I have to post about Bush's State of the Union speech. I won't be able to sleep without getting a few things off my chest. Before I do though, I must disclose that I didn't actually get to watch the speech, but I read the full text of it.
Overall, I would like to congratulate President Bush on finally coming around on major issues that everyone has been talking about for years. He made a strong argument for decreasing our dependence on foreign oil (Thomas Friedman has been advocating that since just after the terrorist attacks if not before), said we need to make a serious push for a stable peace agreement between Israel and Palestine (something that almost every Middle East analyst has been arguing for since it is one of the main sources of discontent in the Middle East), and troop increases in Iraq (has been a McCain issue for years). Granted, I don't know if he will actually put the effort into them that is truly necessary, but at least mentioning them as important is a start.
Each of the issues I mentioned warrent a full post. It is frustrating to see a president who is so far behind the curve on policy issues. It is also alarming to realize that in each case he might be too late, especially in Iraq. My only wish is that our next president is able to analyze problems and recognize solutions without the need of hindsight.
The last thing that really angered me was the hidden lies and mistruths in the speech. I am no supporter of Hezbollah, but first of all, their war is with Israel, not America. Lumping them in with Al Qaeda is nonsense. A more accurate comparison would be to Hamas in Palestine. I fear that this comment will haunt Bush just like his "Axis of Evil" statement from a previous State of the Union. Also, I find it enraging that he blames Israels' attack on Lebanon on Hezbollah. He also manages to blame the violence in Iraq on one bombing from last fall, without recognizing all of the previous violence that we were not able to control. In fact, much in that section on the Middle East are either sugar-coatings or falsehoods.
I am so ready for a new leader.
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Monday, January 22, 2007
The Middle Children
There was an excellent article in the NY Times about middle school education. I am thrilled that this is starting to get the attention it deserves, and I also like the experiments that many school districts are working on.
The following quote though, if true, seems to be crux of the problem:
The two schools, in disparate corners of the nation’s largest school system, are part of a national effort to rethink middle school, driven by increasingly well-documented slumps in learning among early adolescents as well as middle school crime rates and stubborn high school dropout rates.I like the logic behind each approach, but they can't both be right. Maybe the answer than is to blend the two - to have one grand school, K-12 where middle schoolers can be pushed to think about their future, while also allowing them to fall back into a safe environment if they need to (this idea might sound brilliant - or the opposite - but in fact there are plenty of pratical obstacles that come to mind).
The schools share the premise that the way to reverse years of abysmal middle school performance is to get rid of middle schools entirely. But they represent opposite poles in the sharp debate over whether 11- through 13-year-olds are better off pushed toward adulthood or coddled a little longer.
The following quote though, if true, seems to be crux of the problem:
“One middle school student is like three high school students in terms of their behavioral needs and the issues you’re confronted with,” said Fred Walsh, principal of the School for International Studies in Cobble Hill, Brooklyn.If that is the problem, than maybe it isn't about which group of students they are housed with.
Still, some middle school experts argue that school reconfiguration is a costly distraction from what adolescents really need: smaller classes, an engaging curriculum, personalized attention and well-prepared teachers.I don't really have any answers on this one, except that this issue needs to continue getting more attention. As I have said before, there have been some great ideas in terms of improving elementary and high school education, but middle schools have getting ignored. What should be apparent is that the job of high schools is that much harder if the kids regress in middle school. I think it is long overdue that the middle children... I mean children in our middle schools, get more attention.
Lessons Learned
Yesterday I talked about what we can do in Iraq now. At the same time though, I think we need to reflect on what we did and see if what happened changes our world view at all. The fact is that our goal of regime change and a stable democracy were not realized. Before the invasion there were plenty of voices that said we should not go into Iraq because either the Iraqis don't want democracy or are incapable of it. Since there is no democracy, we need to think about whether those voices were right.
First, let's look at the argument that Iraq is too diverse a country and therefore is incapable of democracy. This is something that my idealistic nature won't let me believe. But I also think there is plenty of empirical evidence to contradict it. India is the world’s largest democracy and has more ethnic and religious groups than Iraq. Turkey is also very diverse and democratic. Its main groups include Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds - although having similar religious groups as Iraq doesn't mean it is a perfect comparison. Lastly, Lebanon with both Shiite and Sunni Muslims alongside Christians and Druse is a developing democracy.
I readily admit that the above mentioned countries have all faced violence and turmoil in dealing with their diversity (not the least of which includes a decade-long civil war in Lebanon and Turkey's act of genocide against its Armenian population). But I think most people feel hopeful about the chances for long-term stability for each of those countries.
So if democracy is possible, but isn’t working, does that mean that it was bound to fail because there wasn’t the structure in place for democracy to succeed? This argument rests on a direct comparison between the American Revolution; we created a democracy after ridding ourselves of the iron-fist of Britain because we were already practicing democracy. I don’t completely buy that argument either. Call me a neo-conservative, but I think every group of people is ready for a democracy if you can convince them that it will make their lives better.
This is where we made our mistake in Iraq. Their lives are actually worse under a representative government that respects the rule of law than it was under a power-hungry, delusional dictator. This has been the case from the beginning. Our operation / occupation was done in a way that prevented Iraqis from seeing how much better their lives could be. From early looting to suicide bombs and escalating religious violence, they were never given the stability they were promised.
I know this doesn’t sound like a grand conclusion. Everyone knows that we completely botched the mission (everyone except our President). But I think it is very important not to use that to fall into the logic that democracies don’t work in other countries. I am fearful that our troubles in Iraq will lead us towards isolationism. Our foreign policy needs to be a faith in the just cause of human dignity (and therefore the need for representative government) mixed with humility (which is where I diverge from neo-conservatives) about our ability and how far limited resources will go.
First, let's look at the argument that Iraq is too diverse a country and therefore is incapable of democracy. This is something that my idealistic nature won't let me believe. But I also think there is plenty of empirical evidence to contradict it. India is the world’s largest democracy and has more ethnic and religious groups than Iraq. Turkey is also very diverse and democratic. Its main groups include Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds - although having similar religious groups as Iraq doesn't mean it is a perfect comparison. Lastly, Lebanon with both Shiite and Sunni Muslims alongside Christians and Druse is a developing democracy.
