It appears that the U.S. has been trying to cover up their aid to Syrian opposition groups of late. Recently, news emerged that the United States was providing training to secular opposition groups in neighboring Jordan. Also, information leaked that the United States has been supporting Turkey in its shipment of arms to the Syrian rebels. Such actions portray not only a hypocritical America but also one that is unsure of itself.

After all, what does the United States have to hide? It is the world’s strongest military power by a long shot; it is supporting a moral cause; it is acting within the parameters of international law. If the United States was to openly support the rebel groups through arms, it would lead to a far better perception of such actions.

Additionally, such actions show that the United States is unsure of the direction it wants to take and has already taken in regards to the Arab Springs. Whenever such accounts come up, the United States is quick to remark that it was supporting only moderate secular opposition groups.

The fact of the matter is that the U.S. only says this for public image. The United States already supports non-secular opposition groups. The Free Syrian Army is under Islamist control, but the United States has been forced to support it as it is the largest opposition group in Syria. This shows that the United States is not afraid of the rise of an Islamist Syria. Rather, the U.S. is afraid of being accused of supporting Islamism, the doctrine that swept Egypt and Libya following their Arab Spring. But as the U.S. and the international community knows too well, it is not Islamism that has led to the instability of the post-Arab Spring nations; it was the Revolution itself. As such, it would be far better for the interests of the United States and the international community to support a broader range of opposition groups in order to achieve the immediate goal not of lasting stability but rather of the oust of al-Assad.

Regardless of the United States’ attempts to control the rebellion in Syria, the fact of the matter is that the fall of al-Assad will bring years if not decades of instability to Syria. However, the United States has already taken that calculated risk and reasoned that instability is worth the cost of bringing a despot to justice. All the United States can do now is try to hasten the fall of al-Assad, a process that can only be sped up through the support of all rebel groups, secular or otherwise. 

Pope Francis’ goals as the new Catholic Pope should extend beyond the goodwill missions of previous Popes. Pope Francis should instead aim to change the thinking and interpretation of the Bible among Catholics.

It is easy to distinguish Protestant majority nations from Catholic majority nations in Europe merely by the social conservatism of their citizens.

Nearly all European nations are fiscally liberal, especially when measured against the United States. Yet, in terms of social issues, they are greatly divided amongst their people. Citizens from Protestant nations such as the Scandinavian nations and Britain are very progressive on social issues such as same sex marriage, abortion, and religious freedom. Yet, in Catholic nations such as France, such issues are far more controversial.

France is set to adopt a law legalizing same sex marriage which has led to street wide protests in Paris. In other European nations, same sex marriage bills have passed with little opposition. Also, France notably imposed a ban on burqas and other forms of facial coverings, a clear strike against Islam in 2010. This issue is currently being tested in court.

While Protestant nations have already definitively taken a stance as liberal on social issues, Catholic nations such as France are at a crossroads. The only explanation why France and other Catholic majority nations are more socially conservative is because of the impact of the Pope.

Understandably, given the history of the Crusades and the greater devotion to religious principles, Catholics may feel a greater sense of religious patriotism than Protestants, leading them to develop policies opposing the rights of same sex individuals and non-Christians (in particular, Muslims with the ban on burqas).

Yet, such social policies violate the intent of Christianity. In theory, Protestants and Catholics should be equally socially conservative as they both rely on the Bible. In truth, though, Catholics tend to be more socially conservative because of their interpretation of the Bible. While the Bible certainly does not support homosexuality, it never outright goes against the practice and gives the right to societies to prevent homosexual marriage as in the case with other more socially conservative religions such as Islam.

Additionally, discrimination on the basis of religion holds no place in Christianity. It is notable that in the historical past, Catholic nations such as Spain, France, and Portugal were far more interested in imperialism for the purpose of religious conversion than were Protestant nations. This stems in large part from the Crusades, an event that has lived on in the minds of Catholics and led them to oppose other religions more fervently than Protestants not because of their interpretation of the Bible but because of events that impacted their Church.

