Summary:
President Bush's logic on commuting Libby's prison sentence is bunk. But Bill Clinton is the last person who should be criticizing him.
I have to say, what I am most upset about with Bush's commuting of Libby's prison term is that his logic is complete crap. First of all, Bush says that Libby's reputation is tarnished and the stiff fine ($250,000) and probation are strong enough. That is nonsense; any minute now a firm with ties to the far right will hire Libby because they are proud of what he did. And with the salary they will surely give him, he'll be able to pay off the fine in no time.
Worse than that though, is Bush's claim (here is his statement) that the sentence was too tough. He is either being dishonest, or doesn't actually know his administration's stance. As the NY Times points out, the Bush administration favors tough sentencing generally and has rejected these very same arguments (about first time offense and prior public service) when used by federal defendants. And all the evidence suggests that Libby's jail sentence was in line with similar cases.
It will be great if the article is right and defense attorneys start using Bush's reasoning in sentencing briefs before federal judges. I bet the Justice Department will soon issue a brief that says they still support tough sentencing and don't think prior public service should be considered during sentencing.
The point is, I would much rather Bush had just come forward and told the truth. All he has to say is that Cheney told him to do it - and since he takes orders from his VP, he had no choice. Or he could have just said that he lied when he said he would take the Valerie Plame leak seriously, and actually should have said that he would protect anyone involved in that because politics is more important than justice and consistent policy.
At the same time though, Bill Clinton has no right to criticize Bush on this. His Marc Rich pardon was never justified to the public as far as I know.
Wednesday, July 04, 2007
Sunday, July 01, 2007
Perish the Thought
This is a hilarious Opinion piece. Basically, it talks about how countries like China and Venezuela are providing aid to developing countries with only their interests in mind. Perish the thought.
Because the goal of these donors is not to help other countries develop. Rather, they seek to further their own national interests, advance an ideological agenda or even line their own pockets. Rogue aid providers couldn’t care less about the long-term well-being of the population of the countries they aid.Sound a little hypocritical? That accurately describes the history of our foreign policy. While I understand that we are promoting democracy and transparency (sometimes), as compared to autocratic governments, we still continue to operate to benefit our interests. After all, why would fight to protect Kuwait, but not lift a finger in any disputes in Africa?
Sorry, More Friedman
This is an interesting column ($). I am not sure I completely agree, but it might end up being our only option. Friedman suggests that since the surge isn't working, our only other option is to move our troops into the Kurdish north. This would allow us to prevent the inevitable civil war from spreading outside the country, while using a democratic and peaceful "Kurdistan" as a model for the rest of the Middle East.
First of all, I am not sure Turkey would be as willing to go along as Friedman suggests. At the very least we would have to end the practice of Kurdish terrorist groups using Iraqi Kurdistan as a based to launch attacks against Turkey. I also wonder whether peaceful and democratic societies have any impact on the countries around them. I used to think they would, but I am growing skeptical.
Worse though is the decision to abandon the Shiite and Sunni regions of Iraq. I know we might have to do that at some point in the near future. But I feel that the extent of the violence would pull us back in. Friedman also assumes that if we did pull out we would be able to prevent the violence from spreading outside the borders, which I don't think I agree with.
Friedman is spot on when he says that the Shiites and Sunnis both want to dominate the country. Neither really wants a pluralistic society right now (nor do the Kurds). So maybe I have to accept that there are no other options. At some point soon, we may have to leave the Sunnis and Shiites to their fate. God forgive us.
First of all, I am not sure Turkey would be as willing to go along as Friedman suggests. At the very least we would have to end the practice of Kurdish terrorist groups using Iraqi Kurdistan as a based to launch attacks against Turkey. I also wonder whether peaceful and democratic societies have any impact on the countries around them. I used to think they would, but I am growing skeptical.
Worse though is the decision to abandon the Shiite and Sunni regions of Iraq. I know we might have to do that at some point in the near future. But I feel that the extent of the violence would pull us back in. Friedman also assumes that if we did pull out we would be able to prevent the violence from spreading outside the borders, which I don't think I agree with.
Friedman is spot on when he says that the Shiites and Sunnis both want to dominate the country. Neither really wants a pluralistic society right now (nor do the Kurds). So maybe I have to accept that there are no other options. At some point soon, we may have to leave the Sunnis and Shiites to their fate. God forgive us.
Another Mentor of Mine
So there are two people who have had a large impact on the development of my international perspective. You have already heard about Thomas Friedman; the other is Nicholas Kristof. In this column ($), he talks about civil conflict and instability as the greatest killer in Africa.
Mr. Collier [author of The Bottom Billion - a book I want to read as soon as the NYPL gets a copy], a former research director of the World Bank, notes that when the G-8 countries talk about helping Africa, they overwhelmingly focus just on foreign aid. Sure, aid has a role to play, but it’s pointless to build clinics when rebel groups are running around burning towns and shooting doctors.Sometimes I feel like the reason good governance and foreign aid are emphasized is because military intervention is much less popular. So we console ourselves by talking about how much money we send to developing countries. I think promoting good governance ($) is a joke when you are talking about somewhere like Congo (or Iraq) - stability is a definite prerequisite. But that won't happen until this country and its leaders make a serious decision to actually protect all the victims in war torn regions.
One essential kind of help that the West can provide — but one that is rarely talked about — is Western military assistance in squashing rebellions, genocides and civil wars, or in protecting good governments from insurrections. The average civil war costs $64 billion, yet could often be suppressed in its early stages for very modest sums. The British military intervention in Sierra Leone easily ended a savage war and was enthusiastically welcomed by local people — and, as a financial investment, achieved benefits worth 30 times the cost.
I Hate Agribusiness - and Congress too
Here is another example of what is wrong with our agriculture subsidies. Not only do they give us an unfair advantage in global trade (effectively keeping developing countries from actually developing), but they don't even go to the farmers that really need them. It is shameful to see how often Congress gets it wrong - how often they send money to powerful interests while cloaking it in language of helping those in need.
Hypocrisy
I love it when life circumstances show the hypocrisy in someone. Here, we see that Robert Bork, conservative judge with strong tort reform views, is now a tort plaintiff. Actually, instead of him being a hypocrite, this seems to support my hypothesis that often times conservatives are merely good people lacking imagination or empathy. In the past, Bork might have been unable to understand why someone would need to use the legal system to seek compensation for some wrong committed. Maybe now he understands. If only it would make him reconsider the rest of his conservative judicial philosophy.
Saturday, June 30, 2007
Dear Bill
Bill Richardson for President
111 Lomas Blvd., NW, Suite 200
Albuquerque, NM 87102
Dear Governor Richardson,
Recently, I donated to your campaign for president. It was a small donation, but it was the first time I had given money to someone seeking political office. I didn’t do this lightly, but I was excited by the prospect of someone with your experience as an executive as well as your proven foreign policy credentials becoming president. Unfortunately, because of your stance on the Iraq War, I will no longer be able to donate to your campaign, and more importantly, you no longer have my support.
In the early stages of your campaign, I was thrilled to see you talking about Iran, North Korea, and most importantly, Darfur. Your positions were well thought-out and very reasonable. This is why I have been so surprised to see you calling for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. The situation there is dire, and I believe that any informed person will realize that without a significant US troop presence, the violence will grow far beyond what we have seen so far. The fact is that the violence right now is no longer directed at US troops, but instead is between Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds. Recent mosque bombings, as well as killings and threats to homogenize neighborhoods is evidence of this. Articles in the New York Times indicate that despite rhetoric from Shiite leaders like Moktada al-Sadr, they don’t actually want us to leave.
What particularly weighs on my conscience is the fact that we are responsible for what is happening in Iraq. I know everybody wants to blame Bush, and he deserves his share, but the truth is that our invasion of Iraq was done legally according to our laws, and as a democracy we all share in the responsibility of our actions. It is my strong opinion that the only moral choice right now is to stay in Iraq. Our presence is doing much more good than harm, and we have an obligation to do as much good as we can for the Iraqi people.
It is in light of all this that I am particularly disappointed to have seen your current position. I want to believe that your beliefs are the same as mine, and that your position is actually the one that is more compassionate and well-reasoned. But right now I can’t see it, and to be honest, the skeptic in me thinks it is a political decision meant to separate you from the rest of the pack. I truly hope that is not the case. But either way, I will have to find someone else to vote for when the Democratic Primary comes to New York State. If you would like to respond, I would be glad to hear you out, so long as you don’t simply recycle your current talking points.
Sincerely,
Chainz
[I actually sent this letter. But I actually signed my real name. We'll see if I hear back. If I do, I'll be sure to post the response.]
111 Lomas Blvd., NW, Suite 200
Albuquerque, NM 87102
Dear Governor Richardson,
Recently, I donated to your campaign for president. It was a small donation, but it was the first time I had given money to someone seeking political office. I didn’t do this lightly, but I was excited by the prospect of someone with your experience as an executive as well as your proven foreign policy credentials becoming president. Unfortunately, because of your stance on the Iraq War, I will no longer be able to donate to your campaign, and more importantly, you no longer have my support.
In the early stages of your campaign, I was thrilled to see you talking about Iran, North Korea, and most importantly, Darfur. Your positions were well thought-out and very reasonable. This is why I have been so surprised to see you calling for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. The situation there is dire, and I believe that any informed person will realize that without a significant US troop presence, the violence will grow far beyond what we have seen so far. The fact is that the violence right now is no longer directed at US troops, but instead is between Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds. Recent mosque bombings, as well as killings and threats to homogenize neighborhoods is evidence of this. Articles in the New York Times indicate that despite rhetoric from Shiite leaders like Moktada al-Sadr, they don’t actually want us to leave.
What particularly weighs on my conscience is the fact that we are responsible for what is happening in Iraq. I know everybody wants to blame Bush, and he deserves his share, but the truth is that our invasion of Iraq was done legally according to our laws, and as a democracy we all share in the responsibility of our actions. It is my strong opinion that the only moral choice right now is to stay in Iraq. Our presence is doing much more good than harm, and we have an obligation to do as much good as we can for the Iraqi people.
It is in light of all this that I am particularly disappointed to have seen your current position. I want to believe that your beliefs are the same as mine, and that your position is actually the one that is more compassionate and well-reasoned. But right now I can’t see it, and to be honest, the skeptic in me thinks it is a political decision meant to separate you from the rest of the pack. I truly hope that is not the case. But either way, I will have to find someone else to vote for when the Democratic Primary comes to New York State. If you would like to respond, I would be glad to hear you out, so long as you don’t simply recycle your current talking points.
Sincerely,
Chainz
[I actually sent this letter. But I actually signed my real name. We'll see if I hear back. If I do, I'll be sure to post the response.]
Friday, June 29, 2007
Just My Ramblings
It's another one of those posts where I examine our role in international affairs. Since I am in the middle of a number of articles and books (Overthrow by Stephen Kinzer, Notes from the Hyenas' Belly - a memoir from Ethiopia, and this article in the NY Review of Books about Bush's presidency), it might be better to wait until I have finished. But I figure since the mood struck me now, then now I shall post.
I look through our history of involvement, and I see mostly chaos. Between us and the USSR, we ruined Ethiopia, Somalia, and Eritrea. Iran is all our fault. And of course there is Iraq. And I have barely started Overthrow, which will talk about Hawaii, Panama and others). So while I will never be an isolationist, I have to accept that even when our intentions are good (which is pretty rare) we still don't do a good job. I feel that this is leading me in the direction of supporting only humanitarian interventions, supported by the military when necessary in cases like Rwanda, Serbia, Darfur and maybe even Palestine.
This may not sound too radical, but I think I even mean pulling back on much of our World Bank and IMF projects. We have tried using outside pressure to create systems that are accountable. It hasn't worked. So maybe we should step way back and let them figure it out. (I love Zambia, but since it is peaceful, I think they might solve their problems faster once everyone realizes we aren't going to be there to throw money at every problem.)
