A Mexican-American Emmett Till in 2009?

I recently read a shocking news article about the trial of two teens, accused of beating a Mexican immigrant to death. Despite clear evidence that the two former high school football stars, ages 17 and 19, were involved in a “physical altercation” with 25 year old Mexican Immigrant Luis Ramirez (even their lawyers did not deny this), both were found not-guilty for all charges they faced (aggravated assault, reckless endangerment, ethnic intimidation, and third-degree murder) by an all-white jury of six men and six women. The argument put forth by the defense was that while both teens were involved in the incident (which included other teens), neither of these two were responsible for the blows that led to Ramirez’s death from blunt force injuries two days later in a hospital. The defense also sought to portray Ramirez as the aggressor in the situation.

The prosecution, on the other hand, alleged that the teens, who were intoxicated, used racial epithets to bait Ramirez into a fight, a fight which ended with Ramirez “convulsing in the street, foaming from the mouth.” The 17 year old, Brandon Piekarsky, was accused of delivering the fatal kick to Ramirez’s head after he was knocked to ground.

I found the outcome of this case incredibly disturbing. The fact that two teens who were unarguably involved in a brutal beating and killing of another human being and managed to get away with it entirely unscathed is insane and horrifying. The nature of the horrific crime reminds me of the murder of Emmett Till which we studied about and discussed in class. In this case, two white men accused (and as evidence had shown were clearly guilty) of brutally beating and murdering 14 year old African American Emmett Till were also acquitted by an all white jury. The fact that these two cases share so much in common despite the fact that Emmett Till was murdered in 1955 prior to the Civil Rights Movement makes the current case increasingly disturbing. Gladys Limon, a spokeswoman for the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Education Fund stated:

"The jurors here [are] sending the message that you can brutally beat a person, without regard to their life, and get away with it, continue with your life uninterrupted... ...In this case, the message is that a person who may not be popular in society based on their national origin or certain characteristic has less value in our society.”

The extent of Ramirez's injuries, which had left his brain oozing from his skull, according to medical testimony, should have sufficed for a conviction other than simple assault, Limon said.

"The acts here were egregious in brutality and it's just outrageous and very difficult to understand how any juror could have had reasonable doubt, especially as to the aggravated assault and the reckless endangerment charges."

Limon stated that the group plans to press the Department of Justice to file federal charges against the teens.

What if Israel Attacks?

In light of our recent Iran/war simulation, I fought a recent news article I read rather intriguing. Entitled “Israel ups war training despite US discontent”, the article detailed the Israeli Air Force (IAF) and its recent training exercises against MiG-29 Fulcrum fighters, the fighter jets used by neighboring Arab nations including Iran. Israel was apparently loaned these soviet-designed fighters by an unidentified foreign country in order to simulation dog fights and other military encounters with potential enemies. This recent and specific military exercises have worried the White House, who have been seeking reassurance that Israel would not launch a surprise attack on Iran without first notifying the US. While the US and Israel remand strong allies, the new Obama Administration has changed the US’s policies in regards to Iran, attempting to engage in direct diplomatic relation with Tehran in order to address Israel and the US’s nuclear concerns. One of the worries that the article addresses is that the hawkish government of Israel’s new prime minister could potentially blindside the US government and drag the US into an undesirable war with Iran.

In this article, I noticed many parallels with our own simulation on the issue in class. Similar to the stances my classmates portrayed in the simulation, the US is desperate to solve the issue diplomatically and reserve war as a last resort, while Israel appears ready to attack Iran at first sight of a threat. I also noticed a parallel regarding the alliance between Israel and the US; namely how while the US has agreed to support Israel militarily despite the two nations’ differing approaches to solving the issue of Iran’s nuclear program. In our simulation, the danger of such an alliance was made clear as the US mobilized forces to Iran’s border along with Israel, despite the fact that the US, in the simulation UN summit a day prior, had proposed a peacefully and fairly lenient compromise on the issue. Luckily, in our simulation, Israel did not jump the gun and invade Iran at this point, as such actions would have forced the US into war which it had little intentions of entering. However, the recent military preparation detailed in this article makes the troubling suggestion that Israel could potentially invade Iran without first consulting the White House, knowing that the US would be forced to engage regardless. Thus, the US would be forced into another costly, unfavorable war, this time over an issue it had tried to solve (and perhaps made significant progress in solving) diplomatically.

