I'm the village idiot. I don't have anything to do with this pathetic little opera, I just felt like passing through.
Recently in Politics Category
The unemployment rate among college graduates is 4.1% (source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics). We might choose to believe that this provides a case for getting a college degree. However, this overlooks some very important truths. Some people are not good at or happy in the types of jobs that a college degree affords. College is not necessarily the best format for preparing people for all occupations. Society needs the services of many occupations that are not well served by college education.
The thought being that if we give everyone a college education, they will rise to the socio-economic advantage that people with a college education normally have. However, what if it is not the college education that is the key to success? Is it not more likely that success comes out of pursuing that which you are good at, that which you find fulfilling? Is the only difference between an auto mechanic and an economist, the college education of the latter? Is it reasonable to suppose that had the auto mechanic instead gone to college, majored in economics, she would be happy working in economics? The most rudimentary survey of high school students shows that this is clearly not the case. Some people are made to more academic pursuits. Some people are wired to be outside. Some people are only happy when their hands are covered in grease and oil and they are up to their waist in a motor.
As a society we have made it second rate to pursue a career that does not involve going to college. Kitchen tables all across America are the battle ground of kids who are being told that they must go to college even though their passion is to build homes, fix cars, or be a cowboy. Where would today's unemployment rate be if being blue collar were not equated with being second class? If students who sought to pursue vocational careers paths were given equal time and resources as their college bound peers?
Mike Rowe hits the nail on the head his testimony before the Senate.
One of the things that I was looking forward to on this deployment was being in Iraq for at least one and possibly two elections. I was certain that the provincial elections would take place while I was deployed. National elections were also scheduled to take place during my time here but I suspect they will get delayed until after I return home.
However, provincial elections were held the last day of January. Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) were responsible for ensuring the security of this election, Coalition Forces providing reinforcements as directed by ISF. As a result, I did not get to see the election as up close and personal as I'd hoped. I did have several opportunities to talk with Iraqis prior to the elections. They talked about their dissatisfaction with elected officials and their lack of confidence in the government as a whole. Over the coming weeks, I will have more opportunities to talk with Iraqis about their perception of the election.
Over the past week I've been reading news reports and thinking about the election results, trying to figure out how to talk about them here. Today, I came across an article from the BBC which says it much better than I might. I've quoted some of the key points that I think are most significant. I highly encourage you to read the article itself. It is without exception the best assessment of the election and its significance that I have seen. Great analysis.
That is not just a security achievement, but a huge step forward in Iraq's political development and the emergence of a real democratic culture.
They learned, for the first time, that they could hold those they elected to account, and change them if they failed to meet expectations.
On both the Shia and Sunni sides, there was a clear shift away from the Islamic religious parties which dominated Iraqi politics after the 2005 elections.
The emphasis has been on capability, performance, honesty, and national commitment rather than religious credentials.
read more | digg story
The Iraqi people have tasted freedom and democracy. They have tasted the wine of self-rule. I believe that in the creation and development of a democratic society what is most important is ensuring the next election. The most important milestone in measuring Iraq's progress toward becoming a secure, economically stable, democratic state is the next election. The International community must make it clear to Iraq that they are watching and they will ensure that the next election is held.
Lastly, I wonder if history will be more kind to Mr. Bush than pop culture has been. Cries of 'worst president ever' are as ignorant and arrogant as presuming that someone will be a great president before they've even been elected. Whatever else you want to say, a portion of the credit for the successful elections in Iraq belong to Mr. Bush.
aloha
So, it's done. On or about January 20th, Barack Obama will become the President of the United States. I am half tempted to lower myself to the level of those who have the bumper sticker that says, "He's not MY president." However, I was not raised to be that arrogant or selfish. I will respect the duly elected president. We survived Clinton, I'm sure that this great country will survive Mr. Obama as well. I do think it is unfortunate that we will not have the chance to see Mr McCain serve as president. I believe he would have been one of the great presidents.