Obviously, the Catholic Church under Pope Francis will continue to oppose abortion. It may still oppose same sex marriage, but if it does it should take away the religious connotations of same sex marriage and make clear on which grounds it opposes homosexuality. And finally, the Pope must reiterate to his Catholic followers that religious toleration is a key tenet to Catholicism and Christianity as a whole.

By taking such controversial opinions, the Pope will give the Catholic Church a better public image and potentially help the Church gain more followers amidst the rapidly progressive social developments of the modern day. Additionally, it may help French citizens, among those from other Catholic nations, to get a better understanding of their positions on social issues and their origins. 

Obama’s tough stand on Netanyahu has allowed him to essentially force Israel into improving its relations with Turkey. Through careful coordination with Turkey and Israel, two of America’s closest allies, Obama was recently able to pressure Bibi into apologizing for the event over three years ago when Israeli troops boarded a flotilla en route to Gaza, killing and wounding Turkish citizens in the process.

It appears that in the recent past, pro-Israeli presidents such as Bush prevented such negotiations between Israel and its Middle Eastern neighbors. Bush’s support of Israel amidst its various illegitimate actions in regards to Palestine led Bibi to become overconfident behind the wall of his American supporter. Meanwhile, perceptions of Israel and the United States were irrevocably harmed. Bush made few efforts to negotiate a two-state solution or get Israel to make any concessions to Palestine. And even if Bush had wanted to do so, he may have been unable to do so given the poor relations that the United States and Israel shared with Middle Eastern nations at the time.

Obama, in contrast, empowers both Israel and the United States to develop better relations with the Middle East. Especially in the current global climate, shaped in large part by the current rebellion in Syria, nuclear developments in Iran, and American withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan, this is sorely needed.

In the future, though, if any two-state solution or any positive developments with Palestine is to be made, the U.S. will need a president even more critical of Israel than Obama.

After all, while Obama’s rhetoric in his Middle Eastern trip in Israel was very appealing, he was unable to persuade Palestinian’s to take any positive steps towards a feasible Middle East Peace Plan. His demand that Palestinians use their demand for Israel to end its illegal settlements as part of negotiations for a two-state solution, rather than the status quo where Palestine uses such a demand as a precursor for talks, was very unpopular.

In the future, if a two-state solution is to be made, it will take a U.S. president far more critical of Israel than Obama. It will take a U.S. president who is willing to call Israel on its historical violations of international rights and is able to view negotiations from a slightly pro-Palestinian or at least neutral standpoint.

What it comes down to is the American voter. Only when American voters realize that a Middle Peace Plan will greatly benefit the United States and the international community and that the status quo of pro-Israeli U.S. presidents is halting such talks from occurring can progress be made. 

The recent Senate budget deal, calling for tax hikes without spending cuts passed the Senate with zero Republican votes. Zero. All but four Democrats supported the bill.

Obviously, the bill will fail in the Republican dominated House of Representatives, just as many past Democrat proposed budgets that passed the Senate have been.

This system is terribly inefficient. The Democrats in Senate know that their one-sided views will never pass. And yet they propose and vote on them simply for the symbolic measure of passing a budget that matches their party line in one house of Congress.

Clearly, this is a recipe for disaster for the bicameral legislature in the United States. With only two major parties in the U.S., each of whom dominates a separate house of Congress, efficiency will invariably be low.

There are two solutions to solving this problem in order to create a functioning Congress.

The first would be simply to gain seats for multiple parties. This would prevent stalemates by offering more balanced perspectives to issue.

Of course, third parties, such as the Libertarian Party and the Green Party have tried to make a rise of late but have been unable to do so in the all-or-nothing voting system of the United States. Obviously, in the near future at least, no third party will win the presidency. But could it be possible for a third party to get seats in Congress?