My problem is always that I am neither fully universalist nor relativist. I see some merit in both. For example, I think all people should have a role in choosing their government. But the more I read about Africa (from the perspective of black Africans), I see tribal systems headed by unelected chiefs as legitimate and a natural part of their culture and history. Where I start to go cross-eyed is when I think about how much damage we have already done and how impossible it would be to undo it - this includes everything from colonialism in Africa to the way we drew the maps and created countries and forced the idea of nation-states on people. There might be no way back.
I can tell that I am rambling. The point is that I used to understand where neo-conservatives were coming from. The desire to spread democracy the world over is well intentioned. Unfortunately, I think it is too idealistic even for me. I think I am leaning towards a broader tolerance of cultural differences even if it means accepting non-democratic governments (excluding of course strictly iron fist governments like Saddam Hussein).
I look through our history of involvement, and I see mostly chaos. Between us and the USSR, we ruined Ethiopia, Somalia, and Eritrea. Iran is all our fault. And of course there is Iraq. And I have barely started Overthrow, which will talk about Hawaii, Panama and others). So while I will never be an isolationist, I have to accept that even when our intentions are good (which is pretty rare) we still don't do a good job. I feel that this is leading me in the direction of supporting only humanitarian interventions, supported by the military when necessary in cases like Rwanda, Serbia, Darfur and maybe even Palestine.
This may not sound too radical, but I think I even mean pulling back on much of our World Bank and IMF projects. We have tried using outside pressure to create systems that are accountable. It hasn't worked. So maybe we should step way back and let them figure it out. (I love Zambia, but since it is peaceful, I think they might solve their problems faster once everyone realizes we aren't going to be there to throw money at every problem.)
My problem is always that I am neither fully universalist nor relativist. I see some merit in both. For example, I think all people should have a role in choosing their government. But the more I read about Africa (from the perspective of black Africans), I see tribal systems headed by unelected chiefs as legitimate and a natural part of their culture and history. Where I start to go cross-eyed is when I think about how much damage we have already done and how impossible it would be to undo it - this includes everything from colonialism in Africa to the way we drew the maps and created countries and forced the idea of nation-states on people. There might be no way back.
I can tell that I am rambling. The point is that I used to understand where neo-conservatives were coming from. The desire to spread democracy the world over is well intentioned. Unfortunately, I think it is too idealistic even for me. I think I am leaning towards a broader tolerance of cultural differences even if it means accepting non-democratic governments (excluding of course strictly iron fist governments like Saddam Hussein).
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
My Mentor, Only He Doesn't Know it
When I read Thomas Friedman's columns, I see the same frustration in him that I have. I think we both have an underlying optimism and faith in humanity. But so often the news stories from the Middle East (and elsewhere too) knock us down, unable to catch our breath for a while. We soon recover soon after by latching on to a piece of good news as proof that progress is coming. At least, I get the impression that he feels this way too.
Freedman has probably had the most influence on the development of my foreign policy perspective. And while I think our underlying philosophies are similar, and our emotional reactions to the news run parallel, he is different in one major way. He always manages to describe the problem as one that the Middle East needs to solve. Since I have grown up in the age where America is the world's sole superpower, I naturally start from the position that we need to solve all the problems. And while I will always think we have a role in it (for example, we could start by not creating problems, ie installing the Shah in Iran, destabilizing Iraq, turning a blind eye to Saudi Arabia, giving Israel and blank check), Friedman is good at bringing me back to reality. We aren't going to solve the Middle East's problems. They will have to do it themselves; Friedman says they need to find a fourth way ($).
Freedman has probably had the most influence on the development of my foreign policy perspective. And while I think our underlying philosophies are similar, and our emotional reactions to the news run parallel, he is different in one major way. He always manages to describe the problem as one that the Middle East needs to solve. Since I have grown up in the age where America is the world's sole superpower, I naturally start from the position that we need to solve all the problems. And while I will always think we have a role in it (for example, we could start by not creating problems, ie installing the Shah in Iran, destabilizing Iraq, turning a blind eye to Saudi Arabia, giving Israel and blank check), Friedman is good at bringing me back to reality. We aren't going to solve the Middle East's problems. They will have to do it themselves; Friedman says they need to find a fourth way ($).
Screaming from the Minarets
This picture broke my heart. It is two pictures of the al-Askari mosque in Samarra, Iraq. On the left is before two separate bombings a year apart. It is agonizing to know that everything beautiful is being destroyed in Iraq. Although I know that is part of war - so much beauty in the world has been lost due to past wars - I think this affects me so much because I feel that we are partly responsible for this. Although I know it is the nihilists who actually bombed the dome one year ago, and the minarets recently, we are still at fault for allowing it to happen. We (not just Bush - all of us) started a war without thinking about how to finish it. We went in unprepared to deal with insurgents. We ignored mounting evidence that more troops were needed.
What makes this even worse is knowing that the bombing of the mosque's dome started the civil war that Iraq has been in the middle of now for over a year. And every new bombing like this makes it more clear that things are not improving and may not improve. I don't mean to give the impression that I really thought the troop surge would create security, but I did hope for it. And each story like this makes me lose more hope, after thinking I have no more to lose.
My Trip to Zambia
Summary:
There is craziness in Lebanon every time I leave the country. After visiting Zambia, I have new thoughts on development. It is going to be a long road. Maybe what we should offer are the basics, and allow them to figure out the rest.
So it has been a really long time since I last blogged. I can explain. I spent two weeks in Zambia, and then have spent two weeks catching up on things and traveling more on weekends. Now that I have some time, I have a lot I want to say. First of all, why is it that every time I leave the country, violence erupts in Lebanon? Granted, I have only left the country twice. Last summer I went to Ireland with my girlfriend, and while we were there, Israel was bombing Lebanon. This time, I go to Africa, and while I am there, the Lebanese army is attacking a Palestinian militant group that is hiding in a Palestinian refugee camp in Lebanon (which makes it clear why right of return is such a huge issue for everyone in the region). I almost feel like I can't leave the country anymore. I am not trying to be funny. It truly breaks my heart when I see more violence in Lebanon. And now I have an association between news reports of violence in Lebanon and airports.
Alright, now to Zambia. I hardly know where to start. We visited as the guests of a family my girlfriend knew while she was teaching in DC. The mother of the family works for the World Bank, and they live in the bush outside of Lusaka (the capital of Zambia). The family is great, and staying with them allowed us some amazing insights we wouldn't have gotten otherwise.
I think development issues have been on my mind for a few years now. And to be honest, I think my next job will be more in that direction if possible. Up until my trip, all the issues were very academic to me. I read as much as I could, and tried to form educated opinions. The trip though completely overwhelmed me. When I thought about development in the past, it seemed easy to me. Get rid of our domestic agriculture subsidies, be more aggressive with authoritarian governments, and use the UN as a tool for good not another weapon to promote American interests and everything would work itself out. I thought I understood the basic problems and could see the solutions.
Going to Zambia didn't really change my mind on any of the issues I mentioned above. But I realize now that there are so many problems and complicating issues. Funding for education is inadequate by far, infrastructure is very limited, the economy is very weak and there is a lack of skilled workers. And these are just a few that I thought of (and they are very general too).
When seeing all of that, I realized that development is going to be a very long process - as indeed it was with us. My belief then is for us to focus on the big things, like money for basic health care, food and nutrients to prevent starvation and malnutrition, and protection of basic human rights. Outside of that, I think that our goal should be a form of empowerment mixed with reasonable expectations. The last part is important. We expect corruption can end as long as we insist on it loud enough. This ignores our long history with corruption, which only ended with the grass roots Progressive Movement at the turn of the century (I don't have it in me to discuss the differences between that movement, and the wing of the Democratic Party that uses the same title).
I want to stress that my theory of reasonable expectations isn't based on any sort of belief that there is a differences in the races. It is merely my understanding that change and improvement in any culture is slow. On top of that, I think there is much resistance to positive changes merely because pressure from the west feels like paternalism. Realizing this, groups like the World Bank sometimes try to do more work behind the scenes, allowing others to take the credit. In the end, growth will only occur from the inside. We should definitely help, but we should step back and let them find their way as well.
Now, while I think that we need to step back a bit and allow governments to work things out on their own, I do think that charity should increase. There is tremendous need in Zambia, and likewise in the rest of the developing countries. What they need while they grow and figure out how to protect their people is our compassion. This is even easier for me to say after having been there, because Zambia is an incredibly beautiful country, and after having been there I want to do all I can for it. Which, as a final note, is why tourism is so important. It helps promote cross-cultural understanding, and can help show foreigners why the country is so amazing.
There is craziness in Lebanon every time I leave the country. After visiting Zambia, I have new thoughts on development. It is going to be a long road. Maybe what we should offer are the basics, and allow them to figure out the rest.
So it has been a really long time since I last blogged. I can explain. I spent two weeks in Zambia, and then have spent two weeks catching up on things and traveling more on weekends. Now that I have some time, I have a lot I want to say. First of all, why is it that every time I leave the country, violence erupts in Lebanon? Granted, I have only left the country twice. Last summer I went to Ireland with my girlfriend, and while we were there, Israel was bombing Lebanon. This time, I go to Africa, and while I am there, the Lebanese army is attacking a Palestinian militant group that is hiding in a Palestinian refugee camp in Lebanon (which makes it clear why right of return is such a huge issue for everyone in the region). I almost feel like I can't leave the country anymore. I am not trying to be funny. It truly breaks my heart when I see more violence in Lebanon. And now I have an association between news reports of violence in Lebanon and airports.
Alright, now to Zambia. I hardly know where to start. We visited as the guests of a family my girlfriend knew while she was teaching in DC. The mother of the family works for the World Bank, and they live in the bush outside of Lusaka (the capital of Zambia). The family is great, and staying with them allowed us some amazing insights we wouldn't have gotten otherwise.
I think development issues have been on my mind for a few years now. And to be honest, I think my next job will be more in that direction if possible. Up until my trip, all the issues were very academic to me. I read as much as I could, and tried to form educated opinions. The trip though completely overwhelmed me. When I thought about development in the past, it seemed easy to me. Get rid of our domestic agriculture subsidies, be more aggressive with authoritarian governments, and use the UN as a tool for good not another weapon to promote American interests and everything would work itself out. I thought I understood the basic problems and could see the solutions.
Going to Zambia didn't really change my mind on any of the issues I mentioned above. But I realize now that there are so many problems and complicating issues. Funding for education is inadequate by far, infrastructure is very limited, the economy is very weak and there is a lack of skilled workers. And these are just a few that I thought of (and they are very general too).
When seeing all of that, I realized that development is going to be a very long process - as indeed it was with us. My belief then is for us to focus on the big things, like money for basic health care, food and nutrients to prevent starvation and malnutrition, and protection of basic human rights. Outside of that, I think that our goal should be a form of empowerment mixed with reasonable expectations. The last part is important. We expect corruption can end as long as we insist on it loud enough. This ignores our long history with corruption, which only ended with the grass roots Progressive Movement at the turn of the century (I don't have it in me to discuss the differences between that movement, and the wing of the Democratic Party that uses the same title).
I want to stress that my theory of reasonable expectations isn't based on any sort of belief that there is a differences in the races. It is merely my understanding that change and improvement in any culture is slow. On top of that, I think there is much resistance to positive changes merely because pressure from the west feels like paternalism. Realizing this, groups like the World Bank sometimes try to do more work behind the scenes, allowing others to take the credit. In the end, growth will only occur from the inside. We should definitely help, but we should step back and let them find their way as well.
Now, while I think that we need to step back a bit and allow governments to work things out on their own, I do think that charity should increase. There is tremendous need in Zambia, and likewise in the rest of the developing countries. What they need while they grow and figure out how to protect their people is our compassion. This is even easier for me to say after having been there, because Zambia is an incredibly beautiful country, and after having been there I want to do all I can for it. Which, as a final note, is why tourism is so important. It helps promote cross-cultural understanding, and can help show foreigners why the country is so amazing.
Sunday, May 06, 2007
On Israel and Palestine
Summary:
The governments in Israel and Palestine are weak and therefore unable to take the bold steps necessary for peace. We should realize this and while keeping the issue in the public attention know that we actually have limited influence over who is powerful and who is weak.
