I have to post about Bush's State of the Union speech. I won't be able to sleep without getting a few things off my chest. Before I do though, I must disclose that I didn't actually get to watch the speech, but I read the full text of it.
Overall, I would like to congratulate President Bush on finally coming around on major issues that everyone has been talking about for years. He made a strong argument for decreasing our dependence on foreign oil (Thomas Friedman has been advocating that since just after the terrorist attacks if not before), said we need to make a serious push for a stable peace agreement between Israel and Palestine (something that almost every Middle East analyst has been arguing for since it is one of the main sources of discontent in the Middle East), and troop increases in Iraq (has been a McCain issue for years). Granted, I don't know if he will actually put the effort into them that is truly necessary, but at least mentioning them as important is a start.
Each of the issues I mentioned warrent a full post. It is frustrating to see a president who is so far behind the curve on policy issues. It is also alarming to realize that in each case he might be too late, especially in Iraq. My only wish is that our next president is able to analyze problems and recognize solutions without the need of hindsight.
The last thing that really angered me was the hidden lies and mistruths in the speech. I am no supporter of Hezbollah, but first of all, their war is with Israel, not America. Lumping them in with Al Qaeda is nonsense. A more accurate comparison would be to Hamas in Palestine. I fear that this comment will haunt Bush just like his "Axis of Evil" statement from a previous State of the Union. Also, I find it enraging that he blames Israels' attack on Lebanon on Hezbollah. He also manages to blame the violence in Iraq on one bombing from last fall, without recognizing all of the previous violence that we were not able to control. In fact, much in that section on the Middle East are either sugar-coatings or falsehoods.
I am so ready for a new leader.
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Monday, January 22, 2007
The Middle Children
There was an excellent article in the NY Times about middle school education. I am thrilled that this is starting to get the attention it deserves, and I also like the experiments that many school districts are working on.
The following quote though, if true, seems to be crux of the problem:
The two schools, in disparate corners of the nation’s largest school system, are part of a national effort to rethink middle school, driven by increasingly well-documented slumps in learning among early adolescents as well as middle school crime rates and stubborn high school dropout rates.I like the logic behind each approach, but they can't both be right. Maybe the answer than is to blend the two - to have one grand school, K-12 where middle schoolers can be pushed to think about their future, while also allowing them to fall back into a safe environment if they need to (this idea might sound brilliant - or the opposite - but in fact there are plenty of pratical obstacles that come to mind).
The schools share the premise that the way to reverse years of abysmal middle school performance is to get rid of middle schools entirely. But they represent opposite poles in the sharp debate over whether 11- through 13-year-olds are better off pushed toward adulthood or coddled a little longer.
The following quote though, if true, seems to be crux of the problem:
“One middle school student is like three high school students in terms of their behavioral needs and the issues you’re confronted with,” said Fred Walsh, principal of the School for International Studies in Cobble Hill, Brooklyn.If that is the problem, than maybe it isn't about which group of students they are housed with.
Still, some middle school experts argue that school reconfiguration is a costly distraction from what adolescents really need: smaller classes, an engaging curriculum, personalized attention and well-prepared teachers.I don't really have any answers on this one, except that this issue needs to continue getting more attention. As I have said before, there have been some great ideas in terms of improving elementary and high school education, but middle schools have getting ignored. What should be apparent is that the job of high schools is that much harder if the kids regress in middle school. I think it is long overdue that the middle children... I mean children in our middle schools, get more attention.
Lessons Learned
Yesterday I talked about what we can do in Iraq now. At the same time though, I think we need to reflect on what we did and see if what happened changes our world view at all. The fact is that our goal of regime change and a stable democracy were not realized. Before the invasion there were plenty of voices that said we should not go into Iraq because either the Iraqis don't want democracy or are incapable of it. Since there is no democracy, we need to think about whether those voices were right.
First, let's look at the argument that Iraq is too diverse a country and therefore is incapable of democracy. This is something that my idealistic nature won't let me believe. But I also think there is plenty of empirical evidence to contradict it. India is the world’s largest democracy and has more ethnic and religious groups than Iraq. Turkey is also very diverse and democratic. Its main groups include Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds - although having similar religious groups as Iraq doesn't mean it is a perfect comparison. Lastly, Lebanon with both Shiite and Sunni Muslims alongside Christians and Druse is a developing democracy.
I readily admit that the above mentioned countries have all faced violence and turmoil in dealing with their diversity (not the least of which includes a decade-long civil war in Lebanon and Turkey's act of genocide against its Armenian population). But I think most people feel hopeful about the chances for long-term stability for each of those countries.
So if democracy is possible, but isn’t working, does that mean that it was bound to fail because there wasn’t the structure in place for democracy to succeed? This argument rests on a direct comparison between the American Revolution; we created a democracy after ridding ourselves of the iron-fist of Britain because we were already practicing democracy. I don’t completely buy that argument either. Call me a neo-conservative, but I think every group of people is ready for a democracy if you can convince them that it will make their lives better.