One logical step to incentivizing third party candidates would be for the government to set spending limits on each election- even for SuperPACs. This would allow lesser known parties to get a more even footing with the Republicans and Democrats who too often outspend and out-advertise them.

Another way to foster third parties would be to shift from the current method of electing House of Representative members. Instead of relying on plurality voting in single-member districts, voting should be done at a statewide level. That is to say, candidates should not be elected in a majority-takes-all fashion. Rather, to incentivize third parties, all candidates wishing to run for House of Representatives for a given state should run at the state-wide level and the top few (as many Representatives as the state is allowed) should serve in the House. This too would lead to the election of more third party candidates as it would pit them not against one Democrat and one Republican but rather against all the Democrats, all the Republicans, all the third party candidates.

The other solution to make Congress work again (if it ever really did work) would be to compose a unicameral legislature. America adopted the bicameral legislature from Britain. But America’s political situation has always been different from Britain’s. While Britain’s politics has fostered multiple parties and coalitions, America’s has been centered on the two-party system.

This is largely because in early America, issues had two sides. Be it debate on whether to adopt the Constitution, whether to adopt a National Bank, whether to go to war on Britain, there were only two possible choices. This led Americans to be more polarized along the party lines of two distinct parties.

While the two-party system has its merits, it cannot function in a bicameral legislature; it simply loses efficiency. As such, unless America can foster third party candidates gaining seats in Congress, it may be forced to adopt a unicameral legislature if it wants any semblance of legislation passing Congress. 

One of the few issues that Democrats and Republicans have consistently agreed on is that education spending should be increased. Both parties seem to have agreed that current public funding should be redistributed to benefit further the younger generation through better teachers and more educational resources.

This makes sense. The U.S. has consistently held the view that the government is not responsible for ensuring a basic quality of life for its people. Rather, the government is charged with leveling the playing field so that those from humble backgrounds and those from privileged backgrounds can have somewhat equal chances at success in pursuing their American Dream.

Education appears to be the main manifestation of this idea of equality of opportunity. By not giving direct handouts, the government is incentivizing hard work and is stimulating the economy for the next generation for people of all backgrounds.

Thus, it is strange why in the most recent economic recession, public school funding has been the first to be lowered. In 2008 and 2009, many states cut funding for physical education, arts, and other election courses. Most recently, Chicago’s mayor has recently launched a new plan to counteract the $1 billion Chicago budget by closing 54 elementary schools.

So, why is it that the government is willing to propose the equality of opportunity, support increased funding for public schools, and then, when the time comes to take action, the government does the exact opposite?

What could make the government most willing, when the need arises, cut funding from the very avenue that best epitomizes the American Dream and benefits not just the present day abut also future America?

The fact of the matter may simply be that Democrats and Republicans do not support public spending or welfare for the sake of benefitting the lives of people; rather, they view these things as tools to gain the support of special interest groups. People view things that tangibly benefit them, like Social Security or healthcare, as more important than spending on things like education that will only benefit the economy once the younger education enter the workforce. Of course, the main beneficiaries of increases in education spending, children, do not get any say in the distribution of public funds.

These factors aside, increasing educational spending on its own is actually very popular. That is why it is used so persuasively in elections. However, in practice, increasing education spending comes at the cost of hurting welfare for special interest groups that have come to dominate party constituencies. America needs a way to make education popular again, and the answer to this may be a Democrat-Republican bipartisan deal by which neither party is forced to take responsibility for cutting benefits for special interest groups.

The view of government is currently undergoing a revolution. For the first time in U.S. history, there is a clear tendency to grant states and local governments increasing power. This trend of state governments gaining power is the first such instance since the founding of the nation. From the day the Articles of Confederation were adopted in the United States till the adoption of the Constitution and up to President Bush signing the Patriot Act in 2006, the federal government has increasingly gained more power over the states.  