My mind has gone back and forth over the situation in Israel - especially how to deal with Hamas. This article in the most recent New York Review of Books on the issue clearly lays out the challenges to any progress. Here are some highlights, although I would of course recommend reading the entire article.
Here is a great summary of the situation in Israel:
In the end, there seems to be little hope of serious progress under the current circumstances. With a deficit of leadership in Israel (and here in the US) and a chaotic and fluid government in Palestine, it seems that nothing will happen until both countries get their own houses in order. In the meantime, maybe we should stop pressuring for it to go our way (knowing that our support for Abbas weakens him, and our isolation of Hamas strengthens them), and just make sure we keep active and let the world know we care about a just solution to the problem.
The governments in Israel and Palestine are weak and therefore unable to take the bold steps necessary for peace. We should realize this and while keeping the issue in the public attention know that we actually have limited influence over who is powerful and who is weak.
My mind has gone back and forth over the situation in Israel - especially how to deal with Hamas. This article in the most recent New York Review of Books on the issue clearly lays out the challenges to any progress. Here are some highlights, although I would of course recommend reading the entire article.
Whatever happens, the Palestinian movement will remain a fluid entity, as difficult to pin down as it will be to pressure or to deal with. The US and Israeli governments will be tempted to ignore the change, persisting in their attempts to isolate Hamas and deal only with non-Islamist members of the government. But it is only a matter of time before such fantasies come crashing down. One of the goals of the US and Israel may be to bolster Abbas, yet nothing has weakened the Palestinian president more than misplaced international attempts to strengthen him. If Hamas feels thwarted in its attempt to share power, it will do what it can—and it can do much—to torpedo Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. One cannot prevent the Islamists from ruling and then expect them to acquiesce in a political process from which they have been kept out.The fact is that neither Hamas nor Fatah have any real power or authority to make decisions, nor do they know what they are willing to sacrifice for their goals. The article talks about how Fatah is still overwhelmed with corruption and patronage, while Hamas has to decide whether it wants to be a legitimate political group or an armed resistance group. There are serious problems both internally and externally for the Palestinian government, but it is unclear who holds power.
Here is a great summary of the situation in Israel:
Corruption, no longer an aberration, virtually is a way of life. Less surprised than resigned, Israelis are disillusioned with politics and government. The scarcity of charismatic leaders and the new generation of run-of-the-mill politicians is another symptom of a system in crisis.The article goes on to also talk about the possibilities of a multi-party agreement that would include normalized relations between Israel and the Arab countries in the Middle East, as well as American efforts in the region.
[Edit]
Israeli governments are often short-lived, subject to the vagaries of an anachronistic political arrangement, itself the product of an electoral system which often requires coalition governments and allows smaller parties to dictate their parochial wishes to larger ones or, alternatively, to oust them from office. A peace initiative threatens to upset the delicate political equilibrium and reduce the prime minister's term in office. The stubborn gap between the public's support for an agreement with the Palestinians and the leadership's inability to accomplish it is explained in part by this feature.
In the end, there seems to be little hope of serious progress under the current circumstances. With a deficit of leadership in Israel (and here in the US) and a chaotic and fluid government in Palestine, it seems that nothing will happen until both countries get their own houses in order. In the meantime, maybe we should stop pressuring for it to go our way (knowing that our support for Abbas weakens him, and our isolation of Hamas strengthens them), and just make sure we keep active and let the world know we care about a just solution to the problem.
Thursday, May 03, 2007
Friedman for President
I have to say, one of my favorite formats that Thomas Friedman uses for his columns is when he writes a speech President Bush should give. If you have TimesSelect, definitely read this. If you don't, here is a highlight:
I want to take this opportunity to speak to the Arab and Muslim nations gathered here today and to the world at large. I begin with a simple message: I’m sorry. I’m sorry that I rushed into the invasion of Iraq. I honestly believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. I was wrong, and I now realize that in unilaterally launching the war the way I did, you all feel that I breached a bond of trust between America and the world. Not only did that alienate you from us, it made us less effective in Iraq. We had too few allies and too little legitimacy. I apologize — sincerely.If only Bush really had the humility to give this speech.
I’m most sorry, though, because my bungling of the war has prompted all of us to take our eye off the ball. I messed up the treatment so badly that people have forgotten the patient really does have a disease. Now that I’ve apologized, I hope you will stop fixating on me and look closely at what is happening in your backyard: the forces and pathologies that brought us 9/11 are still there and multiplying.
Bad Gore
Gore has been getting some criticism for his high energy usage. My first thought was that people were just using it to attack global warming. While I think that is the case, his critics still have valid points.
Gore's defense has been that he buys carbon credits to compensate for his energy usage. But the question is whether this is enough. This article in the NY Times looks into that. Basically, the article says that while it helps that money is being invested in alternate energy sources and plants that soak up carbon, overall it is a consumer-based solution that makes people feel better without having to change their behavior. (The article also says that there isn't yet a way to ensure that the carbon credits are offsetting as much as they say.)
I think this is a key point. People like Al Gore tell the world we need to change our behavior, but yet they aren't leading by example. Carbon credits aren't going to get us where we need to go to decrease carbon emissions. In the end, we are going to have to do a lot to change our behavior. This means that we can't just spend a little more money to feel better about our consumption habits; we will need to make real sacrifices. I think the loudest talkers should lead the way.
Gore's defense has been that he buys carbon credits to compensate for his energy usage. But the question is whether this is enough. This article in the NY Times looks into that. Basically, the article says that while it helps that money is being invested in alternate energy sources and plants that soak up carbon, overall it is a consumer-based solution that makes people feel better without having to change their behavior. (The article also says that there isn't yet a way to ensure that the carbon credits are offsetting as much as they say.)
I think this is a key point. People like Al Gore tell the world we need to change our behavior, but yet they aren't leading by example. Carbon credits aren't going to get us where we need to go to decrease carbon emissions. In the end, we are going to have to do a lot to change our behavior. This means that we can't just spend a little more money to feel better about our consumption habits; we will need to make real sacrifices. I think the loudest talkers should lead the way.
Tuesday, May 01, 2007
Olive Branch From Iran?
Summary:
There is evidence that Iran wanted normal relations with the US in 2003. How did we go so wrong? Would Iran have lived up to its promises?
So Nicholas Kristof wrote a column about an attempt by Iran in May 2003 to establish more normal relations with the US. Before I launch into a rant about how poorly the Bush administration's policy with Iran has been, we should recognize that Iran probably wouldn't have lived up to all of their promises. At the same time though, our isolation of them has made the hard liners in their country stronger, which makes the government more willing to stand against us publicly.
One of the worst things we did was create this "Axis of Evil" label. Instead of making the countries try harder to be good, it has made them want to behave worse. Bush doesn't realize this because he wants to see the world in a good versus evil dichotomy, and to do this he needed to create enemies - ones that would be on par with the former Soviet Union. This isn't to say that Iran was benevolent, but they were mostly harmless instead of a grand power we needed to rally against.
I want to stress again that when dealing with rogue states and potentially threatening governments, there are smart ways of dealing with them that makes them weaker instead of stronger. We need a leader that understands this.
There is evidence that Iran wanted normal relations with the US in 2003. How did we go so wrong? Would Iran have lived up to its promises?
So Nicholas Kristof wrote a column about an attempt by Iran in May 2003 to establish more normal relations with the US. Before I launch into a rant about how poorly the Bush administration's policy with Iran has been, we should recognize that Iran probably wouldn't have lived up to all of their promises. At the same time though, our isolation of them has made the hard liners in their country stronger, which makes the government more willing to stand against us publicly.
One of the worst things we did was create this "Axis of Evil" label. Instead of making the countries try harder to be good, it has made them want to behave worse. Bush doesn't realize this because he wants to see the world in a good versus evil dichotomy, and to do this he needed to create enemies - ones that would be on par with the former Soviet Union. This isn't to say that Iran was benevolent, but they were mostly harmless instead of a grand power we needed to rally against.
I want to stress again that when dealing with rogue states and potentially threatening governments, there are smart ways of dealing with them that makes them weaker instead of stronger. We need a leader that understands this.
Saturday, April 28, 2007
Turkish Politics
This article about Turkish politics shows that sometimes religious groups can support modernization and promote a middle class. It also shows that Muslim countries have to deal with the role of religion in government just like we do. In fact, it seems to play out in similar ways with similar arguments.
Update:
Much more has happened since I last wrote. The story so far: a political Muslim was elected president by the Parliament (note: Turkey is constitutionally a secular country and is very serious about it). This lead to threats of a coup from the military (which was chastised by the EU but not the US) and a judicial ruling that the religious president cannot serve.
I think this situation points out two major hypocrisies of American conservative foreign policy. First, we have a policy of tolerating democracy only when it elects governments that we favor. I hate this more than anything, and we have a long history of it (see Iran pre-Shah). Secondly, conservative Americans don't like separation of church and state when it is a Christian government, but think it is crucial when it is a Muslim government. This I think hints at a bias against Muslims even if it is a moderate and pro-middle class version of Islam.
We should be able to support the new president and speak out against the military threat and the court's political decision. This is especially true since as far as I know we have nothing to fear of this candidate or his non-sectarian political party.
Update:
Much more has happened since I last wrote. The story so far: a political Muslim was elected president by the Parliament (note: Turkey is constitutionally a secular country and is very serious about it). This lead to threats of a coup from the military (which was chastised by the EU but not the US) and a judicial ruling that the religious president cannot serve.
I think this situation points out two major hypocrisies of American conservative foreign policy. First, we have a policy of tolerating democracy only when it elects governments that we favor. I hate this more than anything, and we have a long history of it (see Iran pre-Shah). Secondly, conservative Americans don't like separation of church and state when it is a Christian government, but think it is crucial when it is a Muslim government. This I think hints at a bias against Muslims even if it is a moderate and pro-middle class version of Islam.
We should be able to support the new president and speak out against the military threat and the court's political decision. This is especially true since as far as I know we have nothing to fear of this candidate or his non-sectarian political party.
Obama and Niebuhr
From a David Brooks column ($):
Obama doesn't have the foreign policy experience or credentials of Joe Biden or Bill Richardson. In his book the Audacity of Hope, he is honest with his readers when he says he doesn't have a coherent foreign policy plan in his hip pocket. At the same time though, that doesn't matter to me as much when I see that his overall philosophy is one I completely agree with. So in the end, to feel good about Obama as president, I will have to be confident that he will make decisions that truly align with his ideals.
Out of the blue I asked, “Have you ever read Reinhold Niebuhr?”I have never read anything by Niebuhr, nor did I know much about him before reading this column. Brooks says that Obama's answer is a pretty good summary of Niebuhr's "The Irony of American History" - which you can bet I'll be reading soon. The above quote is probably the best and most concise statement of my foreign policy belief right now.
Obama’s tone changed. “I love him. He’s one of my favorite philosophers.”
So I asked, What do you take away from him?
“I take away,” Obama answered in a rush of words, “the compelling idea that there’s serious evil in the world, and hardship and pain. And we should be humble and modest in our belief we can eliminate those things. But we shouldn’t use that as an excuse for cynicism and inaction. I take away ... the sense we have to make these efforts knowing they are hard, and not swinging from naïve idealism to bitter realism.”
Obama doesn't have the foreign policy experience or credentials of Joe Biden or Bill Richardson. In his book the Audacity of Hope, he is honest with his readers when he says he doesn't have a coherent foreign policy plan in his hip pocket. At the same time though, that doesn't matter to me as much when I see that his overall philosophy is one I completely agree with. So in the end, to feel good about Obama as president, I will have to be confident that he will make decisions that truly align with his ideals.
I HATE AGRIBUSINESS
This is the kind of bullshit that makes me hate the world:
The agriculture / agribusiness lobby defends their decision by saying that there isn't a constituency for food aid unless all of it is coming from US farmers.
