet, the scientists decide to utilize the dolphins’ vast knowledge and engage politically based philosophical discussions with them. This experimental scientific institution functions for over a decade, enthusiastically funded by a break through discovery by the dolphins of an algae-produced ingredient, which serves as an ingredient for natural birth control. Szilard emphasizes this ingenious solution and foreshadows a population problem that is plaguing much of the politics of the globalized world today.

Published in 1961, Szilard recreates an imaginary space for objective discussion while quietly revealing a tone of contempt towards the tensely molded shape of Cold War politics. However, the most important observation by Szilard is the ideological pursuits of humanity and the insufficient capacity of society, not the individual, to transform the heartfelt social ideal into reality by shedding light on the push and pull between freedom and submission. He also questions the superb ability for scientific exploration by comparing it to the escalation of human ideology as the fundamental enemy of political thought. Written in a time during of pivotal social experimentation, Szilard alludes to the fabrication a neo-politick that now sought to extract its legitimacy via the transformation of the mind, soul and spirit into supreme, highly-moral, political agents. However, the development of socially destructive and craze-producing characterizations is a direct result of our Utopian political imaginations. The problem, Szilard argues, is in the social embrace of politics at the expense of scientific rationale. In the face of economically failing right-wing politics, and the loss of individual dignity to left-wing radicals, the world is left amongst chaos that resembles the most far-flung original purpose of political culture. The approach of politicians is deemed inconclusive regarding its means of attaining justice, whereas the collective conclusions made by the dolphins – the voice of science, the voice of reason – makes a new understanding of political tension. Szilard writes, “When a scientist says something, his colleagues must ask themselves only whether it is true. When a politician says something, his colleagues must first of all ask, ‘Why does he say it?’; later on they may or may not get around to asking whether it happens to be true.” That core problem is as true today as it was half a century ago; politicians continue to create legislation and format political regimes in accordance with statistically decorated assumptions that we live in a world full of rational agents. The truth of politics reveals a means to create peace amongst people who are naturally inclined to war, in the broadest sense of the word. Social movements are a highly static phenomenon and the demand for a ‘right’ and ‘fair’ state of existence serves more to conceal reality than make amends with it. So much of our legal system depends on a human characteristic to be rational, when it does not even exist. In administering justice we require evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, in preventing war we assume the individual voter to act as a rational agent etc. Notably, it is the very same qualities that make us human which impede our ability to be rational. The interception of different realizations throughout the growth of an idea, an individual, of a citizen, of a state only hint towards an appropriate policy being one that is open to the changeability of political culture and more importantly, of human growth. Our civil society today is made up of politically inclined people who foster an incompatibility to change.

Szilard argues the false conception that we are free, by asking all the right questions, including, “Would it be correct to assume that Americans were free to say that they think, because they did not think what they were not free to say?” Szilard also poses the following scenario, “For the sake of argument, [say] that one third of the trustees [of a given political institution] are men endowed with imagination and two thirds of them are not so endowed. Does not the majority vote then automatically bar any imaginative project? And even if we accept, as the basic tenet of true democracy, that one moron is as good as one genius, is it necessary to go one step farther and hold that two morons are better than one genius?” The structure of our democratic institutions should continue to be questioned and observed critically for further development. Progress should not be hindered by history’s ideological manipulation and propaganda schemes that emerged during the Second World War.

It has been the ultimate sociopolitical conflict for a self-denying vanity that emerged from the dreams of great leaders to believe in the ultimate good of humanity to fully understand the limit of our capacity for true and impartial rationality that our modern-day politics is based upon.