Whether through wartime or times of great economic prosperity, the federal government has constantly seized increasing power in times when it can exploit it and has failed to give the power back to restore the power balance with local governments during times of peace and economic recession.

There have been numerous examples of the struggle for local and state government autonomy of late, including the heavily controversial state referendums that led to the legalization of same sex marriage and marijuana and have changed the policies of many states in regards to immigration.

Though many of these recently passed local laws have violated federal laws, President Obama has been reluctant to oppose them.

In a way, the current struggle of states for their ruling power is a justified one to re-establish the United States in the original vision its Founding Fathers had. Originally, the federal government was merely meant to preside as a supervisor to the autonomy of state and local governments, but of late the role of the federal government has expanded.

It is puzzling why the Obama administration has failed to act on this worrying trend but one thing is for certain: successive administrations will surely work to re-establish the role of the federal government. Re-establishing the strong role of the federal government will ultimately be beneficial in the enforcement of laws.

Issues such as immigration, gay marriage, and drug legalization simply cannot be left to the states. If a state government takes a stand on these issues, it will effect the governance of the nation as a whole. For the issue of gay marriage, for example, legalization in one state will allow LGBT citizens from surrounding states to easily gain recognition of their marriage. Similarly, if a certain state takes a stance on immigration vastly different from that of the federal government, it will undermine the federal government policy. For example, if a state tries to grant illegal immigrants more rights or easier passage, more illegal immigrants will come there and then diffuse through the whole U.S. As for drug legalization, if a person can legally buy drugs in a state legally, this weakens the entire enforcement of the federal government in this regard.

While America was originally founded under the idea that it would provide its states more local autonomy than any other nation in the world at the time, that view must die. The fact of the matter is that with increasing relations between states, any stance a state takes on an issue will ultimately effect all other states. Thus, the federal government must establish itself as having a power much stronger than that of the states to ensure that states’ laws do not undermine each other or the laws of the more powerful federal government. 

Cyprus has grown divided and angry over the terms of its recent Eurozone bailout. Under the bailout, the Eurozone will grant Cyprus a 10 billion Euro bailout.

 Under the terms of the bailout, individuals will have to pay a levy of 6.75% on their Cypriot bank deposits up to 100,000 Euros and pay a 9.9% levy on their deposits above that. This is meant to be a 1 time policy that will rise 7.7 billion Euros.

The recently elected Cypriot president Nicos Anastasiades spoke out against the seemingly unfair terms of the bailout but maintained that it was necessary to adopt these policies to prevent Cyprus from going bankrupt.

The tactic employed on Cyprus is one that the European Union has used multiple times before. The basic premise is that in order for a Eurozone nation to get bailed out it must ‘pay’ for its previous financial instability.

This was the tactic used on Greece, this was the tactic used on Spain, and this is the tactic being used on Cyprus.

However, this is a major flaw in implementation and strategy for the European Union.

The fact of the matter is that the money to be raised from this deal is immaterial.   The money Cyprus will raise from this levy will equate to about about .2% of the Eurozone’s GDP. The costs that the terms of the bailout will bring to Cyprus and the Eurozone as a whole do not justify this immaterial dollar amount.

Firstly, implementing such policies will have a great human cost in Cyprus that is simply unjustifiable and will take generations to counteract.

After all, the results of austerity in Greece and Spain have showed that the combination of greater unemployment, higher taxes, and lower wages that strict austerity brings will cause great suffering to the people.

Additionally, the terms of the bailout for Cyprus will have grave economic costs both for Cyprus and the Eurozone as a whole.

 One of the major flaws in the bailout deal is that the taxes Cyprus is forced to place are not progressive income taxes. Rather, they are regressive excise taxes placed on an individual’s savings. The biggest loser in this scenario may be the very banks Cyprus is trying to bail out. With the higher levies, individuals will be more likely to pull their assets out of Cypriot banks. The rich Russian investors who make up 37% of depositors will be one of the most likely to pull out their investments.