At the end of the day, I believe that the McCain campaign was it's own worst enemy. Many of the video pieces that campaign ran were sophomoric and mean spirited. Much of the message coming out of the McCain campaign focused on belittling Mr. Obama and not nearly enough time providing proof that Mr. McCain was the better candidate. The McCain campaign spent far too much time defining itself in the context of Mr. Obama. What it desperately needed was to define Mr. McCain in the context of his many years in government. That's a pity.
The McCain campaign failed to exploit new media (web 2.0, social networking, twitter, Digg, Facebook, etc.) effectively. I believe this is actually a fundamental problem that the Republican party as a whole needs to address and quickly. In the months after the primaries when it had been established that Mr. McCain and Mr. Obama were the real contenders, most social networking sites showed a strong Obama presence while McCain supporters were clearly a minority and poorly organized. There are a number of articles in the main stream press that talk about the Obama campaign's capitalization of new media. Having numerous people on the floor with video cams and then posting video to YouTube within minutes. The McCain campaign had nothing close.
Hopefully, Republicans will learn for this experience and make a greater effort to enlist the younger, more tech savvy members of the party to make better use of this powerful communication venue in the future. To be sure, Democrats have a significant advantage. Social networking is one of the primary tools of activists. New media in the form of documentary style content production using handheld pro-sumer video cameras, iMovie and Final Cut to produce propaganda which is then released on YouTube and similar sites is a core competency of any activist worth his salt. Republicans are definitely playing a serious catch up game.
The real pity of it is that John McCain lends himself so well to these forms of communication. It only required the campaign to actually enlist the services of technically savvy individuals. Had the campaign managed to take control of the message rather than depending on MSM to do it for them and allowing the Obama campaign to capitalize on the less flattering moments, I think he would have done quite well. I believe it was an opportunity lost.
Should be an interesting two years.
Obama, just returning from his trip to the Middle East and Europe, said recently that he was told by Iraqi leaders that nation does not want an open-ended presence of U.S. combat forces and that now is an appropriate time to start planning for a reorganization of troops in Iraq. He also noted that the war costs about $10 billion a month, which could be used to shore up the U.S. economy.
read story
Several interesting points here. Everyone, including Mr. Obama, is assuming an open-ended presence in Iraq in the form of a residual force. How big that force is, where it is based, and what its mission will be are open questions but everyone on the US side is planning to leave a residual force in or near Iraq.
That the Iraqi leaders think now is the "time to start planning a reorganization of troops in Iraq" is a direct result of surge. The 16 month time frame that Mr. Obama talks about today is significantly different that the one he originally proposed, which was intended to put pressure on the Iraqis. In fact, what Mr. Obama does not mention is that Iraqi leadership is actually beginning to put some pressure on the US to plan on leaving completely.
Lastly, given that Mr. Obama wants to shift the military focus to Afghanistan, increasing troop strengths there and possibly expanding military operations to pursue al Qaeda and Taliban into Pakistan, I have to wonder just exactly how much of that $10 billion a month would actually get spent on shoring up the U.S. economy.
aloha
[posted with ecto]
"That triggered then a concern that maybe our visit was going to be perceived as political," Obama said. "The last thing that I want to do is have injured soldiers and the staff at these wonderful institutions having to sort through whether this is political or not or get caught in the crossfire between campaigns. So rather than go forward and potentially get caught up in what might have been a political controversy, of some sort, what we decided was that we would not make a visit."
read more | digg story
For a man who prides himself on his judgement, it seems to have failed him this time. In the course of planning a world tour in which he would meet with many world leaders and the purpose of which was to enhance his image before voters back home, Mr. Obama did not realize that a visit to Landstuhl military hospital might be misconstrued as having political overtones? Nor did he have the political acumen to realize that abandoning the scheduled visit suddenly would also have political ramifications.
It seems to me the smart move would have been to tell Maj. Gen. Scott Gration that he would need to sit this one out, take only his senatorial staff and visit the troops as the Senator from Illinois. Chalked it up to poor judgement due to lack of experience.