-

Words have never been enough.  While the brain can process thousands of feelings and sensations every minute, spoken language will forever be a bottleneck that retards the sharing or expression of sensations from one person to the next.  Think about it – how often are you left struggling to relay a thought to a colleague or friend?  Our ancestors responded to this impass by developing ways to squeeze through the barriers of communication.  For as long as humankind has roamed the earth, the arts have existed as a prominent feature in human relations.  Painting, literature, theater, and music were created as ways to get around the limits of language.  Though seemingly extraneous to survival, the arts represent an evolutionary step that separated the struggle to survive from the struggle to understand.  Music, from its time as rudimentary grunting and stick-banging and onto its contemporary mass produced, auto-tuned form, has been a way of relaying the full spectrum of emotions.  Helping us to connect, understand, and express, music’s role in our lives serves a much deeper purpose than purely entertainment.

The presence of music in modern politics cannot go unacknowledged.  Politics frequently intersects with music.  As politics boils down to the determination of who gets what, many artists take to the airways to state their societal aspirations, either enthusiastically or subtly.  What better way to express your idea of a utopian society than to sing about it for the masses to hear?  Why waste an audience?  It may also provide solution for artists with legitimacy crisises who, wanting to shed the persona of a pop prince or princess, take up a message to provide a foundation for their artistry.

Dissect most songs and you will surely find a political statement.  Do you like John Lennon?  Listen to his song “Imagine.” Prefer more recent tunes?  Download Green Day’s 2005 “American Idiot,” which had Generation X-ers rocking to the lyrics “Don’t wanna be part of a redneck’s agenda.”  Anyone want to guess who they are referencing?  Rap, which many contend is a smattering of misogynistic hate speech that glorifies violence and breaking the law, has its share of political statements.  The eighties rap group N.W.A. helped expose what they perceived as deeply imbedded racism within the greater Los Angeles community.  Their lyrics reflected the angst of young Americans who not only believed that the needs of their communities were being passed over, but were troubled by experiences of police brutality, racial profiling, and a lack of economic opportunities.  With their enormous success, these pioneers of the “Gangsta Rap” music genre would surely argue that their music ultimately led to steps to eliminate such inequities.  Without music as a forum, these young men would have likely been dismissed by the masses as troubled “gangbangers,” who’s complaints were illegitimate.  The unlikelihood of  Dr. Dre and Ice Cube rolling up to a selectman’s meeting, meant that the public would not receive their message in a traditional way- music interceded.

Hip hop artist Lil’ Wayne, on his way to Grammy stardom, sang passionately against what he perceived as the government’s neglect of his home town, New Orleans, following Hurricane Katrina.  Upon the election of Barack Obama as the 44th President of the U.S., at least one rapper had lyrics which included “my president is black.”  All of these statements are inherently political in nature.  They are points of view on society and government that to some are acceptable, while at the same time unacceptable to others.  They span many frontiers from foreign wars down to municipal policies, religion, and even sometimes education.  And who, after listening to enough rap would argue that a preponderance of these men and women are against the promotion and legalization of marijuana as well as other banned substances? Tales of drug use are seemingly an integral part of this genre.

In terms of the social structure of the United States, many artists orient their content toward celebrating diverse lifestyles and castigating those who oppose or attempt to stand in the way.  Pink, The Black Eyed Peas, as well as many more artists take up this sort of role.  Artists present to the public music videos where homosexual or interracial couples are celebrated.  While these tend to be less prevalent among mainstream artists, Christina Aguilera is one noteworthy example with her record “Beautiful.”   Additionally more and more music incorporates scenes depicting what the producers consider to be the hurtful nature of some of society’s tendencies, particularly those associated with superficial standards of appearance and gender roles.

It soon becomes clear that most songs tend to have a liberal bent, but Toby Keith went against the grain with his own message.  In one of his anthems for American pride, he sang, “We’ll stick a boot up their ass, it’s the American way!”  He and other country music stars often incorporate what are considered pro-America, pro-military statements, with emphasis on maintaining the traditional American culture.  Music is becoming less art and more controversy.