To compensate, banks will have to lower interest rates which will make them lose money. Even if they do this, people will still pull their money out of the Cypriot banks. The specific bailout terms for Cyprus were short sighted and poorly thought out.

A possible outcome of the devastating costs of austerity on Cyprus is the rise of Communism and Socialism, doctrines that will appeal greatly to individuals placed under a strict austerity system. In fact, Socialism almost consumed post-austerity Greece and it almost consumed Cyprus too in the most recent election.

Instead of trying to penalize countries for their historical financial mismanagement, the Eurozone should work to fix their financial systems for the future. This will lead to a more successful, more stable, more unified, and ultimately more prosperous Eurozone. 

Rand Paul was thrust in the national spotlight just a few days ago when the aspiring GOP presidential nominee proposed a paradigm shift in the Republican party platform concerning same sex marriage.

Rand Paul, a contradictory socially conservative libertarian said that Republicans need to try to win back traditionally Democrat states such as California and New York. One of his proposals to this end was for socially conservative Republicans such as himself to go against their moral beliefs to expand benefits for same sex couples.

Paul was not arguing in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage; he was merely saying that in an attempt to prevent same-sex marriage while still wooing independent votes, the Republican party should aim to alter the tax code to give benefits to same sex couples.

Rand Paul’s plan was a bit shaky but the premise was good. He is one of the few brave Republicans to propose a shift to the age-old Republican platform on gay marriage. I believe that a plan along the same lines as Paul’s should be adopted but with a few key differences.

The first major flaw in Rand Paul’s plan is his idea that same-sex marriage supporters are fighting for economic benefits. What Paul fails to recognize is that most supporters of same-sex marriage in the United States are not homosexual themselves; they merely believe that civil rights should not be curtailed for any groups. What is most important for these supporters as well as for many same-sex couples is the legal recognition that homosexuals are equal to heterosexuals. The very thing the Republican party most does not want to give in to.

The second flaw is the potential for abuse in this system. Under a system where any couple can receive tax and healthcare benefits, it is easy for two people to legally list themselves as a couple. The reason abuse of marriage is rare is because marriage carries great social connotations. So, another legal system needs to be devised that would have the same social implications of marriage.

What I propose to the Republican party is to create a new legal framework for recognizing couples. Marriage will be left to Churches and other religious institutions while another recognition of commitment with great social weight will be adopted for legal purposes. Such a policy would give homosexuals equal recognition legally. However, it would also stick to the Republican ideal that homosexuality should not be recognized for religious reasons. This will more effectively help the Republicans win back the blue states and stand a better chance in the next election. 

Netanyahu’s Likud Party’s recently created coalition is ultimately a step forward for Israel. This coalition is Israel’s first that lacks ultra-conservative religious parties such as Shas Party. Instead, the coalition comprises 68 of the 120 members of the Knesset, mainly from Netanyahu’s Likud Party, the Yesh Atid party that notably proposes to end the military exemptions for Israel’s Haredi ultra-conservative Jews, and the expansionist Jewish Home Party. The collectiveness of these parties will help Israeli citizens see their long-term goals for Israel’s future adopted.

In reality, the benefits that Israel grants its minorities, most notably the Haredi Jews, are nothing special. They are greater than those in most secular countries, for sure, but they do not qualify as a type of religious government. That being said, the extent of the special benefits granted to Haredi Jews has been vastly over exaggerated by Israel’s critics. This has led to the misconception of Israel as an apartheid state, a claim no doubt fueled by Israel’s occupation of Jerusalem.

The current coalition will be able to reverse this misconception and develop a better public image of Israel. This will be facilitated by the representation of Yesh Atid, a notably centrist secular party that seeks to end the benefits for Haredis. This is why it is important that the Shas ultra-conservative Jewish party is not part of the coalition. If it was, it would be far harder to ram through a law denying privileges to the ultra-conservative Israeli Jews.