I get so enraged and depressed when I read stories like this because it reminds me that some people are this selfish and are influencing policy. But it just goes to show you that Bush isn't evil and isn't always wrong.
Hoping to forestall such a dire outcome [mass starvation], the World Food Program made an urgent appeal in February for cash donations so it could buy corn from Zambia's own bountiful harvest, piled in towering stacks in the warehouses of the capital, Lusaka.
But the law in the United States requires that virtually all its donated food be grown in America and shipped at great expense across oceans, mostly on vessels that fly American flags and employ American crews -- a process that typically takes four to six months.
For a third year, the Bush administration, which has pushed to make foreign aid more efficient, is trying to change the law to allow the United States to use up to a quarter of the budget of its main food aid program to buy food in developing countries during emergencies. The proposal has run into stiff opposition from a potent alliance of agribusiness, shipping and charitable groups with deep financial stakes in the current food aid system.
The agriculture / agribusiness lobby defends their decision by saying that there isn't a constituency for food aid unless all of it is coming from US farmers.
I get so enraged and depressed when I read stories like this because it reminds me that some people are this selfish and are influencing policy. But it just goes to show you that Bush isn't evil and isn't always wrong.
Monday, April 23, 2007
Primaries
There is an incredible interactive graphic on the NY Times site. It shows how much money the presidential candidates raised and where their support came from. Hillary and Obama look even stronger when you play around with the map. I am still holding out hope though that Richardson's experience can make up for it. Anyway, enjoy the interactive!
Responsibility
Summary:
If we assume that Iraq cannot be stable anytime soon, are we still responsible for staying? Our government created this situation, therefore I believe that we should feel morally obligated to stay.
Let's assume for a moment that we cannot provide stability in Iraq (everyday it is harder and harder for me to deny this). Given this assumption, there are two possible choices. One is that since we cannot succeed, we should withdraw (a very popular sentiment). The other school of thought follows from Colin Powell's comment to President Bush before the invasion - "You break, you own it." Since it is very clear that we have broken it, what then is our moral responsibility? (Most people would dismiss this whole debate right now, since moral responsibility is rarely a factor when discussing international relations and foreign policy - but that is not the nature of this blog.)
The fact is that we decided as a nation to create regime change in Iraq. Therefore, I believe that we as a nation are responsible for the outcome. Just because Bush lead the charge, doesn't absolve the country of our collective burden. The war was tremendously popular at the time, and don't forget that these people voted for it. We can't use the excuse that the President lied to us, because there were enough people voicing doubt and not supporting the President that a well-informed person would know enough to not support the war.
I believe that in a democratic system, we all bear responsibility for the decisions and actions of the government and therefore collectively should have to redress any mistakes. The United States government (with limited support including Great Britain) created the unstable situation that now exists in Iraq. And despite increased troop levels, we are still unable to provide any security (this article shows that we are still facing the same problems we have had from the beginning - since we cannot control the Sunni insurgents, Shiite groups get tired of the bombings and decide to retaliate). Since we have caused this problem, aren't we in some way responsible for sticking it out?
I know that many in the Democratic party don't see it that way. I get the feeling that they are content to blame it on Bush - as if knowing that he caused the endless carnage makes it acceptable for us to bring our troops home. This is the easy and popular answer, I just don't think it is the moral answer.
If we assume that Iraq cannot be stable anytime soon, are we still responsible for staying? Our government created this situation, therefore I believe that we should feel morally obligated to stay.
Let's assume for a moment that we cannot provide stability in Iraq (everyday it is harder and harder for me to deny this). Given this assumption, there are two possible choices. One is that since we cannot succeed, we should withdraw (a very popular sentiment). The other school of thought follows from Colin Powell's comment to President Bush before the invasion - "You break, you own it." Since it is very clear that we have broken it, what then is our moral responsibility? (Most people would dismiss this whole debate right now, since moral responsibility is rarely a factor when discussing international relations and foreign policy - but that is not the nature of this blog.)
The fact is that we decided as a nation to create regime change in Iraq. Therefore, I believe that we as a nation are responsible for the outcome. Just because Bush lead the charge, doesn't absolve the country of our collective burden. The war was tremendously popular at the time, and don't forget that these people voted for it. We can't use the excuse that the President lied to us, because there were enough people voicing doubt and not supporting the President that a well-informed person would know enough to not support the war.
I believe that in a democratic system, we all bear responsibility for the decisions and actions of the government and therefore collectively should have to redress any mistakes. The United States government (with limited support including Great Britain) created the unstable situation that now exists in Iraq. And despite increased troop levels, we are still unable to provide any security (this article shows that we are still facing the same problems we have had from the beginning - since we cannot control the Sunni insurgents, Shiite groups get tired of the bombings and decide to retaliate). Since we have caused this problem, aren't we in some way responsible for sticking it out?
I know that many in the Democratic party don't see it that way. I get the feeling that they are content to blame it on Bush - as if knowing that he caused the endless carnage makes it acceptable for us to bring our troops home. This is the easy and popular answer, I just don't think it is the moral answer.
Saturday, April 07, 2007
A Real Post About Rwanda
Summary:
Rwanda's president is suppressing dissent in hopes of allowing the country to enact economic and government reforms and give it a chance to remain stable. This level of control though has the potential to spark future violence, which may be unavoidable anyway.
A little while ago I wrote a short piece about the current state of Rwanda. My information came from a small article about Paul Rusesabagina, the real life hero of Hotel Rwanda, and how he views the current government in Rwanda. Looking back, my post was pretty superficial because my understanding of the current situation was also superficial. But after reading this article in the New York Review of Books, I think I have a much better grasp of the situation.
My previous post wasn't actually wrong, but according to the article there is reason for optimism. It is true that the current president Paul Kagame, the former leader of the RPF, the Tutsi military force that took control of the country and ended the genocide, exercises strict control over the population and suppresses dissent. This is something Rusesabagina, a Hutu, opposes. There are some though who feel that this is necessary right now to prevent another genocide and give the country the chance to engage economic and government reforms. Kagame's goals are lofty, and he seems to have the support of some in the West.
The fact remains though that the majority of the country is Hutu. It remains to be seen then how the majority will respond to suppression of dissent. It could end up leading to future violence if the Hutu population feels like second class citizens. According to the article, the potential for future ethnic cleansing lies just below the surface. On top of that, we have seen many leaders in the past resort to authoritarianism as a so-called temporary measure, and then later refuse to give up control.
There look to be so many ways that Rwanda could go wrong and devolve into violence again. There is a long history of civil war in the country even before 1994, and it is a past that will be hard not to repeat. I know the international community wants to see it remain stable, but if it doesn't, I wonder if they will get any real support this time around.
Rwanda's president is suppressing dissent in hopes of allowing the country to enact economic and government reforms and give it a chance to remain stable. This level of control though has the potential to spark future violence, which may be unavoidable anyway.
A little while ago I wrote a short piece about the current state of Rwanda. My information came from a small article about Paul Rusesabagina, the real life hero of Hotel Rwanda, and how he views the current government in Rwanda. Looking back, my post was pretty superficial because my understanding of the current situation was also superficial. But after reading this article in the New York Review of Books, I think I have a much better grasp of the situation.
My previous post wasn't actually wrong, but according to the article there is reason for optimism. It is true that the current president Paul Kagame, the former leader of the RPF, the Tutsi military force that took control of the country and ended the genocide, exercises strict control over the population and suppresses dissent. This is something Rusesabagina, a Hutu, opposes. There are some though who feel that this is necessary right now to prevent another genocide and give the country the chance to engage economic and government reforms. Kagame's goals are lofty, and he seems to have the support of some in the West.
The fact remains though that the majority of the country is Hutu. It remains to be seen then how the majority will respond to suppression of dissent. It could end up leading to future violence if the Hutu population feels like second class citizens. According to the article, the potential for future ethnic cleansing lies just below the surface. On top of that, we have seen many leaders in the past resort to authoritarianism as a so-called temporary measure, and then later refuse to give up control.
There look to be so many ways that Rwanda could go wrong and devolve into violence again. There is a long history of civil war in the country even before 1994, and it is a past that will be hard not to repeat. I know the international community wants to see it remain stable, but if it doesn't, I wonder if they will get any real support this time around.
Saturday, March 31, 2007
Crashing the Gate
Summary:
I disagree with the foundation around which Crashing the Gate is based. Their binary view of the world, along with an inability to be objective, make it hard to take the book seriously.
I skimmed through Crashing the Gate because a friend lent it to me and wanted to know what I think about it. Overall, I have to say I completely disagree with their view of the world that makes the foundation for the book.
First of all, the authors portray a binary view of the world, where the only options are one or zero, right or wrong, liberal or conservative. In that view of the world, if you aren't far enough to the left, than you aren't really a Democrat. There is no middle ground. To them, groups like the DLC simply repackage Republican ideas, and people like Joe Lieberman are traitors.
It is obvious to anyone who knows me why I hate that mentality. I consider myself pretty moderate - especially on foreign policy - and I object to anyone who thinks I am a Republican pretending to be a Democrat. For things like abortion, the economy, and taxes, there is room in the middle that shouldn't be considered a capitulation or gutless compromise to Republicans.
Secondly, the authors tend towards the view that there is something inherent about being Republican that makes them more flawed and always wrong. In the Valerie Plame scandal, Joe Wilson was faultless; Cindy Sheehan is a brave mom, not a lunatic; and when Republicans run large deficits, they are irresponsible but Democrats do it because they have to. The fact that the authors show they are incapable of being objective is a tremendous flaw and makes it hard to take the book seriously.
In the end, the authors of the book seem to think that their movement, the netroots movement, will allow them to create a liberal party that doesn't have to be a big tent party. This is complete nonsense, and I think the recent elections show that. Many of the freshman Democrats are fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, or foreign policy hawks. Any party is going to have to include people who don't always toe the party line. Although it helps the party win elections, this isn't the reason the party needs to include them. A big tent party is necessary because when people only listen to other people who think like them, it limits policy possibilities and can push people into bad decisions (think the Bush administration, especially post-Powell).
In the end, I dislike Daily Kos so much because it shows the same intolerance for other points of view as the Bush Administration does. For many of the far left, there was no good reason to support Chief Justice Roberts, and no reason to stay in Iraq. As long as this is the case, the far left and the far right will continue to yell past each other and never make any progress.
I disagree with the foundation around which Crashing the Gate is based. Their binary view of the world, along with an inability to be objective, make it hard to take the book seriously.
I skimmed through Crashing the Gate because a friend lent it to me and wanted to know what I think about it. Overall, I have to say I completely disagree with their view of the world that makes the foundation for the book.
First of all, the authors portray a binary view of the world, where the only options are one or zero, right or wrong, liberal or conservative. In that view of the world, if you aren't far enough to the left, than you aren't really a Democrat. There is no middle ground. To them, groups like the DLC simply repackage Republican ideas, and people like Joe Lieberman are traitors.
It is obvious to anyone who knows me why I hate that mentality. I consider myself pretty moderate - especially on foreign policy - and I object to anyone who thinks I am a Republican pretending to be a Democrat. For things like abortion, the economy, and taxes, there is room in the middle that shouldn't be considered a capitulation or gutless compromise to Republicans.
Secondly, the authors tend towards the view that there is something inherent about being Republican that makes them more flawed and always wrong. In the Valerie Plame scandal, Joe Wilson was faultless; Cindy Sheehan is a brave mom, not a lunatic; and when Republicans run large deficits, they are irresponsible but Democrats do it because they have to. The fact that the authors show they are incapable of being objective is a tremendous flaw and makes it hard to take the book seriously.
In the end, the authors of the book seem to think that their movement, the netroots movement, will allow them to create a liberal party that doesn't have to be a big tent party. This is complete nonsense, and I think the recent elections show that. Many of the freshman Democrats are fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, or foreign policy hawks. Any party is going to have to include people who don't always toe the party line. Although it helps the party win elections, this isn't the reason the party needs to include them. A big tent party is necessary because when people only listen to other people who think like them, it limits policy possibilities and can push people into bad decisions (think the Bush administration, especially post-Powell).