I readily admit that the above mentioned countries have all faced violence and turmoil in dealing with their diversity (not the least of which includes a decade-long civil war in Lebanon and Turkey's act of genocide against its Armenian population). But I think most people feel hopeful about the chances for long-term stability for each of those countries.
So if democracy is possible, but isn’t working, does that mean that it was bound to fail because there wasn’t the structure in place for democracy to succeed? This argument rests on a direct comparison between the American Revolution; we created a democracy after ridding ourselves of the iron-fist of Britain because we were already practicing democracy. I don’t completely buy that argument either. Call me a neo-conservative, but I think every group of people is ready for a democracy if you can convince them that it will make their lives better.
This is where we made our mistake in Iraq. Their lives are actually worse under a representative government that respects the rule of law than it was under a power-hungry, delusional dictator. This has been the case from the beginning. Our operation / occupation was done in a way that prevented Iraqis from seeing how much better their lives could be. From early looting to suicide bombs and escalating religious violence, they were never given the stability they were promised.
I know this doesn’t sound like a grand conclusion. Everyone knows that we completely botched the mission (everyone except our President). But I think it is very important not to use that to fall into the logic that democracies don’t work in other countries. I am fearful that our troubles in Iraq will lead us towards isolationism. Our foreign policy needs to be a faith in the just cause of human dignity (and therefore the need for representative government) mixed with humility (which is where I diverge from neo-conservatives) about our ability and how far limited resources will go.
Sunday, January 21, 2007
On Iraq
There have been so many articles about Iraq recently, and each time I see one, I want to respond to it. But there are too many to make it worth it. But I do want to add my voice to many that have already spoken.
Of course, all of the debate right now is focused on Bush's (and McCain's) proposed troop increase. Although I think we should try it, I fear that the troop increase is way too late to do any good. The violence between sunnis and shiites seems beyond anyone's control. But, the fact is that we have caused this situation and we need to do everything we can to get it under control, which means supporting a troop increase as a last ditch effort.
I don't really see the merits to the arguments from those opposing the troop increase (or the people like Bob Herbert who call for a full withdrawal). The situation in Iraq has become dire (actually, it has been dire for a very long time), and let me say this again - we are to blame. A report form the UN says that more than 34,000 Iraqis died last year. That many Iraqis were not dying under Saddam during the late 1990s or early 2000s. We are responsible for the significant decrease in quality of life in that country.
I have seen a number of Democrats try to blame the Iraqi government for this. I cannot support that. While I am sure the current leadership is unwilling to confront Shiite militants, it remains that the blame lies with us. Blaming Iraqis for something they didn't ask for is only a convenient position to take that allows certain Democrats to feel no guilt in calling for a troop withdrawal knowing that the country will become even more violent once we leave.
The only argument I do see having some merit is that some of the militarization is caused by our presence. True, there is significant anti-Americanism in Iraq. This creates a certain paradox in our involvement there. Our presence is keeping the violence to a lower level than it would be if we left, but at the same time, it is causing some of the violence.
In the end, we have to decide which will cause more hardship and violence on the Iraqi people, our presence or our absence. I am still in the camp that our presence is saving more lives right now. Based on what I know, most of the violence is a power struggle / retribution between Shiites and Sunnis. It is not a nationalist resistance to our occupation. If it was the latter, I would be on board callling for a withdrawal. Since it isn't, I say let's send some more troops and hope that we can help calm the violence.
Of course, all of the debate right now is focused on Bush's (and McCain's) proposed troop increase. Although I think we should try it, I fear that the troop increase is way too late to do any good. The violence between sunnis and shiites seems beyond anyone's control. But, the fact is that we have caused this situation and we need to do everything we can to get it under control, which means supporting a troop increase as a last ditch effort.
I don't really see the merits to the arguments from those opposing the troop increase (or the people like Bob Herbert who call for a full withdrawal). The situation in Iraq has become dire (actually, it has been dire for a very long time), and let me say this again - we are to blame. A report form the UN says that more than 34,000 Iraqis died last year. That many Iraqis were not dying under Saddam during the late 1990s or early 2000s. We are responsible for the significant decrease in quality of life in that country.
I have seen a number of Democrats try to blame the Iraqi government for this. I cannot support that. While I am sure the current leadership is unwilling to confront Shiite militants, it remains that the blame lies with us. Blaming Iraqis for something they didn't ask for is only a convenient position to take that allows certain Democrats to feel no guilt in calling for a troop withdrawal knowing that the country will become even more violent once we leave.
The only argument I do see having some merit is that some of the militarization is caused by our presence. True, there is significant anti-Americanism in Iraq. This creates a certain paradox in our involvement there. Our presence is keeping the violence to a lower level than it would be if we left, but at the same time, it is causing some of the violence.
In the end, we have to decide which will cause more hardship and violence on the Iraqi people, our presence or our absence. I am still in the camp that our presence is saving more lives right now. Based on what I know, most of the violence is a power struggle / retribution between Shiites and Sunnis. It is not a nationalist resistance to our occupation. If it was the latter, I would be on board callling for a withdrawal. Since it isn't, I say let's send some more troops and hope that we can help calm the violence.
Understanding People
Do we need any more proof that President Bush and his foreign policy team are idiots? They have treated Ahmadinejad's aggression as a serious threat, thereby propelling a weak nation and weak president into the international spotlight. As this article shows, President Ahmadinejad has little power over foreign policy in his country and the people who do are frustrated with his antics. If Bush had any understanding about how to deal with people, he would ignore this lunatics ranting, make him look weak, and deal with the real people of power in that country. There is far more to being president than most candidates realize. Understanding, judging, and affecting the behavior of people is one of them. It has been clear for a long time that this administration in completely inept at this.
Obama for President
I have noticed recently that there seems to be a divide in how people think about the merits of Barak Obama’s candidacy for President. I don’t think this is exactly the case, but I have noticed many middle-aged people who feel that Obama isn’t experienced enough yet to be President. I get the feeling though that many people in my generation are so excited by his presence and message that we are willing to overlook his inexperience.