We Are America, We Do Not F**king Torture!!

In light of the current situation regarding the information recently revealed detailing America’s use of waterboarding and other “advanced interrogation techniques” against detained enemy combatants and terror suspects, as well as our discussion in class on the topic and the use of torture in war in general, I was particularly struck by two interviews I saw recently on this topic.

The first, interestingly enough, is an interview by Bill O’Reilly of Cato Institute legal analyst David Rittgers — a former Army Captain. In the interview, it is clear that O’Reilly has his own agenda. As we discussed in class, the key to winning an argument is to have control over what the questions are, and thus, as O’Reilly is conducting the interview, he seeks to prove his argument, namely, that he supports the use of torture under the circumstances it was conducted, by framing the “right” questions. Nevertheless, Rittgers, who opposed the use of torture in this situation, is able to firmly stand his ground on the issue, even pointing out the ridiculousness of the false dichotomy O’Reilly creates (comparing it to the show “24”).

The second video clip in saw is also quite notable and definitely worth watching. The clip is from an interview conducted by Shepard Smith, anchor of Fox News (which, interestingly enough, has been often accused of a right-wing bias) of Fox contributor Judith Miller (of CIA leak infamy) and Cliff May, President of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, as Smith describes: “a conservative leaning think-tank.” In the interview, Smith also clearly has his own opinion on the matter, namely that torture should not be carried out by America, regardless of the circumstances, a stance Miller agrees with; while May struggles to defend his belief that these interrogation techniques fell short of the definition of torture and that even so, “saved American lives.”



This interview is full of phenomenal points. In my opinion, however, Cliff May’s arguments are entirely ungrounded. His first claim, that these “coercive techniques” fell short of torture I find completely false, especially in light of the recently revealed evidence that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was waterboarded 183 times in March 2003 and Abu Zubaydah was waterboarded 83 times in August 2002, and the fact that waterboarding in classified as torture by practically the entire world, including every human right's organization, nearly all of our allies, and even the former Assistant Attorney General, Daniel Levin, who allowed himself to be waterboarded. As one commenter on the clip stated, waterboarding is not, and has never been, a method of obtaining information. It is a method of causing pain and suffering to an individual, either for revenge or sadistic purposes. May’s second argument that such techniques prevented another terrorist attack and saved American lives is also baseless, just as previously described by former army Captain David Rittgers in the previous clip.

However, what I believe is most notable about this exchange is Shepard Smith’s stance. I strongly agree with what he says": I doesn’t matter what the circumstances were, America should never torture, ever. I nearly exploded when I heard his reference to a “shining city on a hill.”

"They better not do it," he said. "If we are going to be Ronald Reagan's Shining City on the Hill, we don't get to torture. We don't do it."

And he’s right. The fact that we’re combating terrorists is not an excuse; as stated in the interview, Israel has outlawed waterboarding because it is defined as torture, and believe me, Israel has a much greater problem with terrorism than we do. On FoxNews.com's online show The Strategy Room Smith later reiterated his passionate opposition to torture. "We are America!" he shouted, slamming his hand on the table. "I don't give a rat's ass if it helps. We are AMERICA! We do not f**king torture!!" And I must say I whole-heartedly agree with him. Torture is a crime, and crime is conducted by criminals. If America chooses this path, it has no right to lead the free world.

Propaganda: It's All the Same

After exploring and discussion propaganda posters in class, I decided to look up some more. I looked at three sets of posters, a set from the United States during WWII, a set from the former Soviet Union, and a set from North Korea. In comparing these three sets, I noticed that while artistic style varied, they were all similar visually in that they all implemented solid bold colors, particularly red and black. The purpose for the posters in these three sets were also very varied, however, they were all similar in that they often equated fairly un-political and civilian duties and messages with drastic consequences or importance. Here are three such posters: one from each of the three sets.


“Beware of the wheels! - 1926
With a look that makes you think of the black plague rather than traffic safety, this poster was designed to inform people of the great dangers of a relatively new transportation method that was spreading in Soviet cities; the tram.”




“Prevention and more prevention. Let’s fully establish a veterinary system for the prevention of epidemics!”

I was also struck by the portrayal of the enemy in propaganda posters. While North Korea, the former Soviet Union, and the United States are very different and face very different enemies; the demonic, or at the very least, demeaning portrayal in their propaganda posters shows striking similarity. Here again are three posters, one from each set.