In the end, I dislike Daily Kos so much because it shows the same intolerance for other points of view as the Bush Administration does. For many of the far left, there was no good reason to support Chief Justice Roberts, and no reason to stay in Iraq. As long as this is the case, the far left and the far right will continue to yell past each other and never make any progress.
Insert Pig Analogy Here
Summary:
Democrats are just as guilty of pork spending as the Republicans were. But maybe we should blame ourselves.
Did anyone else believe that the Democrats might actually follow through on their pledge to end pork and become fiscally responsible? I'll admit that I kind of believed them. Well, if you look at the recent war supplemental (which looks like it is headed for a veto anyway), you'll see that the Democrats are just as bad as the Republicans were. In some ways, their hypocrisy enrages me. At the same time though, I guess I need to recognize the hypocrisy of the voters. We lambaste politicians for pork spending, but then whether we vote for the incumbent in Congress depends in part on how much money they have brought back to the district. The more things change...
Democrats are just as guilty of pork spending as the Republicans were. But maybe we should blame ourselves.
Did anyone else believe that the Democrats might actually follow through on their pledge to end pork and become fiscally responsible? I'll admit that I kind of believed them. Well, if you look at the recent war supplemental (which looks like it is headed for a veto anyway), you'll see that the Democrats are just as bad as the Republicans were. In some ways, their hypocrisy enrages me. At the same time though, I guess I need to recognize the hypocrisy of the voters. We lambaste politicians for pork spending, but then whether we vote for the incumbent in Congress depends in part on how much money they have brought back to the district. The more things change...
Quagmire Anyone?
Summary:
Despite my strong belief that we need to stay in Iraq, sometimes I sink into despair over our inability to improve the situation. Maybe it is a quagmire. We can't leave, but our presence doesn't seem to be improving the situation for the long run.
I have realized that I tend to vacillate between two feelings on the war in Iraq. Most often, I am sure that people like John McCain and and many others are right that we need to stay in Iraq - that if we leave the region will fall apart. A war that brings in Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey will be bad for our energy needs and our security.
Sometimes though I am overcome by despair and depression. This usually happens after reading an article like this one, where I see that our presence in Iraq is providing some temporary solutions and saving some lives in the short run, but that in the end, the militant groups are winning the day.
When I feel this way, I don't change my mind really about whether or not we should stay. But I do become less sure of that position. As I thought about this last night, I actually allowed myself to use the word quagmire. For so long I have fought against that word when friends and pundits used it to describe Iraq. I was sure that Iraq was not a quagmire; it was not Vietnam.
Now, though I have to admit that it does seem like a quagmire, even if it isn't quite the same as Vietnam. No matter what mood I am in, I firmly believe that if we leave, the region will devolve into a war with many more casualties. On the other hand, we have been in Iraq for four years and with each day the violence increases and stability decreases. At these times, I find it difficult to convince myself that Iraq will become stable enough for us to leave anytime in the next five years.
Unfortunately, I still think the best option is to stay to see if we can do anything in the next two years. But I don't feel good about it. So I am left feeling depressed about the situation there, depressed about our inability to do anything about it, and depressed that more Americans will have to die just to prevent a civil war from becoming a regional war. I have to say though, I completely agree with Thomas Friedman when he says that he'll agree to the surge if Bush makes all Americans get involved (and this means more than to continue shopping). Granted, I don't Democrats calling for that either.
Despite my strong belief that we need to stay in Iraq, sometimes I sink into despair over our inability to improve the situation. Maybe it is a quagmire. We can't leave, but our presence doesn't seem to be improving the situation for the long run.
I have realized that I tend to vacillate between two feelings on the war in Iraq. Most often, I am sure that people like John McCain and and many others are right that we need to stay in Iraq - that if we leave the region will fall apart. A war that brings in Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey will be bad for our energy needs and our security.
Sometimes though I am overcome by despair and depression. This usually happens after reading an article like this one, where I see that our presence in Iraq is providing some temporary solutions and saving some lives in the short run, but that in the end, the militant groups are winning the day.
When I feel this way, I don't change my mind really about whether or not we should stay. But I do become less sure of that position. As I thought about this last night, I actually allowed myself to use the word quagmire. For so long I have fought against that word when friends and pundits used it to describe Iraq. I was sure that Iraq was not a quagmire; it was not Vietnam.
Now, though I have to admit that it does seem like a quagmire, even if it isn't quite the same as Vietnam. No matter what mood I am in, I firmly believe that if we leave, the region will devolve into a war with many more casualties. On the other hand, we have been in Iraq for four years and with each day the violence increases and stability decreases. At these times, I find it difficult to convince myself that Iraq will become stable enough for us to leave anytime in the next five years.
Unfortunately, I still think the best option is to stay to see if we can do anything in the next two years. But I don't feel good about it. So I am left feeling depressed about the situation there, depressed about our inability to do anything about it, and depressed that more Americans will have to die just to prevent a civil war from becoming a regional war. I have to say though, I completely agree with Thomas Friedman when he says that he'll agree to the surge if Bush makes all Americans get involved (and this means more than to continue shopping). Granted, I don't Democrats calling for that either.
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Grading the Presidents
Summary:
In his interview on the Daily Show, Brzezinski made some very sharp and very true attacks on Bush Jr's foreign policy - attacks even a Republican should agree with. Is anyone surprised Brzezinski gave him an 'F'?
I was watching some recent interviews from the Daily Show on their website this past weekend, and caught Zbigniew Brzezinski talking about his new book Second Chance: Three Presidents and the Crisis of American Superpower. The interview was enough to make me want to read his book, which grades the foreign policies of the three president we have had since the end of the Cold War. Needless to say, Bush, Jr. got an 'F' (Bush Sr. got a 'B' and Clinton a 'C').
His comments were so compact but powerful. Here are some of his comments - quoted as best as I can from notes I took:
"Bush believes that our (his) moral superiority justifies immoral acts." Many other people have attacked Bush for this as well. There is apparently a belief among Bush and his administration that our righteousness is self-evident, that even though we torture prisoners in secret detention centers, the world will understand that we are the good guys, and they are the bad guys. Bush sees the world this way (Brzezinski called it "Manichean Paranoia") and is unable to realize that the rest of the world finds this bogus, and because they do we lose our moral authority.
"To lead effectively, you need the trust of other nations. Bush has squandered respect for our power. His foreign policy is dividing our friends and uniting our enemies." Unfortunately, this is something most conservatives don't realize. They still think might makes right. But we are weaker when we don't have international support. Furthermore, our invasion of Iraq and subsequent mismanagement, our refusal to get involved in the peace process in Israel and Palestine except to give Israel our blind support have all increased animosity towards us in the Middle East. Everyone agrees that support for the US was at its peak after 9/11 and our invasion of Afghanistan. Since then, our policies have completely reversed that.
"Leadership requires making sacrifices and to adjust to inequalities in the world. We need to have a sense of social responsibility." I get the feeling Bush doesn't really understand the meaning of sacrifice (growing up as he did, I am not surprised). He feels like we can continue to consume oil with abandon, allow carbon emissions to increase without government involvement, and spend government funds without a care for who will pay for it. Furthermore, our actions around the world show a complete lack of restraint. We went into Iraq without listening to legitimate concerns of the international community. At the same time we look at other crises in the world and don't feel compelled to act.
As I wrap this up, I realize that this post is not very coherent. If you feel that way, I urge you to just read Brzezinski's quotes and meditate on them for a while. If you are a Republican and don't see any truth to them, you need to meditate longer.
In his interview on the Daily Show, Brzezinski made some very sharp and very true attacks on Bush Jr's foreign policy - attacks even a Republican should agree with. Is anyone surprised Brzezinski gave him an 'F'?
I was watching some recent interviews from the Daily Show on their website this past weekend, and caught Zbigniew Brzezinski talking about his new book Second Chance: Three Presidents and the Crisis of American Superpower. The interview was enough to make me want to read his book, which grades the foreign policies of the three president we have had since the end of the Cold War. Needless to say, Bush, Jr. got an 'F' (Bush Sr. got a 'B' and Clinton a 'C').
His comments were so compact but powerful. Here are some of his comments - quoted as best as I can from notes I took:
"Bush believes that our (his) moral superiority justifies immoral acts." Many other people have attacked Bush for this as well. There is apparently a belief among Bush and his administration that our righteousness is self-evident, that even though we torture prisoners in secret detention centers, the world will understand that we are the good guys, and they are the bad guys. Bush sees the world this way (Brzezinski called it "Manichean Paranoia") and is unable to realize that the rest of the world finds this bogus, and because they do we lose our moral authority.
"To lead effectively, you need the trust of other nations. Bush has squandered respect for our power. His foreign policy is dividing our friends and uniting our enemies." Unfortunately, this is something most conservatives don't realize. They still think might makes right. But we are weaker when we don't have international support. Furthermore, our invasion of Iraq and subsequent mismanagement, our refusal to get involved in the peace process in Israel and Palestine except to give Israel our blind support have all increased animosity towards us in the Middle East. Everyone agrees that support for the US was at its peak after 9/11 and our invasion of Afghanistan. Since then, our policies have completely reversed that.
"Leadership requires making sacrifices and to adjust to inequalities in the world. We need to have a sense of social responsibility." I get the feeling Bush doesn't really understand the meaning of sacrifice (growing up as he did, I am not surprised). He feels like we can continue to consume oil with abandon, allow carbon emissions to increase without government involvement, and spend government funds without a care for who will pay for it. Furthermore, our actions around the world show a complete lack of restraint. We went into Iraq without listening to legitimate concerns of the international community. At the same time we look at other crises in the world and don't feel compelled to act.
As I wrap this up, I realize that this post is not very coherent. If you feel that way, I urge you to just read Brzezinski's quotes and meditate on them for a while. If you are a Republican and don't see any truth to them, you need to meditate longer.
Timetable
Summary:
I don't agree with the timetable provisions in the supplemental appropriation. But they are coming from a very real and justified frustration with Bush's ineptitude and poor handling of the war.
Let me just say that I don't agree with the Democrat's timetable provisions in the supplemental appropriation bills. Granted, the non-binding version in the Senate is harmless, but I still wouldn't vote for it. The binding version in the House is even worse. The truth that most Democrats can't seem to get is that if we leave Iraq, it will devolve into a civil war. The violence now is Shiite against Sunni - not a nationalist insurgency against occupation - and our presence is mitigating that violence. If we were to leave, there would be nothing holding back the Mahdi Army from chasing Sunnis out of Baghdad entirely, and no one supporting the fledging government's security services. I know I sound like a broken record, but I will feel the need to say this as long as Democrats are pushing for it.
At the same time though, I think Bush and fellow Republicans need to realize that the popularity of this movement is a direct response to policy failures in Iraq. It took this administration three years to learn that it needs to increase troop levels and actually take on an insurgency, instead of declaring it dead and then hoping your words make it true. De-Baathification (another failed Bush policy) is finally being reversed, which might help stem the violence in the long run. Americans are so angry with the war that they just want it to end and don't want to think about the consequences. The fact is, the Bush administration has been so convinced of its policies that it ignored all outside voices. Now, it is paying for that mistake. But when I read his remarks about Congress's timetable, he seems oblivious to what is driving this and clueless to his past mistakes and ineptitude. The worst part is that the Iraqi population actually pays for Bush's mistakes far more than he ever will.
I don't agree with the timetable provisions in the supplemental appropriation. But they are coming from a very real and justified frustration with Bush's ineptitude and poor handling of the war.
Let me just say that I don't agree with the Democrat's timetable provisions in the supplemental appropriation bills. Granted, the non-binding version in the Senate is harmless, but I still wouldn't vote for it. The binding version in the House is even worse. The truth that most Democrats can't seem to get is that if we leave Iraq, it will devolve into a civil war. The violence now is Shiite against Sunni - not a nationalist insurgency against occupation - and our presence is mitigating that violence. If we were to leave, there would be nothing holding back the Mahdi Army from chasing Sunnis out of Baghdad entirely, and no one supporting the fledging government's security services. I know I sound like a broken record, but I will feel the need to say this as long as Democrats are pushing for it.