The fact is that music is now being utilized as the means for social advocacy and change, perhaps more than ever before.  Whether or not this is needed or valuable social change is irrelevant to this conversation.  What might appear as innocent songs can carry unspeakable power.  People do not realize that the music they listen to casually on the radio or their iPods while exercising, walking to class, or lying in bed, amounts to the incursion of someone’s beliefs and point of view on the listener’s own mind.  While you are concentrating on completing the last set of leg lifts at the gym, playing in your ears could be strong political statements that can and do affect the way you think.  Those seeking entertainment are unwittingly exposed to biased and persuasive material, what some might categorize as industry-sponsored propaganda.  While not wholly subliminal, these messages can crawl imperceptibly through our ears and plant themselves into the decision making portion of our minds.

Who sponsors the musical content that we hear every day?  Given the innerworkings of the nation’s corporate recording industries, it is not conspiracy theory to say that massive record labels wield great power in determining which songs, and therefore which messages, filter into our ears.  Talent alone won’t get you on the Billboard charts.  Dozens of people play a role in crafting and shaping popular music, long before it finally enters your ears.  Keep in mind that what you hear has been censored.

Be warned about the subconscious power that constant repetition of music will have on the formation of our own beliefs.  Songs celebrate individuality, something that sits in contrast from community life.  They speak of the wonders of cities, which promotes urbanization.  Again, this isn’t about whether the message is relatively good or bad for the listener.  They speak about the degradation of the environment, which promotes conservation.  Are you sure that Toby Keith is well read in Middle Eastern affairs?  Are his statements oversimplifications and unrealistic?  This issue is about music lovers being shaped by their music, which they likely hadn’t planned on, as they may just listening to the song because it was in the top ten on iTunes.  I’m all for music that promotes a discussion.  It’s only when there is an awareness of the situation that such discussion can occur.  Otherwise it’s Bono making a statement and you listening unabashedly.  To say that these lyrics do not truly affect people is to underestimate the power of persuasion.  Songs are hardly ever two sided. We need to distinguish between an artists’ narcissistic need to be edgy from genuine expression about a fundamentally political or societal matter.  We can’t let the ethos of a celebrity overcome our intellect.

We constantly scrutinize news anchors and reporters who tell us what is going on in the world, newspaper editorialists who tell us what to think, or parents who advise us on all of life’s matters.  We don’t, however, scrutinize our music.  Music slips through as art and entertainment, when a large portion of the lyrics are politically influential.  Music is frequently a forum to unleash one’s angst.  We should be sure to evaluate the purveyors of political messages in song lyrics as well as the sources or motivations of their angst before they are accepted as reputable sources.

These issues are not anecdotal or harmless.  They are so pervasive that we should learn to filter ourselves, so as not to unknowingly infect ourselves with whatever comes with a catchy tune. We must be wary of artists who attempt to use their fame to perpetuate a certain message, like we would anyone else in media.  We must realize that although we may like the song, we should not necessarily equate the same liking to its politically driven content.

For clarifications sake, I’m all for artists who stand for a cause.  We all get sick of cookie-cutter artists singing manufactured songs to a bubble gum beat.  In fact I tend to be against artists who do not take personal ownership over their works, or who say that their content it’s for the people’s interpretation, thereby lacking an intended message.  If they are going to support a message they should stand by it, and if an interpretation of a song is not what they intended they should at least say as much.

Sorry current and aspiring musicians, but you are not who I turn to for my political opinions.  These people are free to use music to make a political statement — and why shouldn’t they, especially if it sells?  As a public we must recognize that this is not the best place to get information.  We should not confuse recreation and fun with a class on civics. When songs blow up the charts and become iconic, we take the gained legitimacy of the song and apply it to its political message, which may or may not be valid.  We let our investment in musical fare taint a whole different and unrelated aspect of our lives.  If political activism impels you, Kanye, a recent participant in We Are the World 25 for Haiti, why not separate it from you music and speak about issues for longer than a chorus?