“Do not forget the US imperialist wolves!”


“You behave! - Unknown year
The stereotypical yankee capitalist is a common figure in propaganda posters. Here, he's trying to set fire to and bomb the Soviet Union, but a vigilant (and rather handsome) Soviet soldier is keeping watch. With the attitude of the soldier and the slogan, this poster gives a sense that the capitalists are nothing more than mischiveous little juveniles.”

A Music Industry Run By Musicians?

This past week, I read an article entitled: “Reznor Urges Musicians to Ditch Labels.” For anyone familiar with Trent Reznor, this may not come as a big surprise. Frontman for the band Nine Inch Nails, which split from their Interscope Records in 2007 and is now an independent band, Reznor in recent years has been a strong critic of the music industry and a supporter of P2P file-sharing. In the article, Reznor is quoted as saying the following about the recording industry:

Anyone who's an executive at a record label does not understand what the internet is, how it works, how people use it, how fans and consumers interact - no idea. I'm surprised they know how to use email. They have built a business around selling plastic discs, and nobody wants plastic discs any more. They're in such a state of denial it's impossible for them to understand what's happening.

One of the biggest wake-up calls of my career was when I saw a record contract. I said, 'Wait - you sell it for $18.98 and I make 80 cents? And I have to pay you back the money you lent me to make it and then you own it? Who the f**k made that rule? Oh! The record labels made it because artists are dumb and they'll sign anything' - like I did. When we found out we'd been released (from their recording contract) it was like, 'Thank God!'. But 20 minutes later it was, 'Uh-oh, now what are we going to do?' It was incredibly liberating, and it was terrifying.

Indeed, Reznor is very accurate in his statements. The structure of today’s music industry creates a massive gap between the top and the bottom. Hundreds of thousands of artists struggle to make a profit while music executives of the big 4 (Sony BMG, Universal, EMI, and Warner) makes millions each year along with a small group of predominately mainstream artists. The music industries relationship with musicians reminds me of the relationship loan shark companies have with the poor. Taking advantage of the fact that most artists do not have the money or resources to record, produce, advertise, and distribute their first album, these massive companies are able to force artists to sign contracts in which they will get a very small cut of the profit, and oftentimes, even lose the rights to their own music. As Reznor states in the article, it should be the musicians that dictate how the music industry functions, as they are, after all, the ones making the music.

I was also particularly struck by one of the comments left by readers of this article that further highlight the fundamental flaws of today’s music industry:

I fail to see what the music industry really does for artists or consumers. Example: I just tried to buy the 'Cold War Kids' album online. I live in Ireland, so I can't buy from Napster or Amazon. I use Linux so iTunes is not an option - and anyway, installing bloatware so I can download an album is ridiculous. Comparison: I google a few well-chosen words and clicked three times - the album can be mind for free. Alternative: Go into the city and buy the CD. Extra (environmental & financial) cost of packaging, transportation, store markup... but: "Oh, sorry, we don't have that in stock". So tell me, what did the music industry do for the 'Cold War Kids'? Nothing. Last FM introduced me to their music. YouTube showed me their latest video. If the band had a sell-direct website and a PayPal account, I could have paid them directly, and they'd make some money. Actually, not just 'some' money, but almost the whole amount that I paid. As it is, they get nothing until I find a record store that stocks their CD, and even then, they just get a tiny cut. Fair? I think not.

Such descriptions leave me with the unsettling connection to the wall-street workers and CEO’s that, thanks to their greed and disconnect to the rest of society, have led to the current economical crisis.

Let Them Eat Crack!

“The thing I hate the most about advertising is that it attracts all the bright, creative and ambitious young people, leaving us mainly with the slow and self-obsessed to become our artists. Modern art is a disaster area. Never in the field of human history has so much been used by so many to say so little.”

One of the few quotes from the graffitist / street artist Banksy. Banksy, originally from Bristol, UK, has sprayed his art all across the world; from London, New Orleans, Sydney, San Francisco, and Bethlehem. Banksy has refrained from revealing his true identity and creates his artwork simply for its own sake, although some of his graffiti art has been removed, wall and all, and sold at auctions for hundreds of thousands. Just as his above quote would allude to, Banksy’s art addresses many fundamental issues in today’s society: poverty, war, capitalism, materialism and government.

