Just so you don't think I am a complete mark for Peter Beinart, I will link to, and admit that I don't disagree with, an article by Frank Rich in the NY Review of Books that criticizes Beinart's book.
Rich has some really good things to say about The Good Fight. First of all, he doesn't want to let Beinart, and other Iraq War supporters in the Democratic party, off the hook so easily for supporting the invasion of Iraq. Even though Beinart actually admits that he was wrong without trying to suggest that Bush lied to him, his admission can seem a bit disingenuous in how he explains it. The fact is that there isn't a good reason why any Democrats should have supported the war, and any attempt to explain it away doesn't ring true. There was all the evidence at the time that containment would have worked, that Saddam wasn't stupid enough to use any WMDs that he might have had, and that this war would make us less safe in the war on terrorism.
Rich also takes issue with Beinart's focus on the far left, anti-war wing of the Democratic party. According to Rich, the Michael Moores and Cindy Sheehans are a small fraction of the party and therefore Beinart need not worry that they will dominate liberal foreign policy. The Good Fight does take aim at the far left, especially the bloggers, that spend more time thinking about how to attack Republicans than how to fix foreign policy. I see where Beinart is coming from; I would like to see more people in both parties focus on the war on terrorism and other international threats than battling each other. I share Beinart's fear that the partisan far left will dictate foreign policy, but I hope Rich is right that I need not worry.
Overall, Beinart's book doesn't really break much new ground. But its benefit is that it puts this intelligent liberal foreign policy proposal in the context of past popular Democratic platforms, and does it in a way to encourage Democrats to take this and run with it. His book is accessible, which means there is a hope that it will reach people who don't know this policy is out there. So even though it in't original, if it reaches more people, than it needed to be written.
Thursday, October 19, 2006
Wednesday, October 18, 2006
Fright Night: Part 2
I don't think my expectations are too high here; I don't expect everyone in the US to know the difference between Shiite and Sunni. But I do expect FBI officials and members of Congressional intelligence committees to know this. When I say that I think they should know the difference, I am not even talking about their specific beliefs and how that came about. All I really think they should know is that Iraq and Iran are majority Shiite, Saddam and Al Qaeda are Sunni. The fact that some don't know this simple fact is just beyond words.
Love is Blind
I can't for the life of me figure out why Israel gets away with everything that it does. At some point, the fact that they too are dealing with terrorists has to stop being enough to defend all of their actions. I am a little late posting about this NY Times article ($) (maybe I can find it somewhere else for free) but it talks about how at the end of the recent war with Lebanon, Israel flooded southern Lebanon with cluster bombs. Cluster bombs are noteworthy for two reasons, one is their reputation for being difficult to aim (and illegal unless used specifically on military installations) and unpredictable; the bombs fail to explode 15 percent of the time. It is estimated that there are now one million unexploded bombs in the Lebanon countryside.
The Israeli newspaper Haaretz published an article on Sept. 12 anonymously quoting the head of a rocket unit in Lebanon who was critical of the decision to use cluster bombs. "What we did was insane and monstrous; we covered entire towns in cluster bombs," Haaretz quoted the commander as saying.It certainly was monstrous, but maybe the Bush administration or Congressional Democrats should be willing to speak up too.
Sunday, October 15, 2006
Debating NCLB
There is a really good article in the NY Times about NCLB and teacher certification. It shows a significant flaw in the NCLB legislation that requires all public school teachers to be certified as "highly qualified" through education classes and training. While I don't disagree with the push to require teachers, especially new teachers, to get training and certification, the way it is being implemented is a mistake.
One of the biggest problems facing public school systems in a lack of flexibility and ability to change. This restriction on teachers only adds to a lack of flexibility. We should be doing all that we can to encourage the best teachers to work in public schools. We also have to realize that sometimes, the best teachers are people with PhD's or real world experience who late in life want to go into education. I saw this first-hand in Montgomery County, Maryland where the schools had trouble finding "highly qualified" teachers for such focused classes like nursing, engineering, and business. They had no problem though finding professionals that didn't have the certification but wanted to teach. Requiring them to go through a long certification process, that can also be a humbling (or even humiliating) process will only discourage these teachers.
