Editorial #3: Burma’s Clenched Fist

The editorial “Burma’s Clenched Fist” from the Washington Post focuses on President Obama’s foreign policy with the Southeast Asian nation known as Burma. For decades, the country’s government has been tyrannously suppressing its people—even eliminating or imprisoning political opposition. Since the late 1990s, the U.S. has kept strict economic sanction from the nation, sanctions which were tightened last year by Congress. Former president George W. Bush could only point a finger at Burma’s junta during his presidency. Bush refused to press the issue on China because the Bush administration was not willing to risk limited or no results. The author goes on reminding readers about Obama’s inaugural address where he spoke of helping nations in need but only if they would (quite literally) put down their guns: “We will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.” Imposing sanctions on Burma hasn’t influenced the junta at all, claims Secretary of State, Hillary Rodham Clinton. The effort for help and change has to be two-sided. The U.S. has been providing food and fuel to North Koreans for some time now, but the government has yet to turn a leaf. Therefore, for the United States’ help to have any effect, the Burmese government will have a willing to accept help first.

I felt that the article was really interesting. It was a fresh change from reading about all depressing drama that has been happening in America lately. I had heard about the Burmese government police shooting people they were protesting some time back. However, I had no idea that this was an ongoing issue. If the Bush administration had been refusing to take action against the wrongdoing of the Burmese regime because they feared China’s reaction, they I think more cooperation and mature thought should have been taken to account. Surely, being the world’s most powerful nation, a decent negotiation could have been compromised. It was very thoughtful for Clinton to bring up the issue because now President Obama can prove his position, skills, and words as the country’s chief diplomat.

Editorial #2: Awash in Troubles

The opinion article I found in the Washington Post titled “Awash in Troubles” talks about the confusion and stress over drinking water in the D.C. area. Apparently there has been a lead contamination issue for quite some time now and D.C. residents are not sure if it’s safe to drink tap water. The city’s water authority hasn’t been helpful when it comes to looking for answers. The D.C. Water and Sewer and Authority (also known as WASA) had been the agency that dealt with the lead crisis from 2001 to 2004, obviously they didn’t do a very good job. There was an article written in the Washington Post previously by reporter Carol D. Leonning about the high lead levels not having a serious impact on health. The article was dismissed as being “scientifically dubious,” but an earlier article in the Environmental Science and Technology Journal is being looked at. The author insists that Washington D.C. being independent water testing to insure the safety of the public. Early 2008, an independent testing program proposal had been submitted by D.C. Council member Jim Graham, but didn’t get through. Currently, the D.C. Department of the Environment is looking to find construct some kind of program for water testing, and Graham and council member Mary M. Cheh are looking to “press the city’s inspector general to look into WASA’s actions.”

To be honest, I thought the article was very boring, confusing, and random (among the other editorials involving intense politics). Undoubtedly, with the huge lead scare with products being made in China, finding lead in your drinking water, which you think is supposed to be safe, would disturb any ordinary person.

Families are probably most worried about the drinking water and the safety of their children. I saw on the news that the other day that there was a drinking water lawsuit, so maybe the D.C. residents have finally decided to do something about this. If there has been a lead crisis going on for about three years, action should have been taken a while back. D.C. is the capital of our nation, it deserves to shine bright. Issues like this shouldn’t be a problem. The people shouldn’t have to worry about things like contaminated water in 21st century America; but if there’s an issue, that too in the nation’s capital, that’s saying a lot about American standards.

Editorial #1: Executive Payback

The editorial I got from the Washington Post, “Executive Payback”, comments on how banks are giving bonuses to executives from money received through government bailouts. Billions of dollars of taxpayer money is being gifted to top executives to “attract and retain talent at a time when [banks] need it more than ever.” Normally, Americans wouldn’t care how much money companies are giving in bonuses to executives, but when it involves money that comes out of their wallets, it’s something else. President Barack Obama seems to see this issue, deciding to put a cap of $500,000 on total yearly pay and on stock gains. The author of the editorial explains that perhaps a large bulk of money going to these people is one cause of the present failing economy. However, this government regulation may cause “market distortions and unintended negative consequences.” Though dealing with the economy is the most important issue right now, President Obama should find some kind of long-term solution to make up for any possible consequences.

I agree that the huge bonuses being given to executive heads in banks with or even without taxpayer money is ridiculous. Rather than rewarding these “talented workers” with even more money than the millions they’re making already, the companies should focus on getting back on track. If they were so worried about keeping their jobs, companies can act more responsibly and use that money saved for when they might be thinking about laying off jobs. Sacrificing a couple hundred thousand in bonuses to save their jobs shouldn’t be too painful. However, I disagree that this government regulation in executive pay is going to have serious negative effects on the market. Executive pay probably could have made up for more than half the billions of dollars banks asked for from the government in the bailouts. I realize most people hate to give up their money, but if taxpayers can pay for billions in dollars of bailout money, then surely our wealthy executives can live without some.

Also, it isn’t a guarantee that by giving away bonuses, there is a promise a strong circulation or boost to our sagging economy. If annual salary can go beyond $500,000, bonuses can reach into the millions. With our middle class and lower middle class toiling to make payments and keep food on the table, the nation’s economy is struggling just as well. Businesses need consumers, and if the consumers have no job or no money left in their wallets, businesses will tumble. The millions of dollars given away in bonuses could have been added to the billions of dollars in stimulus plans to get money back to taxpayers even if it’s only a hundred or so dollars each. I think now is not the time to be greedy and act vulnerable, big businesses hoping to stay alive need to focus on trying to fine a solution instead of begging for more money.