One notable recent Banksy piece is the one pictured above, painted in New York City as a response to the current financial crisis. The statement “Let them eat crack” is a reference to the quote often (falsely) attributed to Marie Antoinette “Let them eat cake”, her supposed arrogant response to the bread riots during the French Revolution era. Banksy paints a rat (a popular subject in his art) to represent a business executive. Banksy’s strong critique of the attitudes of business executives towards the suffering of the general public, especially the lower class, in this economical crisis reminded me of Michael Moore’s critique of GM executives in his documentary “Roger and Me.”

Here are a few more Banksy works that address issues pertaining to the economy and society:

Bailout Recipients Hosted Call To Defeat Key Labor Bill

After learning about labor unions and the struggle for workers to receive fair treatment and rights during the early 1900’s, I noticed a very strong parallel in an article I recently read regarding the recent economic bailout. The article, from the Huffington Post, entitled Bailout Recipients Hosted Call To Defeat Key Labor Bill. The article states that three days after receiving 25 billion dollars in bailout money, Bank of America had a conference call with conservative activists and other business leaders to plan an opposition against the Labor Communities crucial legislative priority, the Employers Free Choice Act (EFCA). The act, if passed, basically would allow individuals a choice whether to be a part of a union or not and give them the ability to bargain for better wages, working conditions, benefits, etc. Here is a short two-page summary of the bill.
The strong opposition to this bill really reminded me of the strong opposition labor unions and workers faced during the protests in the early 1900’s. Bernie Marcus, co-founder of Home Depot, and Rick Berman, strong opponent of the EFCA, helped lead this opposition. Audio from the actual conference call reveals a conversation so absurd and extreme it’s almost hard to believe. Here are some excerpts from the call;

Marcus - "This is the demise of a civilization. This is how a civilization disappears. I am sitting here as an elder statesman and I'm watching this happen and I don't believe it."

“Donations of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars were needed, it was argued, to prevent America from turning "into France."

"If a retailer has not gotten involved in this, if he has not spent money on this election, if he has not sent money to [former Sen.] Norm Coleman and all these other guys, they should be shot. They should be thrown out their goddamn jobs.”

“As a shareholder, if I knew the CEO of the company wasn't doing anything on [EFCA]... I would sue the son of a bitch... I'm so angry at some of these CEOs, I can't even believe the stupidity that is involved here."

The great irony with all of this is that these high-up CEO’s and political figures feel that a bill to benefit the working man would be a great blow to the economy and to their corporations; where in reality, it is largely the greed and excess of these upper-tier of executives that is largely responsible for bringing the economy to this current situation in the first place. I think the insanity of this opposition is made quite clear in this ACTUAL QUOTE from the conversation.

“This bill may be one of the worst things I have ever seen in my life," [Marcus] said, explaining that he could have been on "a 350-foot boat out in the Mediterranean," but felt it was more important to engage on this fight. "It is incredible to me that anybody could have the chutzpah to try and pass this bill in this election year, especially when we have an economy that is a disaster, a total absolute disaster."

So when these top executives and conservatives view the EFCA as a threat to American capitalism, this is perhaps because the great gap of wealth they possess above the middle-class is being threatened. And yet, it is taxpayer money that is bailing their corporations out. To allow that sort of government intervention and not allow government intervention to benefit the average American can only be viewed as corrupt and insane.

Agency, Oppression, Facebook?

Just recently I read a rather disturbing article about Facebook’s new terms of use. Facebook, with members now numbering over 175 million, used to have a pretty straight forward user agreement. If you close your account on their network, any rights they claim to the original content you upload would expire. Not anymore.

Straight from the Facebook’s new terms of use:

You hereby grant Facebook an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense) to (a) use, copy, publish, stream, store, retain, publicly perform or display, transmit, scan, reformat, modify, edit, frame, translate, excerpt, adapt, create derivative works and distribute (through multiple tiers), any User Content you (i) Post on or in connection with the Facebook Service or the promotion thereof subject only to your privacy settings or (ii) enable a user to Post, including by offering a Share Link on your website and (b) to use your name, likeness and image for any purpose, including commercial or advertising, each of (a) and (b) on or in connection with the Facebook Service or the promotion thereof.