I definitely fall into that latter group. Barak Obama’s inexperience doesn’t really bother me. In some ways, I think he is similar to John F. Kennedy, who also was young and lacked experience. (Although Kennedy had served one full term in the Senate, where Obama only has two years under his belt and will only have four by the time he would take office as president.) In Kennedy’s case, the country was ready for a change – for someone with youth and a different message. He also showed that the country was ready for an Irish-Catholic to be president.
But to me, it isn’t that the message is more important than the inexperience, I don’t actually think experience is as important as people make it out to be. The two factors I look to when selecting a presidential candidate are character and intellect (I find that our current president lacks both). Intellect is important for obvious reasons. A president has to understand complex problems and make the best decision possible. Character of course can be a vague term, but there are certain things I look for. The most important is humility – a president has to have the ability to know when they made a mistake, accept it, and make changes accordingly and they have to do it quickly. As a comparison, our current president has waited until overwhelming evidence has shown that he made a mistake before attempting plotting a new course.
I am reading Obama’s book, The Audacity of Hope, and I find that he has both of these characteristics. He is obviously very smart. As important though, he shows that he understands the complexity of decisions and has the humility to know that he won’t always make the right ones. He believes in dialogue and his message of bipartisanship comes across as sincere.
In the end, I want someone in our nation’s highest office that wants to hear what the other side is saying with the understanding that they might have valid points. For eight years we have seen what someone who is resolute and unbending can do to our country. Now, lets see what the opposite will bring us.
I definitely fall into that latter group. Barak Obama’s inexperience doesn’t really bother me. In some ways, I think he is similar to John F. Kennedy, who also was young and lacked experience. (Although Kennedy had served one full term in the Senate, where Obama only has two years under his belt and will only have four by the time he would take office as president.) In Kennedy’s case, the country was ready for a change – for someone with youth and a different message. He also showed that the country was ready for an Irish-Catholic to be president.
But to me, it isn’t that the message is more important than the inexperience, I don’t actually think experience is as important as people make it out to be. The two factors I look to when selecting a presidential candidate are character and intellect (I find that our current president lacks both). Intellect is important for obvious reasons. A president has to understand complex problems and make the best decision possible. Character of course can be a vague term, but there are certain things I look for. The most important is humility – a president has to have the ability to know when they made a mistake, accept it, and make changes accordingly and they have to do it quickly. As a comparison, our current president has waited until overwhelming evidence has shown that he made a mistake before attempting plotting a new course.
I am reading Obama’s book, The Audacity of Hope, and I find that he has both of these characteristics. He is obviously very smart. As important though, he shows that he understands the complexity of decisions and has the humility to know that he won’t always make the right ones. He believes in dialogue and his message of bipartisanship comes across as sincere.
In the end, I want someone in our nation’s highest office that wants to hear what the other side is saying with the understanding that they might have valid points. For eight years we have seen what someone who is resolute and unbending can do to our country. Now, lets see what the opposite will bring us.
Monday, January 08, 2007
Censure
I am tempted to write a long raving post about President Bush and his abuse of signing statements. I could talk about opening US Mail without a warrent or the appalling addition to the anti-torture legislation that was passed almost unanimously by Congress. But I just don't have the energy or the desire to get that riled up. If you aren't disgusted by it, then you aren't very well informed. It's too bad Congress doesn't have the will to do anything about it. I have heard people say there is little they can do - that is bunk. They could censure him - that would send a clear message.
Judgement Day
Tomorrow we find out whether Mark McGwire will go to the Baseball Hall of Fame on his first ballot. Based on what we have been hearing, he will be overwhelmingly denied. But there have been a number of good articles lately. Here are some of my favorite quotes:
From Jayson Stark at ESPN:
This issue is going to be with us for a long time. As Boswell said, the choice boils down to imperfect justice or voting everyone in and acknowledging the era they played in (I think we have to admit that with current testing we aren't necessarily out of the steroids era.) Neither answer is very satisfying, and so Hall of Fame induction ceremonies will also feel the same way, not very satisfying. To paraphrase Thomas Boswell, we reap what we sow. It may sound trite, but I think it captures the situation perfectly.
From Jayson Stark at ESPN:
It was baseball that allowed all of this to happen. In a sport with no rules, no testing and no punishment for using the hottest substances of the day, this was no tiny problem, involving a few obvious home run trotters. This was the culture inside the game, just as amphetamines were part of the culture in the '60s and '70s and '80s (and beyond).From Thomas Boswell:
[Edit]
And now here it is, Hall of Fame election time -- and cleaning up this glop is supposed to be our problem? Sorry, the only way to be consistent about this generation is to apply the Gaylord Perry standard -- and evaluate what the sport allowed to go down on the field. Either the '90s happened or they didn't. And we all saw them happen.
We saw hitters on steroids face pitchers on steroids, as hundreds of players all around them used the same stuff, looking for the same edge. But we've never heard most of their names. So I feel more comfortable voting for players like McGwire than I do trying to pick and choose who did what, and when, and why.
From a distance, baseball's problem is a comedy of its own making. The game's punishment -- massive confusion about the meaning of its sacred statistics and suspicion surrounding its stars -- seems to suit the crime perfectly. The game reaped what it sowed. However, to more than a thousand of my writing colleagues who still have their Cooperstown ballots, this is no joke. They study, debate and take their votes seriously. I feel bad for them. Any vote on McGwire (583 career homers) now or on Sosa (588 homers) in a few years seems inherently flawed.And my favorite (mostly because of how snarky it is towards the press - a group that ignores its complicity in all of this), Bill Simmons:
One response is to throw up your hands and say, "Let 'em all into Cooperstown." Just ignore the steroid era. Since the sport itself, as well as an adoring media, were complicit, give everybody clemency. For me, that's no answer. Imperfect justice is better than no justice at all. Every juiced ballplayer knew he was cheating.
Normally, I enjoy the week the Baseball Hall of Fame inductees are announced. Not this year. With Mark McGwire's inclusion on the 2007 ballot, we have officially entered the Let's Blackball the Potential-Steroids-Guy Era.The fact is, this is a hard decision, which is why I have written about it so many times. MLB turned a blind eye - but so did the press and so did the fans. We wanted to believe in baseball so badly that we told ourselves all the incredible feats were natural. This is why I have a hard time acting sanctimonious about this - unfortunately many in the press don't have any trouble.