The solution is not to ban political music or to stop listening to it; their politics may very well be your own politics.  The solution is to be critically aware of what you are listening to, its potential effect on you and how you get to know the facts.  People should resist allowing the cult of celebrity to determine how they feel on issues.  Lastly, music should stay more toward the entertainment end of the spectrum, and less toward the political manifesto end, where Locke, Montesquieu and Marx occupy space.  Some of us like music that has a message and rails against sappy love songsor sexually explicit rock and roll.  I challenge you to remain cognizant of the music you hear and how it is intended to persuade you.  Then after that, I urge you to just enjoy it!

The United States Congress passed the REAL ID Act of 2005 in response to Homeland Security’s proposal.  According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, this piece of legislation repealed a prior law establishing a cooperative effort between the federal government and state governments and mandated certain requirements for state-issued identification cards.  The new standards required driver’s licenses to contain at a minimum such information as a person’s full legal name, date of birth, legal address, among other characteristics.

Currently, states already adhere to most of these standards, but an additional requirement that state identification cards receive federal certification is also included in the Real ID Act.  In the bill is language that prohibits a non-certified identification card from being used for any purpose that deals with the federal government, such as obtaining entry to federal government buildings or obtaining a passport.  REAL ID also mandates that states must create a central database for such information as listed above, and that those databases must be accessible to other states, essentially creating a national registry.  It does not, however, directly provide funding for this purpose to reimburse states for the costs of creating the database, nor does it give the states much of a say in implementing changes.  In addition, the program would take the form of an unfunded mandate, a device used by Congress to force a state to implement their will without providing funding to do so .

A major complication in these efforts has been the reluctance of states to implement the reforms.  In 2007, Maine passed a state bill refusing to implement any provision of REAL ID.  This demural was based on both financial and legal grounds.  In the bill it was noted that the cost of implementation would be upwards of $185 million, a price that taxpayers would be hard-pressed to afford.  In addition, the government of Maine believed that it would constitute an invasion of privacy as well as incite an increase in identity theft while providing no discernable benefits.

Following Maine’s lead were the states of Montana, South Carolina, and New Hampshire.  Montana, in particular, passed legislation outright rejecting the Act, saying the following in the bill:

“The legislature finds that the enactment into law by the U.S. congress of the REAL ID Act of 2005, as part of Public Law 109-13, is inimical to the security and well-being of the people of Montana, will cause unneeded expense and inconvenience to those people, and was adopted by the U.S. congress in violation of the principles of federalism contained in the 10th amendment to the U.S. constitution.”

Since then, 33 out of 50 states have either introduced or passed some sort of legislation denouncing the REAL ID program , although most have also filed for extensions regarding implementation in the hopes that a compromise can be reached.  There are some states, however, that have embraced REAL ID, including California and New Jersey.  Denise Blair, Assistant Deputy Director for the California Department of Motor Vehicles, said in a statement to Wired Magazine that it could allow their DMV to offer more online services beyond their current capability.   Representatives for the New Jersey state government gave a similar reasoning when questioned.

Privacy advocacy groups have also waded into the fray over the REAL ID protocols.  These groups, such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), cite privacy concerns in greater detail than the states, which emphasize the economic issues involved in implementation.  For example, the EFF states on its website that the presence of “common machine-readable technology”  (e.g. barcodes, RFID technology) makes it easy for the federal government to read the information on it.   The problem with this is that if it is easy for the government, it is just as easy for people looking to commit the crime of identity theft.  The ACLU, in turn, fears that the communal database mandated by the REAL ID Act will expand to include information unrelated to national security. The Department of Homeland Security is on record as saying REAL ID could be mandatory for purchasing certain types of medication, such as that containing pseudoephedrine, a key ingredient in cold medicines and methamphetamine.  Expansion of the database could also mean weaker security overall, as more data collection points mean more points of failure to keep track of.

The DHS, for its part, has stated that REAL ID will in fact be more secure than the current system.  The new identification cards would ostensibly contain security features to make it more difficult to counterfeit and make false documentation.  Because criminals actively seek out these forged materials, the chance of making it harder to attain such credentials is worth the price.  The problem with this, as stated by the ACLU and other organizations, it does not prevent legitimate identification from simply being purchased from corrupt public officials. DHS also has gone on record as saying that it will improve privacy rather than undermine it by making the government responsible for safeguarding personal information, as well as provide a central repository for everything from driving records to medical information.    Unfortunately for DHS, private organizations and the states have soundly rejected this argument.