This is where we made our mistake in Iraq. Their lives are actually worse under a representative government that respects the rule of law than it was under a power-hungry, delusional dictator. This has been the case from the beginning. Our operation / occupation was done in a way that prevented Iraqis from seeing how much better their lives could be. From early looting to suicide bombs and escalating religious violence, they were never given the stability they were promised.
I know this doesn’t sound like a grand conclusion. Everyone knows that we completely botched the mission (everyone except our President). But I think it is very important not to use that to fall into the logic that democracies don’t work in other countries. I am fearful that our troubles in Iraq will lead us towards isolationism. Our foreign policy needs to be a faith in the just cause of human dignity (and therefore the need for representative government) mixed with humility (which is where I diverge from neo-conservatives) about our ability and how far limited resources will go.
First, let's look at the argument that Iraq is too diverse a country and therefore is incapable of democracy. This is something that my idealistic nature won't let me believe. But I also think there is plenty of empirical evidence to contradict it. India is the world’s largest democracy and has more ethnic and religious groups than Iraq. Turkey is also very diverse and democratic. Its main groups include Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds - although having similar religious groups as Iraq doesn't mean it is a perfect comparison. Lastly, Lebanon with both Shiite and Sunni Muslims alongside Christians and Druse is a developing democracy.
I readily admit that the above mentioned countries have all faced violence and turmoil in dealing with their diversity (not the least of which includes a decade-long civil war in Lebanon and Turkey's act of genocide against its Armenian population). But I think most people feel hopeful about the chances for long-term stability for each of those countries.
So if democracy is possible, but isn’t working, does that mean that it was bound to fail because there wasn’t the structure in place for democracy to succeed? This argument rests on a direct comparison between the American Revolution; we created a democracy after ridding ourselves of the iron-fist of Britain because we were already practicing democracy. I don’t completely buy that argument either. Call me a neo-conservative, but I think every group of people is ready for a democracy if you can convince them that it will make their lives better.
This is where we made our mistake in Iraq. Their lives are actually worse under a representative government that respects the rule of law than it was under a power-hungry, delusional dictator. This has been the case from the beginning. Our operation / occupation was done in a way that prevented Iraqis from seeing how much better their lives could be. From early looting to suicide bombs and escalating religious violence, they were never given the stability they were promised.
I know this doesn’t sound like a grand conclusion. Everyone knows that we completely botched the mission (everyone except our President). But I think it is very important not to use that to fall into the logic that democracies don’t work in other countries. I am fearful that our troubles in Iraq will lead us towards isolationism. Our foreign policy needs to be a faith in the just cause of human dignity (and therefore the need for representative government) mixed with humility (which is where I diverge from neo-conservatives) about our ability and how far limited resources will go.
Sunday, January 21, 2007
On Iraq
There have been so many articles about Iraq recently, and each time I see one, I want to respond to it. But there are too many to make it worth it. But I do want to add my voice to many that have already spoken.
Of course, all of the debate right now is focused on Bush's (and McCain's) proposed troop increase. Although I think we should try it, I fear that the troop increase is way too late to do any good. The violence between sunnis and shiites seems beyond anyone's control. But, the fact is that we have caused this situation and we need to do everything we can to get it under control, which means supporting a troop increase as a last ditch effort.
I don't really see the merits to the arguments from those opposing the troop increase (or the people like Bob Herbert who call for a full withdrawal). The situation in Iraq has become dire (actually, it has been dire for a very long time), and let me say this again - we are to blame. A report form the UN says that more than 34,000 Iraqis died last year. That many Iraqis were not dying under Saddam during the late 1990s or early 2000s. We are responsible for the significant decrease in quality of life in that country.
I have seen a number of Democrats try to blame the Iraqi government for this. I cannot support that. While I am sure the current leadership is unwilling to confront Shiite militants, it remains that the blame lies with us. Blaming Iraqis for something they didn't ask for is only a convenient position to take that allows certain Democrats to feel no guilt in calling for a troop withdrawal knowing that the country will become even more violent once we leave.
The only argument I do see having some merit is that some of the militarization is caused by our presence. True, there is significant anti-Americanism in Iraq. This creates a certain paradox in our involvement there. Our presence is keeping the violence to a lower level than it would be if we left, but at the same time, it is causing some of the violence.
In the end, we have to decide which will cause more hardship and violence on the Iraqi people, our presence or our absence. I am still in the camp that our presence is saving more lives right now. Based on what I know, most of the violence is a power struggle / retribution between Shiites and Sunnis. It is not a nationalist resistance to our occupation. If it was the latter, I would be on board callling for a withdrawal. Since it isn't, I say let's send some more troops and hope that we can help calm the violence.
Of course, all of the debate right now is focused on Bush's (and McCain's) proposed troop increase. Although I think we should try it, I fear that the troop increase is way too late to do any good. The violence between sunnis and shiites seems beyond anyone's control. But, the fact is that we have caused this situation and we need to do everything we can to get it under control, which means supporting a troop increase as a last ditch effort.