This doesn't mean that I am opposed to all training requirements. One of the people interviewed for the article said that she thinks it is important that all teachers know how to work with students whose primary language is not English, or students who are being mainstreamed from special ed classes. I agree with that. But maybe there can be exceptions granted to teachers who have a background in instruction (college or private school) to skip the very basic classes on teaching that are a part of this long certification process. Someone who has taught in college might not know everything necessary to teach in high school, but they certainly have enough experience that they don't need instruction in classroom management or drawing up a lesson plan.
Conservatives are often trying to replicate the private sector in public institutions. While I certainly support that goal, I often think what we choose to replicate is not what makes the private sector strong. Private schools work so well because they have good teachers. But they have good teachers not because they have a cumbersome certification process; it is because they are flexible. That is what we need to replicate in our public schools.
One of the biggest problems facing public school systems in a lack of flexibility and ability to change. This restriction on teachers only adds to a lack of flexibility. We should be doing all that we can to encourage the best teachers to work in public schools. We also have to realize that sometimes, the best teachers are people with PhD's or real world experience who late in life want to go into education. I saw this first-hand in Montgomery County, Maryland where the schools had trouble finding "highly qualified" teachers for such focused classes like nursing, engineering, and business. They had no problem though finding professionals that didn't have the certification but wanted to teach. Requiring them to go through a long certification process, that can also be a humbling (or even humiliating) process will only discourage these teachers.
This doesn't mean that I am opposed to all training requirements. One of the people interviewed for the article said that she thinks it is important that all teachers know how to work with students whose primary language is not English, or students who are being mainstreamed from special ed classes. I agree with that. But maybe there can be exceptions granted to teachers who have a background in instruction (college or private school) to skip the very basic classes on teaching that are a part of this long certification process. Someone who has taught in college might not know everything necessary to teach in high school, but they certainly have enough experience that they don't need instruction in classroom management or drawing up a lesson plan.
Conservatives are often trying to replicate the private sector in public institutions. While I certainly support that goal, I often think what we choose to replicate is not what makes the private sector strong. Private schools work so well because they have good teachers. But they have good teachers not because they have a cumbersome certification process; it is because they are flexible. That is what we need to replicate in our public schools.
North Korea
I have to say, the situation in North Korea has me very scared, especially after reading last month's Atlantic Monthly article. The article laid out the premise that N. Korea will only attack if it feels it is losing its hold on power, or if Bush launches an attack (even a small one targeting weapons facilities). The fact is, N. Korea might be on a path to losing control as its people are starving and even the military is poor. Also, listening to some Republicans, a missile strike isn't out of the realm of possibility (although I do admit that I don't think Bush would actually do it).
The article talks about the very scary prospect of a hard landing if the country collapses. That scenario could involve an attack on Seoul using all types of conventional and WMDs (N. Korea has a significant amount of chemical and biological weapons - and now maybe nuclear as well) and a ground invasion of South Korea.
What I didn't realize was the role China plays in North Korea. Apparently, it provides the most aide to the N. Korean government, and probably also has plans for it if the government falls. The article actually seemed to suggest that China is slowly trying to push for a soft landing North Korea collapse, which would then allow China to take over key parts of the country. I am not sure how I feel about that. While it would be nice to see N. Korea's transition managed by someone other than us, and therefore not have American resources tied up there, China is growing at an incredible rate, and giving them strategic ports and resources of N. Korea would only allow them to get even stronger.
To bring this back to the current situation though, I am having trouble reconciling how I think the administration should handle this. N. Korea wants direct talks with us for many reasons, one of which is to make it feel like it is a world power and justify it's military policies. I don't think we should encourage their behavior by giving them what they want. At the same time though, the government has made some very scary threats recently, and direct talks might be our best option if it results in having control over their nuclear technology. While it is clear that China can have a huge impact on North Korean policy because of the aide they provide, what is not clear is whether they fear China and would therefore become more combative with pressure, or if they respect China and would in fact respond.
What is frustrating about all of this is that neither the Clinton / Jimmy Carter plan of direct talks and US aide, nor the Bush policy of multilateral talks, seemed to have worked. The fact is that this regime will do whatever it takes to stay in power, and the hard line to walk is to prevent a collapse with a hard landing, while also not letting them win minor victories that helps them consolidate power in their country. I don't envy the Bush administration in this task, and I have to admit that they haven't been doing a terrible job on this so far.
The article talks about the very scary prospect of a hard landing if the country collapses. That scenario could involve an attack on Seoul using all types of conventional and WMDs (N. Korea has a significant amount of chemical and biological weapons - and now maybe nuclear as well) and a ground invasion of South Korea.