[posted with ecto]
The Obama Campaign's favorite magazine, The New Yorker, ran an article this month that carried what I think might become a very prophetic headline; OBAMA’S IRAQ PROBLEM (digg story). Now, the story talks about the controversy surrounding Mr. Obama's 16 month withdrawal plan. However, I think that when we look at Mr. Obama's rhetoric on Iraq, the problem goes deeper. Mr. Obama has been very reluctant to concede any credit to the surge for the remarkable progress in Iraq over the last year. Mr. Obama portrays, or at least has until very recently portrayed, the war in Iraq as an endless quagmire. However, he has clearly stated that he believes the real battle is in Afghanistan where he plans to increase troop strength to fight increased al Qaeda and Taliban forces there.
The problem now for Mr. Obama is twofold. First, if Mr. Obama did not believe that a surge would work in Iraq a year ago and is still only willing to call it a contributory factor in the progress in Iraq over the past year, why is he calling for what is essentially a surge in Afghanistan? And what if Afghanistan turns out to be the quagmire that Mr. Obama promised Iraq would be?
Second and far more important to me as one of the soldiers who will end up serving on the Afghan front, how does Mr. Obama define victory in the war on al Qaeda, the war on terror? I suspect that once he gets it all worked out it will look something like this:
The best way to secure long-term peace and security is to establish a stable, prosperous, and democratic state in Afghanistan that poses no threat to its neighbors and contributes to the defeat of terrorists. When Afghani forces can safeguard their own country, American troops can return home. (source)
And one last thought. Has it occurred to Mr. Obama that at least part of the reason for the increase in al Qaeda activity in Afghanistan is because of the surge and the success in Iraq? That maybe al Qaeda is shifting personnel from Iraq to Afghanistan?
aloha
[posted with ecto]
“It is not going to be a political speech,” said a senior foreign policy adviser, who spoke to reporters on background. “When the president of the United States goes and gives a speech, it is not a political speech or a political rally.
”But he is not president of the United States,“ a reporter reminded the adviser.
”He is going to talk about the issues as an individual … not as a candidate, but as an individual, as a senator,“ the adviser added.
original article | digg story
This is pretty funny. First, I would argue that pretty much every time the sitting President of the United States opens his mouth it's a political speech. The Press sure seems to think so.
Second, which is it? Is Mr. Obama speaking as the President, an individual or as a senator? Each is significantly different though some might argue that speaking as a senator is similar to speaking as the president. It is a commentary on the senior foreign policy adviser that s/he does not seem to appreciate the difference or even that there is a difference. The initial example is, in my opinion, enlightening in that it shows the frame of mind from which the adviser is approaching this campaign trip.
aloha
[posted with ecto]
Beneath the radar, well-funded activist groups plan to take control in key battleground states. Liberals aren't just on the march on the presidential level. This year, liberal activists are spending parts of the fortunes of their wealthy donors to transform politics at the state and local level.
read more | digg story
Yesterday, I pointed out that Mr. Obama's strategy for Iraq, at least as it is being presented, really has very little to do with Iraq. I take a certain amount of satisfaction in the fact that the Washington Post today makes the same point in their Op-Ed piece (read more | digg story).
Also interesting is the response from Dr. Susan Rice, a senior foreign policy adviser to Mr. Obama, about the editorial. The war on terror is a lot like the arcade game, Whack-a-Mole. I would not be in the least bit surprised if it were discovered that the rise in violence in Afghanistan is being coordinated by al Qaeda. To suggest that the US can afford to withdraw from Iraq in order to pursue terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan is to admit a lack of understanding of how terrorist organizations operate.
The only viable, responsible way out of Iraq is through an economically and politically stable Iraq whose Army and Police force are capable of ensuring that nation's security. Anything short of that leaves open the opportunity for al Qaeda.
aloha
[posted with ecto]