The first big change was a notable one. Obama froze the pay of his staff. Making a cut for the economy and a brilliant gesture that helped get many in the nation on his side. Also putting some restraints of the lobbyists. Not only reducing their influence on politics, but also giving himself more power over congress and other agencies. But although both of these policies are of some repute I think that there might have been some additional changes that would have further bettered his approval rating and would have been good for the nation.

First, he could have cut his staff. He frankly doesn’t need a thousand plus staff. This is something that Bush should have done as well. Abraham Lincoln went through the civil war with a small staff of two. Even FDR had a staff of only a couple hundred during WW2. There is no need to have that many people in the executive branch. Although a wonderful gesture, freezing funds will do little to help the smothered economy. But cutting the bloated staff would have been a great way to streamline the Cabinet.

The second big change was not nearly so pleasant. Obama announced to the world and many pleasantly surprised terrorist groups, that he is closing Guantanimo Bay for “national security reasons”. What he forgot to mention is where we will put them. Coincidently, this story was highlighted by the fact that the last guy we released from the Detention center went and promptly blew 16 people sky high. Apparently not getting the message of the Saudi “Jihad rehabilitation center” that he attended.

So where do we send them? To another country? How about France? Imagine the headlines. “Mob attacks French prison. Terrorists mysteriously missing.” It would be Bastille all over again. Or maybe to the Saudi’s rehab for terrorists? Or to Yemen, where terrorists “inexplicably” disaster from prisons.

How about the US? Well, there are several reasons why bringing them here would be a national security disaster. First, if they break out, were in deep trouble. (To say the least)  Second they get the same rights as an American citizen. So if they get a good lawyer, a couple of them could go scott free. Even though they are unlawful combatants. And where would we let them go? Here? I would not sleep a wink for months. The last reason I don’t think sending them to your local county prison is that we don’t need to be setting up terrorist “cells” in the US. These prisoners could get the opportunity to converse with each other, or worse US prisoners who will do anything for money. We could inadvertently have people who we would never expect being converted to jihad and helping with terror activities

I would like a better explanation from Obama what his national security reasons are. If they have to come here though I think we should send them all to San Francisco and Manhattan. If they have to be in the US, let the Obama lovers have them.

The next thing was the economic stimulus. Here’s a Lesson in economics. You don’t go into more bad debt to boot up an economy. That is basically what this stimulus does. Also interesting is the pork that is in the bill. For instance the Billions in the original bill that went to contraceptive devices. How does that help the economy? It is really simple really. Just cut taxes. That is the best economic stimulus. Ultimately it is the government’s duty to serve the people, and to protect the people from itself. And they can’t do one without doing the other.

Finally the most disturbing change was on the life issue. In an effort to make the world a better place, Obama reinstituted the “Mexico city policy.”  The funds aid organizations that do abortions in other countries. In addition to being yet another abomination of human rights, it takes my money and uses it to allow human traffickers an easy way to hide their dirty work, and continue to oppress woman.

On the same topic he also cleared the way for the useless, wrong practice of stem cell research. Many scientists have already found that adult stem cells are effective when embryonic ones are not. It makes not sense to do the unnecessary when we are talking about creatures that are just like what we once were. Many who would have grown up to live healthy fruitful lives if they were allowed to live. Liberals hate doing testing on animals. So why people?

In conclusion, Obama has made some good choices, and some not so good ones. On one hand he is not ending the war on terror. But on the other he is making it harder. He is decreasing government corruption. However he ignores much good advice too. I will admit I am not one of the 68% that approve of Obama first week as our leader.

In light of the presidential campaign, some international events have been sidelined. Recently, North Korea’s Kim Jong Il suffered a stroke, causing rumors to circulate about his bad health. He even missed the 60^th anniversary celebration, which he is not accustomed to do. This has further spread the word that the North Korean leader may be close to his death.

Although the North Korean diplomat and several other high ranking officials have denied it, many of the neighboring nations and the United States have become increasingly concerned at the prospect of a leaderless North Korea. With the tensions rising and the nuclear reactor program beginning again, the fear of the countries is the instability of  North Korea.

This has caused some last minute planning by China and the United States. I wonder if it should have been done before, an action plan in the event that countries with dangerous nuclear power should become instable.

Perhaps this bodes well for the country, that the people finally have a chance to become free of the dictatorship and democratically elect someone who would restore peace and productivity to the ailing nation.

Or it may become total political upheaval. Since Kim did not appoint a successor, who knows whether or not the 3 sons will fight it out for the role of leadership.

The United States and the world are at the crossroads when it comes to North Korea and its future. Only time will tell whether or not the decisions we make now have good or bad consequences. Although this may be hidden when compared to the race for presidency, it will play a big factor once the race is over.

Josh’s Comments: I hate to be hard on Sam, especially since he was so nice about my post… but analysis is analysis.

Chiefly, I would take issue with his statement that “perhaps this bodes well for the country…” I would very much disagree. The death of a dictator doesn’t necessarily lead to democracy -it can lead to anarchy, or military junta, or some other even worse form of government.

Add that to the fact that Korea may have nuclear material and we have quite a big problem on our hands. To be fair, Sam does mention this possibility in his next paragraph. Still, I think that Il’s sickness/death/ill health is most definitely bad. Our hope should be for a stable transition -not the death of a dictator.

Kim Jong Il, “glorious leader” of North Korea, may be in ill health. What does that mean for us?

Leaders of dictatorships/terrorist groups/rogue democracies provide analysts with an interesting challenge. On one hand, you really hate to be happy about anyone dying; on the other hand, the world might be a bit better, well, without them. Luckily, Kim Jong Il doesn’t provide much of an ethical dilemna; the death of the North Korean leader would be a pragmatic disaster.

Of course, North Korea will continue to be a sore spot for the US and South Korea should Jong Il recover. But his death would result in far worse consequences than a thorn in the side of the United States.

Chief among them is the risk of nuclear terrorism. With all the nations that currently possess atomic weaponry, it’s easy to forget that North Korea may have enough weapons-grade plutonium to make a possible 6 bombs. That’s bad. But far worse would be a Korea without a strong hand maintaining the safety of nuclear facilities. A suicidal group could gain access to the material and cause some big problems for the world -Israel, the United States, Iraq, and many other nations would be in big trouble.

And the trouble wouldn’t stop there, as Jong Il doesn’t have an appointed successor. Given that the most obvious choice (his first son) fell out of favor through a trip to Disneyland (yes, really), and given the inherent instability of dictatorships, North Korea could end up being the next Kenya. Jong Il may be bad, but for the Koreans, he’s definitely the better option.

All this might seem rather paradoxical -isn’t it better to have a world with fewer dictatorships? Of course, less authoritarianism is a good thing. But the whole point of democracy is to allow the freedom and safety of the populace -something that you don’t get with power vacuums and nuclear terrorism.

Thankfully, it seems that Il is recovering -we probably won’t have to worry about any of this yet. But in the future, we must hope for some successor to be chosen -and hope that he leads North Korea away from the authoritarianism of Jong Il towards a modern democracy. Alternately, the Koreans themselves could take steps toward retaking control of their government. We must hope that it happens soon.

Samuel’s Comments: This is quite an insightful article. It balances the perspective of both sides, and presents the monkey wrench that people might want dictatorships in this situation. As we can probably see the paradox, we have to be careful to still separate that these dictatorships are generally bad, and hurt the people.