Some writers won't vote for McGwire because he probably used steroids -- keep in mind there's never been proof that he did, other than a visible bottle of andro and those 135 pounds of muscle he added from 1990 to 2002 -- which would be fine if they weren't so pious about it. Not content with simply dismissing McGwire's candidacy and moving on, they need to climb on their high horses and rip the guy to shreds. Of course, many of them would appear on any radio or TV show for 50 bucks and a free sandwich. We're supposed to believe they would refuse the chance to take a drug that would enable them to do their job twice as well and make 10 times as much money? Yeah, right.
[Edit]
When a painful strike canceled the 1994 World Series and nearly killed the sport, two events got people caring again: Cal Ripken's breaking Lou Gehrig's consecutive-games record in 1995, and McGwire's and Sosa's battling for Maris' record three years later. Watch the end of "61*" sometime, or reread Mike Lupica's gushing book, "Summer of '98." (Note: Lupica now argues that Big Mac doesn't belong in the Hall. He never says anything about returning the profits from his book, however.) The home run chase meant something back then. And by the way, when it was going on, we all chose to overlook the fact that McGwire was a can of green paint away from being the Incredible Hulk and that Sosa looked like he was developing a second jaw. Let's not forget that.
This issue is going to be with us for a long time. As Boswell said, the choice boils down to imperfect justice or voting everyone in and acknowledging the era they played in (I think we have to admit that with current testing we aren't necessarily out of the steroids era.) Neither answer is very satisfying, and so Hall of Fame induction ceremonies will also feel the same way, not very satisfying. To paraphrase Thomas Boswell, we reap what we sow. It may sound trite, but I think it captures the situation perfectly.
Friday, January 05, 2007
Looking Back, and Forward
Today, the first blog that I wrote for officially closed down and took me off its list of members. Granted, I haven't posted there since the summer, it is still a little bit said. As I was saying goodbye to Restless Mania though, I remembered that I wanted to write about why I blog and what I think blogging is.
First, I want to talk about what I think blogging is. If you hear any journalist talking about it, you will undoubtedly hear her or him say that blogging is poor quality and miserable to read. I get the feeling that many journalists think blogging will replace traditional news media if they don't point out that it lacks the same standards. Any journalist who says this is clearly missing the point and should be ridiculed for being so out of touch.
The fact is, blogging covers a very broad range of the writing spectrum. True, there are some, like the Smoking Gun or Deadspin, that are attempting to give modern journalism a little competition. Their standards for what they print are a little below mainstream journalism, but based on their success they are serving a need in the market.
Many other blogs serve mainly as political commentary, and here is where the variation really becomes obvious. The popular blogs, like Daily Kos for example, serve as a fresh voice in politics. For whatever reason, they have attracted large audiences; maybe it is the frequency that they post, or the ability for the reader to engage the writer and other readers, or maybe it is just that their message resonates. But these blogs certainly cannot be dismissed.
At the other end of this spectrum are blogs like mine. I, like many others I assume, write not because I think I am better than the journalists that dismiss me, but because I want to engage in dialogue. By looking around the blogosphere, you will see so many people engaged in this giant conversation. It is as beautiful and real as any debate you might encounter at a cafe, around the dinner table, or in the lunchroom.
I read one criticism from a journalist that said blogging is usually people just writing down what they think right then at that moment. The argument was that the writing and thought process was too sloppy to be taken seriously (I admit that I rarely take the time anymore to review or edit my posts). I completely disagree because I don't think blogs need to be perfect. When I debate with friends and family, my arguments are not always perfect. But that is why I debate in the first place - so that someone can point out the problems in my logic while ignoring how well I am speaking.
Blogging works in the same way. By publishing what I think and feel on important issues at that very moment, I am inviting criticism and critique. I do this on purpose because I think I need it. Socrates thought of himself as a gadfly, someone to stir people up and make them really think about their beliefs. I write because I hope my ideas can do that to other people, but also because I want other people to do that to me.
I have to admit that I have been disappointed that more people don't call me out on issues. I thrived on the debates that I had on Restless Mania and wish I could have that back. I have to understand though that not everyone devotes the time to this that I do. So I will continue to write, leaving my words out there to be challenged at some later date by someone who sees flaws in the reasoning I laid out at that moment. And hopefully, someday soon, journalists will realize the beauty of all of the conversations taking place in the blogosphere and encourage others to engage instead of dismissing the unpolished nature of the writing.
First, I want to talk about what I think blogging is. If you hear any journalist talking about it, you will undoubtedly hear her or him say that blogging is poor quality and miserable to read. I get the feeling that many journalists think blogging will replace traditional news media if they don't point out that it lacks the same standards. Any journalist who says this is clearly missing the point and should be ridiculed for being so out of touch.
The fact is, blogging covers a very broad range of the writing spectrum. True, there are some, like the Smoking Gun or Deadspin, that are attempting to give modern journalism a little competition. Their standards for what they print are a little below mainstream journalism, but based on their success they are serving a need in the market.
Many other blogs serve mainly as political commentary, and here is where the variation really becomes obvious. The popular blogs, like Daily Kos for example, serve as a fresh voice in politics. For whatever reason, they have attracted large audiences; maybe it is the frequency that they post, or the ability for the reader to engage the writer and other readers, or maybe it is just that their message resonates. But these blogs certainly cannot be dismissed.
At the other end of this spectrum are blogs like mine. I, like many others I assume, write not because I think I am better than the journalists that dismiss me, but because I want to engage in dialogue. By looking around the blogosphere, you will see so many people engaged in this giant conversation. It is as beautiful and real as any debate you might encounter at a cafe, around the dinner table, or in the lunchroom.
I read one criticism from a journalist that said blogging is usually people just writing down what they think right then at that moment. The argument was that the writing and thought process was too sloppy to be taken seriously (I admit that I rarely take the time anymore to review or edit my posts). I completely disagree because I don't think blogs need to be perfect. When I debate with friends and family, my arguments are not always perfect. But that is why I debate in the first place - so that someone can point out the problems in my logic while ignoring how well I am speaking.