At the same time though, I think Bush and fellow Republicans need to realize that the popularity of this movement is a direct response to policy failures in Iraq. It took this administration three years to learn that it needs to increase troop levels and actually take on an insurgency, instead of declaring it dead and then hoping your words make it true. De-Baathification (another failed Bush policy) is finally being reversed, which might help stem the violence in the long run. Americans are so angry with the war that they just want it to end and don't want to think about the consequences. The fact is, the Bush administration has been so convinced of its policies that it ignored all outside voices. Now, it is paying for that mistake. But when I read his remarks about Congress's timetable, he seems oblivious to what is driving this and clueless to his past mistakes and ineptitude. The worst part is that the Iraqi population actually pays for Bush's mistakes far more than he ever will.
Pakistan's Moderates
Summary:
The Bush administration says that President Musharraf's iron fist in Pakistan is the only thing preventing the rise of an Islamic state with control over nuclear weapons. There are others though who think that a true democracy would yield a moderate government.
I think this is a very important opinion piece. The Bush administration, and plenty of analysts, believe that we need President / General Musharraf to remain in control of Pakistan and its nuclear weapons. The fear is that Islamic groups, like the ones that are protecting Bin Laden and Al Qaeda in the border regions near Afghanistan, would rise up and take control over the country. For this reason, we tolerate an oppressive regime that took control in a military coup. This opinion piece though argues that Muslim extremist groups are not popular in Pakistan and that a moderate government would come to power. But the longer Musharraf remains in control of an illegitimate government, the more he strengthens extremist groups and weakens the moderates. Since Bush and his neo-cons are so fond of spreading Democracy, maybe we should start with some places where we could really exert some pressure - like Pakistan.
The Bush administration says that President Musharraf's iron fist in Pakistan is the only thing preventing the rise of an Islamic state with control over nuclear weapons. There are others though who think that a true democracy would yield a moderate government.
I think this is a very important opinion piece. The Bush administration, and plenty of analysts, believe that we need President / General Musharraf to remain in control of Pakistan and its nuclear weapons. The fear is that Islamic groups, like the ones that are protecting Bin Laden and Al Qaeda in the border regions near Afghanistan, would rise up and take control over the country. For this reason, we tolerate an oppressive regime that took control in a military coup. This opinion piece though argues that Muslim extremist groups are not popular in Pakistan and that a moderate government would come to power. But the longer Musharraf remains in control of an illegitimate government, the more he strengthens extremist groups and weakens the moderates. Since Bush and his neo-cons are so fond of spreading Democracy, maybe we should start with some places where we could really exert some pressure - like Pakistan.
New Format
By the way, I am trying a new format. I am including a summary at the beginning of my posts. This way, people know what my post will be about and can choose to read it or move to the next one. I think of it as mixing USA Today with the New York Times (don't worry, I don't really think I am as good as the Times, but I thought the comparison was somewhat apt since I am long winded and most frequently link to the Times).
Richardson at DL21C
Summary:
I saw Bill Richardson speak Monday night. He is the most qualified candidate and has lots of good ideas. But alas, his Iraq War policy is a pipe dream.
On Monday night I saw Governor Bill Richardson speak at an event sponsored by the DL21C (Democratic Leadership for the 21st Century). What came across loud and clear was that he is by far the most qualified person in the field. He is the former Secretary of Energy and ambassador to the United Nations. He is a two-term governor of New Mexico and has made some tremendous strides in the state (increased business investment, balanced the budget, improved education).
Energy and foreign policy will probably be our biggest challenges in the near future, and he has experience and good ideas in both arenas. His plan to decrease our dependence on foreign oil is extremely ambitious. In fact it is so ambitious, it almost seems laughable (decrease amount of oil we import from 65% to 10% in ten years) until you realize that he is serious about it and will actually ask Americans to make sacrifices. That leads into foreign policy in that we will be less dependent on countries like Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and Nigeria. But he also wants us to display moral leadership and get involved in Sudan and other crises in Africa that we choose to ignore.
I know I said in a previous post that experience isn't everything. I said we should give Obama a chance; that sometimes, new ideas and a keen intellect might be enough. I still stand by that - but when someone shows up with this much experience and a wealth of good ideas, I can't help but move in his direction.
Unfortunately, there is a downside. Like some of the other Democratic contenders, Richardson is calling for an immediate, but dignified withdrawal of Iraq. This is a pipe dream - a fantasy. Either we leave and watch the country devolve into a civil war that will pull in Saudi Arabia, Iran and Turkey (at a minimum), or we stay and try to help them work towards some sort of stability.
So in the end, I find myself a little divided. I think I will still continue to support Richardson, but it will be hard to vote for someone who is either delusional about Iraq, or just lying about the ease of an American withdrawal. I will have to console myself that his plan to bring Iran and Syria in could help while having faith that if things do fall apart, he won't just turn his back.
I saw Bill Richardson speak Monday night. He is the most qualified candidate and has lots of good ideas. But alas, his Iraq War policy is a pipe dream.
On Monday night I saw Governor Bill Richardson speak at an event sponsored by the DL21C (Democratic Leadership for the 21st Century). What came across loud and clear was that he is by far the most qualified person in the field. He is the former Secretary of Energy and ambassador to the United Nations. He is a two-term governor of New Mexico and has made some tremendous strides in the state (increased business investment, balanced the budget, improved education).
Energy and foreign policy will probably be our biggest challenges in the near future, and he has experience and good ideas in both arenas. His plan to decrease our dependence on foreign oil is extremely ambitious. In fact it is so ambitious, it almost seems laughable (decrease amount of oil we import from 65% to 10% in ten years) until you realize that he is serious about it and will actually ask Americans to make sacrifices. That leads into foreign policy in that we will be less dependent on countries like Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and Nigeria. But he also wants us to display moral leadership and get involved in Sudan and other crises in Africa that we choose to ignore.
I know I said in a previous post that experience isn't everything. I said we should give Obama a chance; that sometimes, new ideas and a keen intellect might be enough. I still stand by that - but when someone shows up with this much experience and a wealth of good ideas, I can't help but move in his direction.
Unfortunately, there is a downside. Like some of the other Democratic contenders, Richardson is calling for an immediate, but dignified withdrawal of Iraq. This is a pipe dream - a fantasy. Either we leave and watch the country devolve into a civil war that will pull in Saudi Arabia, Iran and Turkey (at a minimum), or we stay and try to help them work towards some sort of stability.
So in the end, I find myself a little divided. I think I will still continue to support Richardson, but it will be hard to vote for someone who is either delusional about Iraq, or just lying about the ease of an American withdrawal. I will have to console myself that his plan to bring Iran and Syria in could help while having faith that if things do fall apart, he won't just turn his back.
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Pelosi, Although Slow and Dangerous Behind the Wheel
As long as Democrats aren't successful, then I agree with Friedman ($) that Pelosi's resistance to Bush's war policy is actually constructive. Although I don't think Iraq is to blame for not having put the country back together yet (that blame lies with us, and people like Tom Vilsack are stupid for even suggesting otherwise), I do think it is useful for the Iraqi government to know that they need to make concessions soon because the Democrats won't allow an extended troop presence. But equally important is Friedman's point that we also need to hope that General Petraeus can make the surge successful. We need some form of stability in Iraq before we can leave. I can't stress this enough.
Let My Poultry Go
I don't know if my favorite vegan would be surprised to hear this or not, but I agree with every word of this opinion piece($). Here is a highlight for those of you who don't have TimesSelect:
Numerous studies have documented crated sows exhibiting behavior characteristic of humans with severe depression and mental illness. Getting rid of gestation crates (already on their way out in the European Union) is welcome and long overdue, but more action is needed to end inhumane conditions at America's hog farms.Basically, I think animals should be treated much better than they are; this is in their interest and in ours. To put animals in unsanitary situations where disease is rampant and combat this by injecting the animals with very high levels of antibiotics can't be good for consumers, and it certainly isn't good for the animals. Free range pork and free range chicken - or at least cage-free - should be the norm, not the expensive exception.
Why Chavez?
To continue on the foreign policy trend, I think the popularity of Hugo Chavez can teach us something important. This article talks about Chavez's appeal in terms of his message of South American empowerment. Although there are many flaws in his positions, he articulates an alternative to US policies that always ensure that South America remains dependent on us. Right now, Chavez is the only alternative for people who are sick of our pressure for policies that always benefit the US (despite Bush's push for ethanol while in Brazil, he is still unwilling to end protectionist tariffs on imported sugar cane-based ethanol). If we were honest about free trade and if our policies really were fair to all parties, demagogues like Chavez would have much less appeal.
Surprisingly, President Bush has moved a bit in the right direction with this change in agriculture subsidies. Hopefully the Democratic Congress will not cave into the giant Agribusiness lobby, but I am worried. In the meantime, even people who see through Chavez will continue to be drawn to his message of empowerment.
Surprisingly, President Bush has moved a bit in the right direction with this change in agriculture subsidies. Hopefully the Democratic Congress will not cave into the giant Agribusiness lobby, but I am worried. In the meantime, even people who see through Chavez will continue to be drawn to his message of empowerment.
Pick a Side
I can't stress how important this debate is and I wish people really thought about it more. Do we want to use force or do we want to stress diplomacy to accomplish our foreign policy aims? As I see it, one cannot work without the other, although I think Bush is just learning this. The question though is which should we stress?
I think it is undeniable that in Iraq we should have stressed diplomacy, sanctions, and working with the international community. In fact, sometimes force and the threat of force only makes leaders of rogue states stronger. Unfortunately, in our dealings with Iran it seems like we haven't learned any of these lessons (for a really funny take on this, check out Kristof's column where he shows just how much bad decisions can hurt our cause - more so than espionage). Of the candidates on the left, I get the impression that Bill Richardson knows how to stress diplomacy while still showing that the US can use force.
I think it is undeniable that in Iraq we should have stressed diplomacy, sanctions, and working with the international community. In fact, sometimes force and the threat of force only makes leaders of rogue states stronger. Unfortunately, in our dealings with Iran it seems like we haven't learned any of these lessons (for a really funny take on this, check out Kristof's column where he shows just how much bad decisions can hurt our cause - more so than espionage). Of the candidates on the left, I get the impression that Bill Richardson knows how to stress diplomacy while still showing that the US can use force.
Monday, March 19, 2007
The Purse Strings
I know I post a lot about education policy; quite often I talk about early intervention, improving middle schools, and rigor in high schools. The bottom line though is that none of it is really worth talking about if we don't change the way we allocate funds. The only way we can eliminate the achievement gap is by making a determined effort to support schools with the greatest need. This means giving more funding to New York City and Syracuse, and less to Long Island and the Hudson Valley.
The problem is that this isn't politically popular. As you can see in this article, the schools in the suburbs want to protect their own interests and are resistant to any decreases in funding. But if funding doesn't decrease in the areas that can afford it, there is little chance of significant increases to schools that need it - there is only so much room in the state budget.
Policy discussions are necessary, but the real action is in the budget. When programs aren't adequately funded, the policy cannot succeed. It is that simple. So don't expect any major improvements in achievement until serious funding changes are made.
The problem is that this isn't politically popular. As you can see in this article, the schools in the suburbs want to protect their own interests and are resistant to any decreases in funding. But if funding doesn't decrease in the areas that can afford it, there is little chance of significant increases to schools that need it - there is only so much room in the state budget.
Policy discussions are necessary, but the real action is in the budget. When programs aren't adequately funded, the policy cannot succeed. It is that simple. So don't expect any major improvements in achievement until serious funding changes are made.
In Sports, I Follow People
I don't usually write about sports, but I think I just realized something. The sports teams I follow - both now and as a kid - revolve around some person that excites me. As a kid, I liked the Detroit Tigers, New York Mets, St. Louis Cardinals, and Oakland Athletics. I used to be embarrassed about this apparent fickleness because I thought it meant I was a front runner. The reality is that only two of those teams actually won while I was a fan (the Tigers and Cards weren't good in the late 1980s). But the truth is that I liked those teams because of a player that thrilled me. For the Tigers it was Jack Morris, the Mets it was Ron Darling and Lenny Dykstra, it was Ozzie Smith on the Cardinals, and of course Mark McGwire on the A's.