What I didn't realize was the role China plays in North Korea. Apparently, it provides the most aide to the N. Korean government, and probably also has plans for it if the government falls. The article actually seemed to suggest that China is slowly trying to push for a soft landing North Korea collapse, which would then allow China to take over key parts of the country. I am not sure how I feel about that. While it would be nice to see N. Korea's transition managed by someone other than us, and therefore not have American resources tied up there, China is growing at an incredible rate, and giving them strategic ports and resources of N. Korea would only allow them to get even stronger.
To bring this back to the current situation though, I am having trouble reconciling how I think the administration should handle this. N. Korea wants direct talks with us for many reasons, one of which is to make it feel like it is a world power and justify it's military policies. I don't think we should encourage their behavior by giving them what they want. At the same time though, the government has made some very scary threats recently, and direct talks might be our best option if it results in having control over their nuclear technology. While it is clear that China can have a huge impact on North Korean policy because of the aide they provide, what is not clear is whether they fear China and would therefore become more combative with pressure, or if they respect China and would in fact respond.
What is frustrating about all of this is that neither the Clinton / Jimmy Carter plan of direct talks and US aide, nor the Bush policy of multilateral talks, seemed to have worked. The fact is that this regime will do whatever it takes to stay in power, and the hard line to walk is to prevent a collapse with a hard landing, while also not letting them win minor victories that helps them consolidate power in their country. I don't envy the Bush administration in this task, and I have to admit that they haven't been doing a terrible job on this so far.
A Rose
Although recent anti-immigrant legislation had gotten me down, fearing that our country was reverting back to xenophobia, news like this is very reassuring. It is nice to know that people feel more comfortable going by their traditional names and feel less compelled to anglicize them.
What Contradiction?
ENERGY INDEPENDENCE - LOWER GAS PRICES
Free America from dependence on foreign oil and create a cleaner environment with initiatives for energy-efficient technologies and domestic alternatives such as biofuels. End tax giveaways to Big Oil companies and enact tough laws to stop price gouging.
I saw the above on the HouseDemocrats.gov site under their "Six for '06" plan. I have to say that the above paragraph is the stupidest thing I have ever read and it makes me want to slap someone. Seriously, if there are two things that don't go together at all, it is energy independence and lower gas prices. Basically, what the Democrats tried to do with this was say two very popular things without thinking through how those two interact.
The only thing that will force us to decrease our dependence on foreign oil is if prices stay high. I am sick and tired of political parties that are incapable of saying what voters don't want to hear. We need high prices because we need to change our habits. This is the same unfortunate mentality that Bush tried to use after September 11, 2001 when he told Americans to go about their business - only the military would have to sacrifice. Voters need to realize that they will have to sacrifice in some situations to make progress possible. But neither Democrats nor Republicans are capable of saying that.
I can't wait for the next Democratic talking points:
"Increase government spending - Cut Taxes"
"Smoke, drink, eat unhealthy foods - Live much longer"
Now Who?
So families have claimed one more potential Presidential candidate: Mark Warner. Before him, it was Colin Powell. Why can't families claim people who shouldn't be running in the first place - like John Kerry, George Allen, or George W. Bush? And where was Ralph Nader's family when he was scratching and clawing for 2% of the vote that probably belonged to Gore?
I don't know a whole lot about Warner, but what I do know suggests I would have liked hearing him make his case for 2008. Now it looks like we are left with Hillary and maybe a Gore and / or Kerry retread. Perfect. Granted, there are bound to be others; like Harry Reid who might grace us with his vague but poll-tested policies, or Joe Biden who would be a great candidate as long as he writes his own speeches. Is it too much to hope that Bill Nelson will rise above the crowded field?
By the way - with all the talk about Hillary, I think it says something about our political system and how big name recognition is when there is every possibility that four presidents in a row could be from only two families.
I don't know a whole lot about Warner, but what I do know suggests I would have liked hearing him make his case for 2008. Now it looks like we are left with Hillary and maybe a Gore and / or Kerry retread. Perfect. Granted, there are bound to be others; like Harry Reid who might grace us with his vague but poll-tested policies, or Joe Biden who would be a great candidate as long as he writes his own speeches. Is it too much to hope that Bill Nelson will rise above the crowded field?
By the way - with all the talk about Hillary, I think it says something about our political system and how big name recognition is when there is every possibility that four presidents in a row could be from only two families.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)