Blogging works in the same way. By publishing what I think and feel on important issues at that very moment, I am inviting criticism and critique. I do this on purpose because I think I need it. Socrates thought of himself as a gadfly, someone to stir people up and make them really think about their beliefs. I write because I hope my ideas can do that to other people, but also because I want other people to do that to me.
I have to admit that I have been disappointed that more people don't call me out on issues. I thrived on the debates that I had on Restless Mania and wish I could have that back. I have to understand though that not everyone devotes the time to this that I do. So I will continue to write, leaving my words out there to be challenged at some later date by someone who sees flaws in the reasoning I laid out at that moment. And hopefully, someday soon, journalists will realize the beauty of all of the conversations taking place in the blogosphere and encourage others to engage instead of dismissing the unpolished nature of the writing.
Always a Reason for Tax Cuts
There is a very convincing editorial in the NY Times regarding Republican efforts to link a minimum wage increase to small business tax cuts. Apparently the cost of the tax cuts is far greater than the increased wages that would go out to employees. Basically, that means the government would be better off paying the difference between current minimum wage and the new minimum wage to all workers.
Thursday, January 04, 2007
On Iran
I think that one of our biggest problems in the run up to the war in Iraq was that far too few people knew enough about the country to understand the consequences of our actions. I am afraid we will face the same problem as the situation in Iran heats up. There is an article in the NY Times that does a good job of dispelling some of the misunderstandings and talking about steps we should be taking.
First of all, President Ahmadinejad is not the next Hitler. This statement grossly overestimates his power in the country and the power of his country.
It also justifies their militaristic policies. Iran legitimately thinks we might make a military attack against them, and I think Bush wants it that way (his gunboat diplomacy is absurd). As long as Iran, as well as North Korea, can say that we are a threat to invade, their insistence on seeking nuclear weapons is somewhat reasonable both to their citizens and to a lesser extent the international community. I believe they would be more willing to concede on nuclear talks if we could convince them that we will not attack them (this would be much easier if we could convince them that we don't take them seriously). And in case you aren't sure an attack on Iran should be ruled out:
I don't want to give the impression that we should completely ignore Iran and their nuclear ambitions, but we need to show in public that we don't give them a second thought, while telling them in private that we will not be bullied. And then we need to point out the fact that their economy is tanking and they are doing nothing about it.
On negotiating involvement in Iraq, there appears to be some disagreement. Some analysts believe that Iran wants Iraq to succeed as much as we do. Others believe that the country has insulated itself enough and can protect against a surge of refugees and therefore cares little about Iraq imploding. My belief is that they think Shiites will come out on top in a civil war, and therefore don't have a big interest in stability. With this being the case, I don't know how much progress we can make. But what is clear is that we won't know until we talk to them, and we definitely need to do a better job of talking to them in a way that doesn't make them feel stronger.
First of all, President Ahmadinejad is not the next Hitler. This statement grossly overestimates his power in the country and the power of his country.
There has been a strange reversal in American perceptions, Mr. Nasr said. When the somewhat moderate Ayatollah Khatami was president, talking to him was dismissed as wasting time because the supreme leader was the real power. Now that Mr. Ahmadinejad inhabits the same office, with the supreme leader still holding the same key powers, Mr. Ahmadinejad is being portrayed as the crux.Given this knowledge, we need to deal with Iran differently. Our biggest mistake is treating the country like a legitimate security threat and devoting time to making threats against them. This not only makes them feel stronger because we are paying attention to them, but it also gives the impression that they really are (and Hugo Chavez in Venezuela) taking on the United States and the West. This only makes the leaders more popular.
It also justifies their militaristic policies. Iran legitimately thinks we might make a military attack against them, and I think Bush wants it that way (his gunboat diplomacy is absurd). As long as Iran, as well as North Korea, can say that we are a threat to invade, their insistence on seeking nuclear weapons is somewhat reasonable both to their citizens and to a lesser extent the international community. I believe they would be more willing to concede on nuclear talks if we could convince them that we will not attack them (this would be much easier if we could convince them that we don't take them seriously). And in case you aren't sure an attack on Iran should be ruled out:
But Iranian analysts interviewed in America mostly view a military strike as the surest means to cement the regime in power. Some question the wisdom of negotiating now, arguing that the West has so demonized Mr. Ahmadinejad and Iran as threats to peace that the Islamic Republic will believe in its own superpower ratings and not feel pressed to make concessions.But of course Bush is not bright enough to understand how to deal with people. He knows how to talk strong, but not when to talk strong.
I don't want to give the impression that we should completely ignore Iran and their nuclear ambitions, but we need to show in public that we don't give them a second thought, while telling them in private that we will not be bullied. And then we need to point out the fact that their economy is tanking and they are doing nothing about it.
On negotiating involvement in Iraq, there appears to be some disagreement. Some analysts believe that Iran wants Iraq to succeed as much as we do. Others believe that the country has insulated itself enough and can protect against a surge of refugees and therefore cares little about Iraq imploding. My belief is that they think Shiites will come out on top in a civil war, and therefore don't have a big interest in stability. With this being the case, I don't know how much progress we can make. But what is clear is that we won't know until we talk to them, and we definitely need to do a better job of talking to them in a way that doesn't make them feel stronger.
Wednesday, January 03, 2007
More on Education
This article on middle school education got me thinking again about my beliefs on education in general. What the NY Times piece highlights is a lack of development in middle school education policies. We have ideas in other grade levels that I think are very strong (early intervention in elementary schools in the form of extended day and year programs and Advanced Placement, IB and other ways to increase rigor in high schools), but very little for middle school improvement.
The article also reminded me that right now I am at a point where I am really questioning some of the things I have supported before in education policy. I think this makes sense given that we now have some tools to evaluate NCLB and some conservative policies. For example, while I thought I supported more accountability for performance, I don't think I agree with how it is implemented or even talked about.
Also, while I agree that teacher quality is an issue, I don't think NCLB does a good job of dealing with it. Unfortunately, I think the unions are a big problem, and no president, governor, or mayor (with two exceptions) can do much about that. I strongly believe that unions do a major disservice by standing in the way of significant reforms like merit pay, ending or changing seniority in placement, and tenure. Even here though I wonder how much good it will do; will this will really improve education all around, or just help get better teachers in lower performing schools (which is very important, but not the only end of our efforts).