What will likely appeal most about this new ruling coalition is that it will serve to expand the role of Israel’s military power. The issue with ultra-conservative parties like the Shas Party is that they favor devoting more military resources simply to protecting the homeland. On the other hand, all of the parties part of this coalition, most notably the Jewish Home Party, will favor expanding Israel’s influence over the occupied Palestinian territories.

Additionally, they will be able to take military action on Iran pre-emptively if and when they choose. This appeals a lot to average Israelis. President Obama seems quite non-committal regarding military action on Iran; he has said it would take Iran over a year to develop nuclear weapons, far more than the amount of time Israel has estimated. Although Obama continually stresses that all options are the table it seems that he would never support or contribute to a pre-emptive strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities; he would only support attacks on Iran once it was proven that they had nuclear weapons. While this cautious path is undoubtedly more justified by international law, Israeli citizens have never had much of an appetite for international law in any case. They are instead motivated by nationalistic fervor.

Now that Netanyahu has assembled an effective coalition, it is time to ram proposals through the Knesset. The range of issues that presents Israel in the current day, including but certainly not limited to uprisings by occupied Palestinians and Iranian nuclear developments, are proposals that could not be passed with any other kind of Knesset structure or coalition and thus Netanyahu must capitalize on his good fortune.

Often, the conundrum that has come to be North Korea’s global position is viewed through the lens of the United States solely. But what about the perspective and response of North Korea’s enemy and neighbor: South Korea.

What would the response of the United States be to a rogue nation at its border. What if Canada or Mexico isolated itself from the global community and went against the United States and its interests, posing a constant threat?

It is not completely out of the realm of possibilities. Though they have close economic ties in the present day, Mexico’s relationship with the United States historically has been one marred by U.S. interventionism and expansionism into South America.

In the period of the 1830s -1840s, independent Mexico was extremely hostile to the comparatively weak United States who had tried to spark a Texan rebellion.

Of course, the situation at that point was completely different; Mexico was not completely isolated, at least at that time period when globalization was not yet huge. Thus, they would not likely have acted completely against international law as North Korea could. Additionally, the stakes at that time period were lower; the weapons of mass destruction were not nuclear nor chemical but rather bayonets and muskets.

South Korea, though, faces a northward neighbor with no respect for international law. North Korea, a nation that has on chosen to isolate itself from the international community, has absolutely nothing to lose from its provocation barring actual military intervention which appears unlikely.

Additionally and perhaps most pressingly, South Korea does not face a musket armed neighbor. It faces a North Korea armed with weapons of mass destruction at development stages currently unknown. It faces a North Korea who constantly threatens and historically actually has, attacked South Korea unprovoked.

How is South Korea to react when North Korea threatens, as it recently has, to turn South Korean islands into a “sea of fire.” South Korea has tried the carrot; their sunshine policy of the late 20^th century aimed at gaining better mutually beneficial relations between the two Koreas.

It can, by no means, attempt a war without the support of the U.S. Even if the U.S. was to support it, the proximity of the two nations and the potential for nuclear warfare would likely dissuade South Korea from intervening anyways.

So, then, what is South Korea to do? Maintain the status quo when they don’t know not if but when the next attack will be and where? Keep their current system of warnings and bunkers for citizens?

Is this any way to live? A one way war that has on and off been persisting since 1950 wherein South Korea is to scared to retaliate which gives North Korea more incentives to keep attacking without consequence?

Clearly, something must be done. South Korea lacks the leverage to do so, but the United States must negotiate with Kim Jong-un. The U.S. has yet to try to gain leverage over the new North Korean leader who has far less power than his predecessors. North Korea clearly has something to gain from such negotiations: an end to sanctions and an end to American military drills in Northeast Asia.

As a strong ally of South Korea and strong military and economic power, the United States has the duty to protect South Korea from the rogue regime to its north. And in this case, military intervention may not be the only option.