I don't really see the merits to the arguments from those opposing the troop increase (or the people like Bob Herbert who call for a full withdrawal). The situation in Iraq has become dire (actually, it has been dire for a very long time), and let me say this again - we are to blame. A report form the UN says that more than 34,000 Iraqis died last year. That many Iraqis were not dying under Saddam during the late 1990s or early 2000s. We are responsible for the significant decrease in quality of life in that country.
I have seen a number of Democrats try to blame the Iraqi government for this. I cannot support that. While I am sure the current leadership is unwilling to confront Shiite militants, it remains that the blame lies with us. Blaming Iraqis for something they didn't ask for is only a convenient position to take that allows certain Democrats to feel no guilt in calling for a troop withdrawal knowing that the country will become even more violent once we leave.
The only argument I do see having some merit is that some of the militarization is caused by our presence. True, there is significant anti-Americanism in Iraq. This creates a certain paradox in our involvement there. Our presence is keeping the violence to a lower level than it would be if we left, but at the same time, it is causing some of the violence.
In the end, we have to decide which will cause more hardship and violence on the Iraqi people, our presence or our absence. I am still in the camp that our presence is saving more lives right now. Based on what I know, most of the violence is a power struggle / retribution between Shiites and Sunnis. It is not a nationalist resistance to our occupation. If it was the latter, I would be on board callling for a withdrawal. Since it isn't, I say let's send some more troops and hope that we can help calm the violence.
Understanding People
Do we need any more proof that President Bush and his foreign policy team are idiots? They have treated Ahmadinejad's aggression as a serious threat, thereby propelling a weak nation and weak president into the international spotlight. As this article shows, President Ahmadinejad has little power over foreign policy in his country and the people who do are frustrated with his antics. If Bush had any understanding about how to deal with people, he would ignore this lunatics ranting, make him look weak, and deal with the real people of power in that country. There is far more to being president than most candidates realize. Understanding, judging, and affecting the behavior of people is one of them. It has been clear for a long time that this administration in completely inept at this.
Obama for President
I have noticed recently that there seems to be a divide in how people think about the merits of Barak Obama’s candidacy for President. I don’t think this is exactly the case, but I have noticed many middle-aged people who feel that Obama isn’t experienced enough yet to be President. I get the feeling though that many people in my generation are so excited by his presence and message that we are willing to overlook his inexperience.
I definitely fall into that latter group. Barak Obama’s inexperience doesn’t really bother me. In some ways, I think he is similar to John F. Kennedy, who also was young and lacked experience. (Although Kennedy had served one full term in the Senate, where Obama only has two years under his belt and will only have four by the time he would take office as president.) In Kennedy’s case, the country was ready for a change – for someone with youth and a different message. He also showed that the country was ready for an Irish-Catholic to be president.
But to me, it isn’t that the message is more important than the inexperience, I don’t actually think experience is as important as people make it out to be. The two factors I look to when selecting a presidential candidate are character and intellect (I find that our current president lacks both). Intellect is important for obvious reasons. A president has to understand complex problems and make the best decision possible. Character of course can be a vague term, but there are certain things I look for. The most important is humility – a president has to have the ability to know when they made a mistake, accept it, and make changes accordingly and they have to do it quickly. As a comparison, our current president has waited until overwhelming evidence has shown that he made a mistake before attempting plotting a new course.
I am reading Obama’s book, The Audacity of Hope, and I find that he has both of these characteristics. He is obviously very smart. As important though, he shows that he understands the complexity of decisions and has the humility to know that he won’t always make the right ones. He believes in dialogue and his message of bipartisanship comes across as sincere.
In the end, I want someone in our nation’s highest office that wants to hear what the other side is saying with the understanding that they might have valid points. For eight years we have seen what someone who is resolute and unbending can do to our country. Now, lets see what the opposite will bring us.
I definitely fall into that latter group. Barak Obama’s inexperience doesn’t really bother me. In some ways, I think he is similar to John F. Kennedy, who also was young and lacked experience. (Although Kennedy had served one full term in the Senate, where Obama only has two years under his belt and will only have four by the time he would take office as president.) In Kennedy’s case, the country was ready for a change – for someone with youth and a different message. He also showed that the country was ready for an Irish-Catholic to be president.
But to me, it isn’t that the message is more important than the inexperience, I don’t actually think experience is as important as people make it out to be. The two factors I look to when selecting a presidential candidate are character and intellect (I find that our current president lacks both). Intellect is important for obvious reasons. A president has to understand complex problems and make the best decision possible. Character of course can be a vague term, but there are certain things I look for. The most important is humility – a president has to have the ability to know when they made a mistake, accept it, and make changes accordingly and they have to do it quickly. As a comparison, our current president has waited until overwhelming evidence has shown that he made a mistake before attempting plotting a new course.
I am reading Obama’s book, The Audacity of Hope, and I find that he has both of these characteristics. He is obviously very smart. As important though, he shows that he understands the complexity of decisions and has the humility to know that he won’t always make the right ones. He believes in dialogue and his message of bipartisanship comes across as sincere.
In the end, I want someone in our nation’s highest office that wants to hear what the other side is saying with the understanding that they might have valid points. For eight years we have seen what someone who is resolute and unbending can do to our country. Now, lets see what the opposite will bring us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)