This has been a quick and very cursory post, but I wanted to highlight the fact that some of my excitement for education improvements has decreased (both nationally and in watching NYC experiments). I can say though that I will be doing a lot more thinking about this in the future.
The article also reminded me that right now I am at a point where I am really questioning some of the things I have supported before in education policy. I think this makes sense given that we now have some tools to evaluate NCLB and some conservative policies. For example, while I thought I supported more accountability for performance, I don't think I agree with how it is implemented or even talked about.
Also, while I agree that teacher quality is an issue, I don't think NCLB does a good job of dealing with it. Unfortunately, I think the unions are a big problem, and no president, governor, or mayor (with two exceptions) can do much about that. I strongly believe that unions do a major disservice by standing in the way of significant reforms like merit pay, ending or changing seniority in placement, and tenure. Even here though I wonder how much good it will do; will this will really improve education all around, or just help get better teachers in lower performing schools (which is very important, but not the only end of our efforts).
This has been a quick and very cursory post, but I wanted to highlight the fact that some of my excitement for education improvements has decreased (both nationally and in watching NYC experiments). I can say though that I will be doing a lot more thinking about this in the future.
Message of Humility
I am reading Barak Obama's book The Audacity of Hope. So far I really like it. Just like Dreams from My Father, the prose in this book is strong. But beyond that, I find myself really agreeing with his message. What really seems to resonate is something I think is lacking in current political discourse - humility.
It is hard to describe what I mean by this without sounding trite (although I can't stress enough that he manages to do it). Basically though, there is an understanding that he doesn't know everything, and we (liberals) don't know everything (that conservatives don't know everything is taken for granted). I find too often that people are so sure they are right that they will never even open up enough to really hear other arguments. In addition, they are so convinced of their rightness that they think people with opposite views are evil, weak or just stupid. It might be naive of me to think he could really change the current discourse, but sometimes one person can make a big difference. Either way, I like his message and I hope he sticks to his guns with the coming elections.
It is hard to describe what I mean by this without sounding trite (although I can't stress enough that he manages to do it). Basically though, there is an understanding that he doesn't know everything, and we (liberals) don't know everything (that conservatives don't know everything is taken for granted). I find too often that people are so sure they are right that they will never even open up enough to really hear other arguments. In addition, they are so convinced of their rightness that they think people with opposite views are evil, weak or just stupid. It might be naive of me to think he could really change the current discourse, but sometimes one person can make a big difference. Either way, I like his message and I hope he sticks to his guns with the coming elections.
I Might be King
It must be great to be President Bush. From day one he has ruled as if he has had a major mandate - despite losing the popular vote in 2000, and surviving a relatively close election in 2004. Granted, I would do the same thing if no one (re: Congress) did anything to stop me. But at some point he has to realize this isn't going to continue.
The best part about Bush's Op-Ed in the Wall Street Journal is that it tries to sound like he is willing to meet in the middle when all of his talking points are strong conservative policies like no government intervention to help those in need, no change in foreign policy, and no repeal of his tax cuts. So basically, despite the fact that his approval ratings are in the toilet and a Democratic Congress was elected largely as a rejection of his administration, he still wants to continue with business as usual. Brilliant.
The best part about Bush's Op-Ed in the Wall Street Journal is that it tries to sound like he is willing to meet in the middle when all of his talking points are strong conservative policies like no government intervention to help those in need, no change in foreign policy, and no repeal of his tax cuts. So basically, despite the fact that his approval ratings are in the toilet and a Democratic Congress was elected largely as a rejection of his administration, he still wants to continue with business as usual. Brilliant.
Must Have Been a Slow Day
I wonder if this reporter knows how boring and unoriginal this article is. Seriously, the issue of Barak Obama's admitted drug use in Dreams from My Father has already been talked about. I just hate this type of article in general (covering elections like they are a horse race, with no regard for issues), but especially when they are rehashing an old issue.
Saturday, December 23, 2006
The Sky Isn't Falling?
I was afraid this would happen. Now that Democrats are in charge, some voices on the left are saying that the deficit isn't actually a big deal and that we should continue to spend like crazy if it means expanding social programs. My frustration with this isn't that I think we need to cut social programs. But it really bothers me that Democrats were saying Republicans were spending too much (which they were), but now that we are in power, we will learn how to make excuses for a lack of restraint.
I don't know for sure if Paul Krugman of the NY Times was one of those voices, but I have a feeling that he was. But there were people like him saying that our deficits will soon spell doomesday for our economy, and now seem to think that all will be okay as long as we expand every single program we support.
I don't know for sure if Paul Krugman of the NY Times was one of those voices, but I have a feeling that he was. But there were people like him saying that our deficits will soon spell doomesday for our economy, and now seem to think that all will be okay as long as we expand every single program we support.
Sunday, December 17, 2006
A Totally New War
I am sure that a large part of this article is outright fear-mongering. Even if that is the case, there is still information in there that is deeply concerning. The analysts that commented in the article admit that they have expected that westerners would become soilders for Al Qaeda. Their passports in England or even the US will make them very valuable to Muslim extremist groups.
When reading this article, I couldn't help wondering if this new war we are facing is completely different than anything we have faced. I know this sounds like a conclusion that everyone else has already come to, but maybe not in the way I mean it. To some respect, I think we still believe that we can use some of the same methods we used during the Cold War, including similar spying techniques. Most people know that this is a new war that feeds in basically lawless and stateless areas. It is a gorilla war that we can't choose whether or not we want to participate. So in understanding that, will any of our previous techinques work?
Right now it looks like the two biggest training areas are Iraq, where people are getting front-line training, and the border area between Afghanistan and Pakistan. The lawless area in Afghanistan is a direct result of our haste to jump into Iraq without completely securing Afghanistan. But in Pakistan the situation is a very different problem, and one we might face more in the future. The government is supposedly an ally of ours but they lack the capacity to control all of their territory. There is also the threat that major crackdowns in those regions could lead to major revolts and possibly the rise of an anti-American government.