The reason I realized this now is because I am finding myself rooting for the New York Islanders, a team I have long despised almost as much as the New Jersey Devils. I am rooting for them because they finally hired Ted Nolan. For those of you who don't know, Ted Nolan was the head coach of the Buffalo Sabres back in the mid 1990s. He won coach of the year in 1997, was fired / not given a contract extension for the following season, and hasn't coached since. I have long thought the reason he wasn't offered a job since then was racism - Ted Nolan is an American Indian and grew up on the Garden River First Nation Reserve.
The truth is that he and his boss, General Manager John Muckler didn't get along, nor did he get along with goalie Dominic Hasek. But for anyone who knows the NHL, they will agree that many coaches have bad reputations for not getting along with GMs and star players, but still get hired if they have had some success (Mike Keenan is the best example of this). Ted Nolan won coach of the year because his Sabres that year played well above anyone's expectations. In light of all this, I was never able to understand why he wasn't hired.
But after a long absence, Ted Nolan is back and I find myself doing the unthinkable, rooting for the Islanders (I think I might even root for them to make the playoffs over the Rangers). For those of you who are unconvinced, here is a recent interview I read.
The reason I realized this now is because I am finding myself rooting for the New York Islanders, a team I have long despised almost as much as the New Jersey Devils. I am rooting for them because they finally hired Ted Nolan. For those of you who don't know, Ted Nolan was the head coach of the Buffalo Sabres back in the mid 1990s. He won coach of the year in 1997, was fired / not given a contract extension for the following season, and hasn't coached since. I have long thought the reason he wasn't offered a job since then was racism - Ted Nolan is an American Indian and grew up on the Garden River First Nation Reserve.
The truth is that he and his boss, General Manager John Muckler didn't get along, nor did he get along with goalie Dominic Hasek. But for anyone who knows the NHL, they will agree that many coaches have bad reputations for not getting along with GMs and star players, but still get hired if they have had some success (Mike Keenan is the best example of this). Ted Nolan won coach of the year because his Sabres that year played well above anyone's expectations. In light of all this, I was never able to understand why he wasn't hired.
But after a long absence, Ted Nolan is back and I find myself doing the unthinkable, rooting for the Islanders (I think I might even root for them to make the playoffs over the Rangers). For those of you who are unconvinced, here is a recent interview I read.
Sunday, March 18, 2007
Closing Schools
I feel like this is the part of No Child Left Behind that people don't talk about enough. When schools fail to perform, they are closed down and students are sent to other schools. While it makes sense that poor performing schools shouldn’t just be allowed to continue operating as usual, closing them isn’t having any effect either. A friend in Syracuse told me about one of their schools that closed down. In response, the city essentially sent the kids to another school with a different name; it is still plagued with the same problems. It appears that the schools in the NYC are having the same problems.
The fact is, closing the school and opening it under a new name doesn’t change what is causing poor performance. What we need to do is decide that we are truly serious about changing education results in low income areas. While there has been a lot of lip service given to this, too many groups are actually standing in the way of meaningful reforms. To my mind, one of the best things we can do is to pay teachers a premium to teach in these areas. Data shows that low income areas on average have teachers with less experience.
This makes perfect sense economically; if you are paid the same whether you teach in a school with a challenging education environment or less of a challenging environment, more often than not you will choose the easier environment. I think NYC Department of Education is trying to do this though a new focus on weighted student funding. The unions are of course opposing this, which is really unfortunate because the unions are so strong they can kill almost any proposal or evolution. But make no mistake, we need to make this decision or else we cannot actually deal with the achievement gap. We need to say that we are willing to spend a lot more money in low performing areas, and that includes paying teachers more to teach there.
The fact is, closing the school and opening it under a new name doesn’t change what is causing poor performance. What we need to do is decide that we are truly serious about changing education results in low income areas. While there has been a lot of lip service given to this, too many groups are actually standing in the way of meaningful reforms. To my mind, one of the best things we can do is to pay teachers a premium to teach in these areas. Data shows that low income areas on average have teachers with less experience.
This makes perfect sense economically; if you are paid the same whether you teach in a school with a challenging education environment or less of a challenging environment, more often than not you will choose the easier environment. I think NYC Department of Education is trying to do this though a new focus on weighted student funding. The unions are of course opposing this, which is really unfortunate because the unions are so strong they can kill almost any proposal or evolution. But make no mistake, we need to make this decision or else we cannot actually deal with the achievement gap. We need to say that we are willing to spend a lot more money in low performing areas, and that includes paying teachers more to teach there.
Unions Protect the Worst
I don’t think I could either be classified as pro-union or anti-union (as a whole, I have been rejecting the idea of binary distinctions lately). I certainly recognize the roll unions have played in our history – the 40 hour work week, child labor laws, safe working conditions – the list goes on. But at the same time, I recognize their significant flaws. Above all, their goal is to protect their workers, but in executing this they frequently rely on an adversarial, and unproductive, relationship with management, and worse spend much effort defending poor-performing workers.
When I was an undergraduate, I had a part-time job on campus driving some of the trades workers around campus to perform their duties. Almost all of the workers were excellent and competent. There was one, the electrician, who was notoriously slow, lazy, and adept at hiding and avoiding work. He refused to carry a radio so that he could not be found and dispatched to his next assignment – and in other ways ensured that he would have maximum time between tasks and thereby accomplishing a minimum. Every time management tried to confront him, he filed a grievance and the union defended him. In a small way, the campus would have functioned better if it could have fired the electrician and hired someone willing to work hard for the pay and generous benefits offered by the university.
I see teacher tenure in the same way. In K-12 I see no reason that tenure should exist – in academia I see that it is meant to protect professors and allow them to conduct research that may be unpopular. Teachers unions though protect tenure with all of their effort. In my mind, a system of teacher tenure only protects the low-performing teachers. As a product of public school, I can remember a few teachers who had either long since lost their ability to reach the students, or quite possibly didn’t have it in the first place. The school should have had the ability to fire these teachers if they weren’t effective. Instead, every year 25 students (more or less) had to suffer through a class with this teacher.
This is the fundamental problem I have with unions – their desire to protect the worst employees instead of the best. I am sure the logic is that by protecting the worst, they are protecting all – but I don’t see it that way. I have seen how employee moral can be affected by lazy employees who are never disciplined. What makes me really angry is that the unions want to increase their grab to cover charter schools as well. The idea behind charter schools is to make them closer to their private school counterparts, with more flexibility in curriculum and staff management (hiring and firing teachers, hours and responsibilities, etc). Forcing them to unionize only makes them more like public schools - cumbersome and slow to evolve.
When I was an undergraduate, I had a part-time job on campus driving some of the trades workers around campus to perform their duties. Almost all of the workers were excellent and competent. There was one, the electrician, who was notoriously slow, lazy, and adept at hiding and avoiding work. He refused to carry a radio so that he could not be found and dispatched to his next assignment – and in other ways ensured that he would have maximum time between tasks and thereby accomplishing a minimum. Every time management tried to confront him, he filed a grievance and the union defended him. In a small way, the campus would have functioned better if it could have fired the electrician and hired someone willing to work hard for the pay and generous benefits offered by the university.
I see teacher tenure in the same way. In K-12 I see no reason that tenure should exist – in academia I see that it is meant to protect professors and allow them to conduct research that may be unpopular. Teachers unions though protect tenure with all of their effort. In my mind, a system of teacher tenure only protects the low-performing teachers. As a product of public school, I can remember a few teachers who had either long since lost their ability to reach the students, or quite possibly didn’t have it in the first place. The school should have had the ability to fire these teachers if they weren’t effective. Instead, every year 25 students (more or less) had to suffer through a class with this teacher.
This is the fundamental problem I have with unions – their desire to protect the worst employees instead of the best. I am sure the logic is that by protecting the worst, they are protecting all – but I don’t see it that way. I have seen how employee moral can be affected by lazy employees who are never disciplined. What makes me really angry is that the unions want to increase their grab to cover charter schools as well. The idea behind charter schools is to make them closer to their private school counterparts, with more flexibility in curriculum and staff management (hiring and firing teachers, hours and responsibilities, etc). Forcing them to unionize only makes them more like public schools - cumbersome and slow to evolve.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Richardson for President?
So I finally checked out Bill Richardson's presidential exploratory webpage, since the media hasn't been feeding me too much about him. I have to say I am pretty excited by what I found out. He is a former ambassador to the UN, former head of the Department of Energy, and now two term governor. He seems to have plenty of experience as an executive, and has strong foreign policy and energy credentials, which right now go well together.
Also, I find his message pretty compelling. His foreign policy vision is sound - more diplomacy without backing off our military strength, renewed efforts to fight Al Qaeda and international terrorism, and of course energy independence. He has made two trips to Sudan for negotiations, met with Saddam before the war to negotiate prisoner releases, and met with the President of Mexico to discuss immigration issues.
Since we are talking about it, his immigration policy is pretty strong as well and he isn't afraid to use tough language about standards for any legal immigrants that are granted amnesty or let in as guest workers (although at times the language did seem a little too tough). I of course love his message of bipartisanship (which to me just means less animosity), but I am a sucker for that. And his healthcare and economy talking points seem to make sense. (Although anyone thinking he can replicate his economic success in New Mexico should take caution. I think it is much easier to attract businesses as a governor because when you lower taxes you can steal businesses from other states. I don't think that works as well on a national level.)
The one place where I do disagree with him though is on Iraq. I don't agree with the rhetoric about forcing Iraq to take control of their own security. It is a little ridiculous to expect a country to stop violence that we have created, and step into a vacuum with a military and police that we disbanded. The reason they haven't stepped up yet is because they lack the capability - pure and simple. As I see it, a significant troop draw-down in the near future will only lead to a much worse civil war between Sunnis and Shiites - and more power to Iran and / or Al Sadr in the end.
Overall though, I really do like Richardson. He seems very smart and thoughtful, which is important. Also, his policy recommendations seem realistic and progressive. And, even though I don't think experience is always the most important criteria, he does seem to the best qualified of the major contenders. My hope is that his message actually gets a real chance to be heard. This might not be possible though since Hillary, Obama, and even Edwards are talking over everyone else right now.
Also, I find his message pretty compelling. His foreign policy vision is sound - more diplomacy without backing off our military strength, renewed efforts to fight Al Qaeda and international terrorism, and of course energy independence. He has made two trips to Sudan for negotiations, met with Saddam before the war to negotiate prisoner releases, and met with the President of Mexico to discuss immigration issues.
Since we are talking about it, his immigration policy is pretty strong as well and he isn't afraid to use tough language about standards for any legal immigrants that are granted amnesty or let in as guest workers (although at times the language did seem a little too tough). I of course love his message of bipartisanship (which to me just means less animosity), but I am a sucker for that. And his healthcare and economy talking points seem to make sense. (Although anyone thinking he can replicate his economic success in New Mexico should take caution. I think it is much easier to attract businesses as a governor because when you lower taxes you can steal businesses from other states. I don't think that works as well on a national level.)
The one place where I do disagree with him though is on Iraq. I don't agree with the rhetoric about forcing Iraq to take control of their own security. It is a little ridiculous to expect a country to stop violence that we have created, and step into a vacuum with a military and police that we disbanded. The reason they haven't stepped up yet is because they lack the capability - pure and simple. As I see it, a significant troop draw-down in the near future will only lead to a much worse civil war between Sunnis and Shiites - and more power to Iran and / or Al Sadr in the end.
Overall though, I really do like Richardson. He seems very smart and thoughtful, which is important. Also, his policy recommendations seem realistic and progressive. And, even though I don't think experience is always the most important criteria, he does seem to the best qualified of the major contenders. My hope is that his message actually gets a real chance to be heard. This might not be possible though since Hillary, Obama, and even Edwards are talking over everyone else right now.