There is some hope for a reworking of the REAL ID concept, however.  In 2009, congressional lawmakers put forth an idea for a document known as PASS ID.  PASS ID would keep several major tenets of REAL ID while scaling back some of the more controversial aspects of the previous program.  The ideas that would be kept would be the information requirements as well as the machine-readable features, but the creation of a national information database would be dropped under the proposed system.  Unfortunately, critics on both sides of the debate have panned this new idea, with opinions ranging from it not being strong enough to having many of the same privacy and economic concerns of REAL ID.

The idea of a national ID system such as REAL ID or PASS ID is well intentioned, but currently a losing proposition.  Because many states have passed legislation against such a program, the chance that one will come to fruition is very slim at best.  Until the federal government shows that it is willing to compromise with the states on matters such as privacy and economic support, the REAL ID program and its subsequent evolutions will fail every time.

In 2006, under considerable pressure from the public to provide information about the use of tax dollars in matters of national security, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) conducted the first comprehensive study of the use of private intelligence contractors since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Alarmingly, it found that “confronted with… uncertain funding, components (of the U.S. government intelligence community) are left with no choice but to use contractors for work that may be borderline ‘inherently governmental’.” In fact, it is estimated that around 70% of the budget for national security is spent on private contractors, and the government is more reliant on corporations for executing matters of national security and intelligence than ever before. Interrogating prisoners of war, flying spy aircraft, and tracking terrorist threats are now some of the many tasks performed by private corporations.

In the aftermath of budget cuts to the US intelligence apparatus in the 1990s, many skilled workers that had previously been employed in the public sector moved to private companies. After 9/11, however, Congress and the Bush Administration authorized the CIA and other agencies to hire thousands of intelligence analysts to support their efforts. Since the ‘90s, the “industrial-intelligence complex” has exploded in terms of profitability; business in that sector has doubled in the past ten years.

Blurring the lines between government and the private sector to create a “blended” workforce has raised concerns in the intelligence industry, and many observers believe the extent to which contractors are being used is inappropriate. In 2007, when the General Services Administration needed help organizing an investigation into the incompetent behavior and fraud demonstrated by private contractors, they hired another contractor, CIAC International, to do the work. Despite the seemingly obvious conflict of interest, and the exorbitant cost ($104 of taxpayer money per employee, per hour), and the fact that CIAC itself had been under investigation for similar issues in the past, they were hired anyway.

Ironically, the competition in the market which is supposed to streamline the nation’s cost is nonexistent, since less than half of the contracts handed out by the government were subject to open bidding.

Furthermore, despite the fact that no solid data exists demonstrating that private contractors are more efficient than government run agencies, Congress has continued to allow previously governmental jobs to be sent to the private sector, which is not accountable to the public and not always required to disclose the tasks they are performing. Many intelligence companies now rely almost exclusively on government business, creating an intelligence industry subsidized by the government, where executives can line their pockets with money from a public, to whose will they are not accountable.

Even more unsettling, the U.S. intelligence budget is shrouded in secrecy and it is impossible to know how much money the government spends on private companies annually. In addition, it is unclear what constitutes an “inherently governmental” function; it is difficult to imagine where the line is being drawn when the President receives most of his daily security information from private corporations.

On February 25, the House heard arguments pertaining to the FY2010 intelligence authorization act, which would require the Director of National Intelligence to disclose to Congress the extent to which private contractors were being used.  With an increasingly calamitous war on terror looming over the nation, it is remarkable how trusting Congress is in companies who admit to having no motivation other than profit.  Without the Intelligence Authorization Act, as well as other clear legislation outlining what the role of private contractors should be in the intelligence industry, it is unlikely that there will be any meaningful oversight in our bought-and-paid-for national security sector.