This situation is not going to be unique in our future. Countries like Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Somalia, Lebanon, and others do not control all of their country even if they would like to help us in our war against Al Qaeda. So here is the driving question - how do we deal with governments that want to cooperate but are limited in their ability? I admit that I am drawn to the Cold War for help; I am tempted to suggest that we support our own brand of non-governmental militant groups to battle the extremists. But that didn't seem to work too well in the past.
When I read an article like this one in Newsweek, I get an overwhelming feeling that we are going to need to be much more creative in how we meet this threat. The problem is that governments aren't meant to be creative or flexible. The necessity for consensus can slow evolution. My hope though is that somehow the smart voices will rise above the rest and that progress will be made. If that doesn't happen though, we might well end up with more presidents that believe they need the authority to act unilaterally - without input from the UN or even Congress. And that might be better for creative policy-making and change, but I just don't trust leaving that much power in one person. Either way, this is going to be a big issue for a long time and I think everyone should be taking it seriously and learning as much as they can so they can participate intelligently.
When reading this article, I couldn't help wondering if this new war we are facing is completely different than anything we have faced. I know this sounds like a conclusion that everyone else has already come to, but maybe not in the way I mean it. To some respect, I think we still believe that we can use some of the same methods we used during the Cold War, including similar spying techniques. Most people know that this is a new war that feeds in basically lawless and stateless areas. It is a gorilla war that we can't choose whether or not we want to participate. So in understanding that, will any of our previous techinques work?
Right now it looks like the two biggest training areas are Iraq, where people are getting front-line training, and the border area between Afghanistan and Pakistan. The lawless area in Afghanistan is a direct result of our haste to jump into Iraq without completely securing Afghanistan. But in Pakistan the situation is a very different problem, and one we might face more in the future. The government is supposedly an ally of ours but they lack the capacity to control all of their territory. There is also the threat that major crackdowns in those regions could lead to major revolts and possibly the rise of an anti-American government.
This situation is not going to be unique in our future. Countries like Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Somalia, Lebanon, and others do not control all of their country even if they would like to help us in our war against Al Qaeda. So here is the driving question - how do we deal with governments that want to cooperate but are limited in their ability? I admit that I am drawn to the Cold War for help; I am tempted to suggest that we support our own brand of non-governmental militant groups to battle the extremists. But that didn't seem to work too well in the past.
When I read an article like this one in Newsweek, I get an overwhelming feeling that we are going to need to be much more creative in how we meet this threat. The problem is that governments aren't meant to be creative or flexible. The necessity for consensus can slow evolution. My hope though is that somehow the smart voices will rise above the rest and that progress will be made. If that doesn't happen though, we might well end up with more presidents that believe they need the authority to act unilaterally - without input from the UN or even Congress. And that might be better for creative policy-making and change, but I just don't trust leaving that much power in one person. Either way, this is going to be a big issue for a long time and I think everyone should be taking it seriously and learning as much as they can so they can participate intelligently.
Being Unreasonable
My good friend The Beard sent me a link to Samantha Power's commencement address at Swarthmore College in 2002. The address as a whole is really good, and sums up the main points of her book, A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide. But what really got me was her closing:
The truth is that I know the way the world works, but I very strongly believe that I can make a difference to change it (and I am sure the same is true of my more liberal friends). So while I understand, for example, that America's foreign policy decisions are based on our interests and that most Americans want to take care of our own country first, that doesn't mean I find that acceptable. Genocide, mass murder, and mass famine are just as important, if not more so, than issues like food insecurity in America. If the rest of America doesn't agree with me, than I just need to argue louder. Yes, I am an unreasonable idealist, and that is why I strive to adapt the world to me.
George Bernard Shaw once wrote, "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world. The unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man."Often when I debate issues with my family, I can tell by their tone that they think I am a crazy idealist who just doesn't understand the way the world works. To be fair, I must admit that I have probably implied, if not outright accused, that some of my more liberal friends are guilty of the same thing I am trying to defend myself against.
I wish you, Swarthmore's graduating class of 2002, all the best in the journey that lies ahead. And I pray that you join the ranks of the unreasonable.
The truth is that I know the way the world works, but I very strongly believe that I can make a difference to change it (and I am sure the same is true of my more liberal friends). So while I understand, for example, that America's foreign policy decisions are based on our interests and that most Americans want to take care of our own country first, that doesn't mean I find that acceptable. Genocide, mass murder, and mass famine are just as important, if not more so, than issues like food insecurity in America. If the rest of America doesn't agree with me, than I just need to argue louder. Yes, I am an unreasonable idealist, and that is why I strive to adapt the world to me.
Turkey on the Balance
This article ($) from the New York Times sums up the situation in Turkey pretty well. They are situated in such a way that they could either look to the west and adopt government policies based on a European / American model (in regards to human rights, open economy, transparency, etc) and serve as a beacon of light for the rest of the Middle East, or they could instead look to the east and base their practices on countries like Iran, Syria or Saudi Arabia.
What has kept them looking west and making real progress was the carrot of potential membership in the European Union. Now that this is no longer likely in the near future, it seems like there might be less that keeps them looking west.
In the future it will be hard to convince any Muslim country that there are benefits to reform when Turkey couldn't get into the EU despite the changes it has made. This can only continue to make Muslims feel like the West will never really treat them as equals. I think if the EU was wise, it would accept Turkey while continuing to push for further reforms. We need to break the cycle and show through our deeds that we respect Muslims and their faith, even if that means making some compromises along the way.
What has kept them looking west and making real progress was the carrot of potential membership in the European Union. Now that this is no longer likely in the near future, it seems like there might be less that keeps them looking west.
To try to win membership [to the EU], the Turkish government enacted a series of rigorous reforms to bring the country in line with European standards, including some unprecedented in the Muslim world, like a law against marital rape.A few quotes from moderately influential Europeans (including an obviously anti-Muslim Pope) isn't necessarily proof that their religion is what has kept Turkey out. Just based on the quote above (especially the part about insulting Turkishness being a crime) it appears that Turkey has a ways to go before its government is up to the West's exacting standards. But it is hard to say that religion isn't even a factor.