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Stupid Presidents
Let's talk about Iran. I get angry every time I hear more news about the Administration's position. To me, the policy should be easy. The goal is to weaken their radical president. The best way to do that is to give no public indication that they are a strong nation while making every attempt to point out the country's weak economy. Our President though does the opposite, he talks about how much of a threat Iran is, and rarely mentions Ahmadinijad's poor leadership.
If I can say one thing about our President, it is that he is good at creating / inventing an enemy. He just made a statement that Iran is supplying arms to Iraq. Granted, this isn't something I contest. But his goal is to give the impression that if we fail in Iraq, it is because of Iran, not a poorly managed war. In the meantime, his actions are making Iran stronger, and giving them more influence in the region. Also, all this tough talk makes me worried that me might lead us into another war or even skirmish with Iran. And I am obviously not the only one since it seems like everyday the secretary of defense has to repeat that we are not going to attack Iran.
If I can say one thing about our President, it is that he is good at creating / inventing an enemy. He just made a statement that Iran is supplying arms to Iraq. Granted, this isn't something I contest. But his goal is to give the impression that if we fail in Iraq, it is because of Iran, not a poorly managed war. In the meantime, his actions are making Iran stronger, and giving them more influence in the region. Also, all this tough talk makes me worried that me might lead us into another war or even skirmish with Iran. And I am obviously not the only one since it seems like everyday the secretary of defense has to repeat that we are not going to attack Iran.
North Korea
I think this is very good news regarding North Korea. I don't know yet where most of the credit belongs (maybe with Secretary Rice?), although it looks like there were bilateral talks - interesting.
Sometimes I Am Wrong
Okay, so just after I finish bashing Hillary's position on the war, I read this ($), by David Brooks. Maybe I was wrong about her; her position does seem to be exactly how I would want a leader to have looked at the situation. Here are some highlights from the column:
If they went back and read what Senator Clinton was saying before the war, they’d be surprised, as I was, by her approach. And they’d learn something, as I did, about what kind of president she would make.I have a feeling that my opinions on the candidates will be changing a lot over the next year or so.
The Iraq war debate began in earnest in September 2002. At that point Clinton was saying in public what Colin Powell was saying in private: emphasizing the need to work through the U.N. and build a broad coalition to enforce inspections.
She delivered her Senate resolution speech on Oct. 10. It was Clintonian in character. On the one hand, she rejected the Bush policy of pre-emptive war. On the other hand, she also rejected the view that the international community “should only resort to force if and when the United Nations Security Council approves it.” Drawing on the lessons of Bosnia, she said sometimes the world had to act, even if the big powers couldn’t agree.
Sunday, February 11, 2007
Blizter v. Cheney
Wolf Blitzer had the following exchange in an interview with Vice President Cheney recently:
Even though I understand that, I still don't think it is right the way to handle it. In my opinion, the fight to give same sex individuals and couples the same rights as heterosexual couples is fundamentally about respect for the individual and their choices and lifestyles. By thrusting Mary Cheney into the spotlight, in the hopes that a big name conservative will do battle with the religious right, is unfair to her, and I think goes against the spirit behind our goals. Instead, whether she gets involved should be her choice, just like who she chooses to share her life with should also be her choice. If she were to enter the arena, and do battle with far-right conservatives, we would all rally behind her. But since she seems to not want that battle, we should respect that and respect her privacy.
BLITZER: We're out of time, but a couple of issues I want to raise with you. Your daughter, Mary. She's pregnant. All of us are happy. She's going to have a baby, you're going to have another grandchild. Some of the -- some critics, though, are suggesting -- for example, a statement from someone representing Focus on the Family, "Mary Cheney's pregnancy raises the question of what's best for children. Just because it's possible to conceive a child outside of the relationship of a married mother and father doesn't mean it's best for the child." Do you want to respond to that?Apparently, this whole interview was pretty contentious. But it is this last exchange that really struck me. I never really had a good feeling after the number of times I have seen Cheney confronted on this issue. It isn't that I don't see why people bring this up. The hope is that since Cheney obviously loves his daughter, he will want to defend her, and her lifestyle, against the ignorant comments coming from the far right.
CHENEY: No, I don't.
BLITZER: She's, obviously, a good daughter...
CHENEY: I'm delighted -- I'm delighted I'm about to have a sixth grandchild, Wolf. And obviously I think the world of both my daughters and all of my grandchildren. And I think, frankly, you're out of line with that question.
BLITZER: I think all of us appreciate...
CHENEY: I think you're out of line.
BLITZER: ...your daughters. No, we like your daughters. Believe me, I'm very, very sympathetic to Liz and to Mary. I like them both. That was just a question that's come up, and it's a responsible, fair question.
CHENEY: I just fundamentally disagree with you.
BLITZER: I want to congratulate you on having another grandchild.
Even though I understand that, I still don't think it is right the way to handle it. In my opinion, the fight to give same sex individuals and couples the same rights as heterosexual couples is fundamentally about respect for the individual and their choices and lifestyles. By thrusting Mary Cheney into the spotlight, in the hopes that a big name conservative will do battle with the religious right, is unfair to her, and I think goes against the spirit behind our goals. Instead, whether she gets involved should be her choice, just like who she chooses to share her life with should also be her choice. If she were to enter the arena, and do battle with far-right conservatives, we would all rally behind her. But since she seems to not want that battle, we should respect that and respect her privacy.
On the Primaries
There are some good articles on the main Democratic contenders for 2008. This one is pretty critical of Barak Obama, but at least it isn't talking about stupid electability issues like what his name rhymes with, whether president of Harvard Law Review is exactly the same as President of the United States, and his admitted drug usage. Basically it says he is running on a message of hope, without really talking about specific policy issues. I am in the process of reading his book; I'll see if he has actually outlined policies in that book.
Also, in this article, Hillary Clinton tried to defend her Iraq War vote by saying she wouldn't have supported it if she had the intelligence information she has now. This might fly with some people, but it doesn't work for me. We had all the information we needed to vote against the war. The weapons inspectors hadn't found anything, there was not a strong link between Saddam and Al Qaeda, and we were still trying to secure Afghanistan when we launched the war in Iraq. On top of that, the vote didn't restrict Bush at all, so you can't say you didn't know Bush would go to war without coming back to Congress.
This is the thing about Hillary Clinton that doesn't sit right with me. She seems like she is always trying to have it both ways. Granted, she isn't the only one. John Kerry was like that too. But the fact is, she made a decision to support the war and she needs to account for that. Either she still thinks it was a good idea, or she doesn't and needs to take responsibility for that (which could be hard since she probably supported the war because it was popular - not because it was necessary).
All of this makes me wish they cover Bill Richardson's campaign more.
Also, in this article, Hillary Clinton tried to defend her Iraq War vote by saying she wouldn't have supported it if she had the intelligence information she has now. This might fly with some people, but it doesn't work for me. We had all the information we needed to vote against the war. The weapons inspectors hadn't found anything, there was not a strong link between Saddam and Al Qaeda, and we were still trying to secure Afghanistan when we launched the war in Iraq. On top of that, the vote didn't restrict Bush at all, so you can't say you didn't know Bush would go to war without coming back to Congress.
This is the thing about Hillary Clinton that doesn't sit right with me. She seems like she is always trying to have it both ways. Granted, she isn't the only one. John Kerry was like that too. But the fact is, she made a decision to support the war and she needs to account for that. Either she still thinks it was a good idea, or she doesn't and needs to take responsibility for that (which could be hard since she probably supported the war because it was popular - not because it was necessary).
All of this makes me wish they cover Bill Richardson's campaign more.
Trouble with Iran
The situation with Iran is scaring me. My first thought about Bush's decision to send two (now three) carrier groups to the waters near Iran was that it is a false sign of strength. It was impossible for me to think that we would actually attack Iran, since we can't send in ground troops, and they could respond by invading Iraq. But I am again realizing that Bush is capable of something this stupid. Here is a quote from a Newsweek article:
Some view the spiraling attacks as a strand in a worrisome pattern. At least one former White House official contends that some Bush advisers secretly want an excuse to attack Iran. "They intend to be as provocative as possible and make the Iranians do something [America] would be forced to retaliate for," says Hillary Mann, the administration's former National Security Council director for Iran and Persian Gulf Affairs.Of course, the administration denies this - and hopefully this is untrue. My guess is that the administration is going to try to play up our failure as the result of Sunni insurgents battling Iranian puppets. Although both groups have some responsibility, in the end, the blame still rests on Bush. From the beginning, he tried to do this with too few troops, and only now has realized his blunder. The Sunni insurgency could have died before it go off the ground if we had fought the war right.
Sunday, February 04, 2007
Black Hawk Down - Follow-Up
There is a really interesting article ($) on the current situation in Somalia. The article protrays the situation as urgent; this may be the only chance to unite the clans. Based on the article, I get the feeling that nationalism isn't likely to unite the country as much as the Muslim religion might. Unfortunately, it would he hard to get the country to ralley behind religion without also supporting the Muslim extremists that Etheopia and America oppose.
Do not think this is unimportant. If the Muslim extremists take hold of the government, it will create another potential training ground for terrorists (or at least something similar to the government in Sudan). This should be getting more attention.
Do not think this is unimportant. If the Muslim extremists take hold of the government, it will create another potential training ground for terrorists (or at least something similar to the government in Sudan). This should be getting more attention.
In Case You Missed It
Some recent headlines:
Rehabilitating Robert Moses
[Editor's Note: Of course I disagree with his legacy of supporting highways over mass transportation, but I don't find this the worst part of his legacy because NYC's public transportation is still incredibly strong. No, the worst part is often overlooked - how some of his designs were meant to exclude the poor from certain public benefits.]
Editorial: Nicotine Manipulation Confirmed
Any doubts that the tobacco industry has surreptitiously raised the nicotine content of cigarettes should be laid to rest by a study from researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health. They confirmed last year's discovery of the nicotine increase by the Massachusetts Department of Public Health and went on to identify how the tobacco companies designed their cigarettes to accomplish this.
Second Thoughts on Gays in the Military
Last year I held a number of meetings with gay soldiers and marines, including some with combat experience in Iraq, and an openly gay senior sailor who was serving effectively as a member of a nuclear submarine crew. These conversations showed me just how much the military has changed, and that gays and lesbians can be accepted by their peers.
This perception is supported by a new Zogby poll of more than 500 service members returning from Afghanistan and Iraq, three quarters of whom said they were comfortable interacting with gay people. And 24 foreign nations, including Israel, Britain and other allies in the fight against terrorism, let gays serve openly, with none reporting morale or recruitment problems.
[I appoligize, the last two articles are now only offered on Times Select.]
Rehabilitating Robert Moses
[Editor's Note: Of course I disagree with his legacy of supporting highways over mass transportation, but I don't find this the worst part of his legacy because NYC's public transportation is still incredibly strong. No, the worst part is often overlooked - how some of his designs were meant to exclude the poor from certain public benefits.]
Editorial: Nicotine Manipulation Confirmed
Any doubts that the tobacco industry has surreptitiously raised the nicotine content of cigarettes should be laid to rest by a study from researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health. They confirmed last year's discovery of the nicotine increase by the Massachusetts Department of Public Health and went on to identify how the tobacco companies designed their cigarettes to accomplish this.
Second Thoughts on Gays in the Military
Last year I held a number of meetings with gay soldiers and marines, including some with combat experience in Iraq, and an openly gay senior sailor who was serving effectively as a member of a nuclear submarine crew. These conversations showed me just how much the military has changed, and that gays and lesbians can be accepted by their peers.
This perception is supported by a new Zogby poll of more than 500 service members returning from Afghanistan and Iraq, three quarters of whom said they were comfortable interacting with gay people. And 24 foreign nations, including Israel, Britain and other allies in the fight against terrorism, let gays serve openly, with none reporting morale or recruitment problems.
[I appoligize, the last two articles are now only offered on Times Select.]
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
State of the Union 2007
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.
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.
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)