And the key lines at the end of the passage:

You may remove your User Content from the Site at any time. If you choose to remove your User Content, the license granted above will automatically expire, however you acknowledge that the Company may retain archived copies of your User Content.
The following sections will survive any termination of your use of the Facebook Service: Prohibited Conduct, User Content, Your Privacy Practices, Gift Credits, Ownership; Proprietary Rights, Licenses, Submissions, User Disputes; Complaints, Indemnity, General Disclaimers, Limitation on Liability, Termination and Changes to the Facebook Service, Arbitration, Governing Law; Venue and Jurisdiction and Other.

So to paraphrase; if you upload anything on Facebook, it’s theirs. So if you plan on uploading pictures you will want to remove, 5, 10, 100 years later, forget it.

Now, apparently, it not quite as extreme as it may sound. At least, I hope so. Apparently all of this is subject to your user settings, so if you set that only your friends could view your pictures, they can’t really do anything with any images they archive.

Nevertheless, the announcement of the discovery of this new change has prompted a large outcry of facebook users. While drafting an official response, a Facebook representative released this statement to quell the swarm of complaints.

We are not claiming and have never claimed ownership of material that users upload. The new Terms were clarified to be more consistent with the behavior of the site. That is, if you send a message to another user (or post to their wall, etc...), that content might not be removed by Facebook if you delete your account (but can be deleted by your friend). Furthermore, it is important to note that this license is made subject to the user's privacy settings. So any limitations that a user puts on display of the relevant content (e.g. To specific friends) are respected by Facebook. Also, the license only allows us to use the info "in connection with the Facebook Service or the promotion thereof." Users generally expect and understand this behavior as it has been a common practice for web services since the advent of webmail. For example, if you send a message to a friend on a webmail service, that service will not delete that message from your friend's inbox if you delete your account.

So is Facebook’s new terms of use a sign of a powerful company turning into a oppressive regime? Or was its intention in fact to clear up any possible confusion such as in the situation that the representative describes? In either case, the outcry of users was certainly a situation of agency being exercised, forcing Facebook to scramble and release a response.

Romanticism, Relapse, and the Real Slim Shady.

Recently, I encountered a very unique and fascinating example of Romanticism in an article from The Independent concerning rap star Eminem. Although generally a subject of great controversy and criticism, Eminem is gloried in this article, titled Eminem: The Fall and Rise of a Superstar. While I found this article to be incredibly interesting and informative, it made many claims that I found rather questionable. In its lead-in statement, the article states:
“In 2006, after the murder of his closest friend, hip-hop's most talented star became its most notorious recluse. As he returns with a new album, Guy Adams travels to Detroit to find the truth behind the tales of breakdown, paranoia and tortured genius.”
While Eminem is unarguably one of the most famous rappers of all time, the claim that he is “hip-hop’s most talented star” could certainly be argued. More provocative is the claim of “tortured genius,” a label that might one would apply to Beethoven and the like… but rapper Eminem?

The article goes on to illustrate Eminem’s rise to fame, as well as his unique and strong appeal, and consequential success. One topic it lingers on is Eminem’s Detroit heritage, a city the article I would argue fairly accurately describes as “ground zero of America's economic meltdown.” However, the article goes on to make the claim that Eminem was thus “the ‘other’ America, a gritty world of industrial decline and social decay rooted in his home town.” This Romantic view is not only held by the author of this article; as one paragraph states:

In one headline-grabbing endorsement, confirming him as the favourite cultural influence of the chattering classes, a white-haired Seamus Heaney declared him, in all seriousness, the savior of modern poetry. ‘There is this guy Eminem,’ said the Nobel laureate. ‘He has created a sense of what is possible. He has sent a voltage around a generation. He has done this not just through his subversive attitude, but also his verbal energy.’

Wow. I don’t think I need to do much more than highlight a few key phrases from that. “Favourite cultural influence.” “Saviour of modern poetry.” “Created a sense of what is possible.” “Sent a voltage around a generation.” Clearly these claims are expanding Eminem’s fame and talent to represent something far greater. If you question my doubts about Eminem’s status as “saviour of modern poetry,” just do a quick google search for “Eminem lyrics.” I would recommend reading “Kim” or “Cleaning Out My Closet.” No, I won’t include the lyrics here.

Another instance of Romanticism I found in this article was the inclusion of a particular passage to trying to paint Marshall Mathers III’s real character.