But the admission talks have stalled. And while the official reason involves the longstanding Greek-Turkish dispute over Cyprus, most Turks say they believe the real reason is a deep suspicion of their country's religion.
Indeed, in 2002, Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, the former French president, said Turkey's admission to the union would mean "the end of Europe." Nicholas Sarkozy, the French presidential hopeful, has made his opposition to Turkish membership a campaign issue. Even the pope, when he was still a cardinal in Germany, said publicly that he did not think Turkey fit into Europe because it was Muslim. That talk has begun to grate on Turks.
[Edit]
Despite growing pains, a neglected Kurdish minority in the south, a thin skin for any reference to the Armenian genocide, and failure to scrap a law that makes insulting Turkishness a crime, Turkey stands out as lively democracy in a larger Middle East riddled with restrictions, and its acceptance by the West is a test case for others, officials said.
Muslim countries, Mr. Tan points out, are watching.
"Turkey is a beacon for those countries," he said. "Don't forget, if we fail, then the whole dream will fail."
In the future it will be hard to convince any Muslim country that there are benefits to reform when Turkey couldn't get into the EU despite the changes it has made. This can only continue to make Muslims feel like the West will never really treat them as equals. I think if the EU was wise, it would accept Turkey while continuing to push for further reforms. We need to break the cycle and show through our deeds that we respect Muslims and their faith, even if that means making some compromises along the way.
Intolerance and Religion
I had an interesting conversation with a friend about religion recently. The conversation got started because he was describing the book he is reading that is highly critical of religion in America. In the interests of full disclosure, I should say that I haven’t read the book and my knowledge of it comes from an advertisement I saw about it and my friend’s description of it.
The book seems to be in the same vein as other books out there trying to completely discredit modern religion in America. These are probably responses to the recent strength of the religious right in America as well as possibly the rise of Muslim extremism around the world. Many of these writers attempt to prove that God doesn’t exist and that religion is fake and illogical. I have to say that I find these books and the arguments they try to make as obnoxious and, frankly, intolerant as the far-right religious groups that they are presumably attacking. I hate the assumption that those who don’t believe are uneducated, illogical and unaware of all of the evidence that there is no God. I consider myself very well educated, but I cannot shake the feeling that there is more than what is seen.
Analogies to teacups revolving around the sun aside, any attempt to talk about religion must start with the obvious truth that we can neither prove that God exists, nor that God doesn’t exist. Since we know this, any belief therefore is based on faith. Each person must make a personal decision, based on the evidence they know of, to decide if they think there is something else out there and what form that something else takes.
Often times when religion is discussed, people try to use statistics to describe how religious America really is. Based on what I know a majority believes in a God of some kind, and that percentage of Americans decreases when you ask about belief in the Creation and the literal nature of the Virgin birth. As I understand it, the author that my friend is reading seems to think that people who don’t believe everything in the Bible cannot really be considered true believers because it is illogical to only believe in certain parts. I think taking this position ignores a huge population and also demonstrates an ignorance of what makes religion so powerful.
In our life we are surrounded by things we cannot possibly understand. There are horrors that defy imagination, and beauties that we can’t comprehend. Facing that, some people choose to believe that it is merely the result of randomness outside of our control. Life is unpredictable and at times cruel and there is nothing we can do about it. But others cannot overcome the feeling that there is something more than this, that there is a force that we don’t understand but that is nonetheless impacting our lives. Whether it is an omnipotent being that demands we worship it and follow all of its rules, or a force or emotion that ties us all and can provide guidance, many feel there is something in our universe that is working for good.
In the end, our lives will always be surrounded by things that we can neither prove are true nor untrue. In those situations, people will come to their own conclusions. In a tolerant society, we would respect everyone’s position and not believe that anyone is more right. My hope is that we do one day live in such a society. Until then, I accept that I will be forced to watch as the extremely religious attack me for not being religious enough, and those that feel their logic and reasoning make them above belief in things unseen will mock me for having a faith in something else.
The book seems to be in the same vein as other books out there trying to completely discredit modern religion in America. These are probably responses to the recent strength of the religious right in America as well as possibly the rise of Muslim extremism around the world. Many of these writers attempt to prove that God doesn’t exist and that religion is fake and illogical. I have to say that I find these books and the arguments they try to make as obnoxious and, frankly, intolerant as the far-right religious groups that they are presumably attacking. I hate the assumption that those who don’t believe are uneducated, illogical and unaware of all of the evidence that there is no God. I consider myself very well educated, but I cannot shake the feeling that there is more than what is seen.
Analogies to teacups revolving around the sun aside, any attempt to talk about religion must start with the obvious truth that we can neither prove that God exists, nor that God doesn’t exist. Since we know this, any belief therefore is based on faith. Each person must make a personal decision, based on the evidence they know of, to decide if they think there is something else out there and what form that something else takes.
Often times when religion is discussed, people try to use statistics to describe how religious America really is. Based on what I know a majority believes in a God of some kind, and that percentage of Americans decreases when you ask about belief in the Creation and the literal nature of the Virgin birth. As I understand it, the author that my friend is reading seems to think that people who don’t believe everything in the Bible cannot really be considered true believers because it is illogical to only believe in certain parts. I think taking this position ignores a huge population and also demonstrates an ignorance of what makes religion so powerful.
In our life we are surrounded by things we cannot possibly understand. There are horrors that defy imagination, and beauties that we can’t comprehend. Facing that, some people choose to believe that it is merely the result of randomness outside of our control. Life is unpredictable and at times cruel and there is nothing we can do about it. But others cannot overcome the feeling that there is something more than this, that there is a force that we don’t understand but that is nonetheless impacting our lives. Whether it is an omnipotent being that demands we worship it and follow all of its rules, or a force or emotion that ties us all and can provide guidance, many feel there is something in our universe that is working for good.
In the end, our lives will always be surrounded by things that we can neither prove are true nor untrue. In those situations, people will come to their own conclusions. In a tolerant society, we would respect everyone’s position and not believe that anyone is more right. My hope is that we do one day live in such a society. Until then, I accept that I will be forced to watch as the extremely religious attack me for not being religious enough, and those that feel their logic and reasoning make them above belief in things unseen will mock me for having a faith in something else.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)