’I have one story that sums Em up,’ ventures a friend. ‘After his second album he was in the jewellery store. He really liked a watch, but was worried that he'd not be able to afford it, so called his manager, Paul Rosenberg, to check he had enough cash. The watch turned out to be $15,000. At the time, Em was one of the hottest artists on the planet. He was worth millions. So Paul told him not to be silly, and just buy the watch.
‘But Em was like, 'I don't want to run out of money, I want my daughter to be able to go to college.' That's really tells the kind of guy he is. I think fame surprised him.’

Again, I am not questioning Eminem’s love for his daughter or that he really does care that much, only the manner in which this passage is included and how many readers might take this passage. Keep in mind he’s also the lyricist behind a number of wildly offensive rap songs degrading women and homosexuals and vividly portraying violence before you start seeing him as just a humble little sweetheart.

Overall, while I really enjoyed reading this article and I highly recommend you read it, I believe the Romantic nature in which Eminem was portrayed took away from the writing. Because Eminem is such a popular subject of criticism, it is understandable how counter-arguments such as this would try to go the other extreme. However, as with many other such things, in order to properly combat fierce criticism, I believe it is important to portray a subject in a fair light, presenting both sides of the argument and not focusing on one or the other. Thus, as the article eagerly anticipates, the arrival of Eminem’s new album, Relapse, to be due shortly, should not be judged before it has been released. Sure Eminem hasn’t released an album in a really long time, and sure he’s been hard at work in the studio during his three-year hiatus from the public eye, but I wouldn’t, like so many fans and critics, claim that this will be a masterpiece before it happens. But, hopefully, it won’t be much more than a month before we find out, for real, if the Slim Shady’s back, back again…

Obama to the Muslim World

This past Monday (January 26th), President Obama presented a humble and promising message to the Muslim world in his first official interview since taking office. In his interview with the Al-Arabiya Network, Obama managed to balance a message of humility and friendship with a firm grounding in American policy and principle. Some remarks that I found notable:

"I have Muslim members of my family. I have lived in Muslim countries. My job to the Muslim world is to communicate that the Americans are not your enemy."

(In regards to what Obama told George Mitchell, his personal envoy to the Middle-east)
"What I told him is start by listening, because all too often the United States starts by dictating — in the past on some of these issues — and we don't always know all the factors that are involved," Obama said. "What we want to do is to listen, set aside some of the preconceptions that have existed and have built up over the last several years. And I think if we do that, then there's a possibility at least of achieving some breakthroughs."

“I think it is possible for us to see a Palestinian state -- I'm not going to put a time frame on it -- that is contiguous, that allows freedom of movement for its people, that allows for trade with other countries, that allows the creation of businesses and commerce so that people have a better life.”

I also found it very interesting that Obama strongly praised Saudi King Abdullah for his Middle-east Peace Plan he recently proposed.
“Well, here's what I think is important. Look at the proposal that was put forth by King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. I might not agree with every aspect of the proposal, but it took great courage to put forward something that is as significant as that. I think that there are ideas across the region of how we might pursue peace.”

All of these quotes I found to be examples of agency, but a new form of agency, one that is quite the opposite of the tradition form of American agency. In recent history, American agency has usually been presented with brute force and strong ultimatums. A prime example of this older form of agency is the invasion of Iraq, where the United States invaded Iraq before there was evidence of weapons of mass destruction, with only a little support from other nations; in effect the United States acted as if they were a world police force. In comparison to this proud and rash form of agency, one that often required the oppression of others, it would appear that Obama is not exercising agency at all, but rather, letting the Middle-east exercise agency over their own affairs. However, I believe he is in fact exercising great agency, and doing so in a way that does not oppress others. By telling his personal envoy to the Middle-east to “start by listening, because all too often the United States starts by dictating”, I believe Obama is not only showing the right way for the “leader of the free world” to lead, but trying to understand issues so that the United States will be beneficial in their intervention. By complementing the Mid-east peace proposal put forth by King Abdullah, even if he does not entirely agree with it, Obama is also showing agency, similar as to how a coach might encourage his players. Overall, I believe this new form of agency is an excellent change. After all, in today’s world, complex issues cannot be resolved by the actions of one nation alone, as powerful as it may be. Obama’s use of agency to encourage and include the support of other nations is the form of agency that is necessary to institute global change and progress.