I've stayed out of the Wisconsin union discussion for the same reason I never voted when I lived in Green Bay (or Chicago): It's their state and not mine. But a lot of my friends have been posting this as a status update lately:
"Only 5 states do not have collective bargaining for educators (i.e. “teachers unions”) and have deemed it illegal. Those states and their ranking on ACT/SAT scores are as follows:
South Carolina - 50th
North Carolina - 49th
Georgia - 48th
Texas - 47th
Virginia - 44th
Wisconsin ranked 2nd in 2010 in combined ACT/SAT.
(http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/states/USCHARTsat.html)"
Which is I was tickled to find these two quotes in a book I'm reading about political doublespeak, "Aristotle and an Aardvark: Understanding Political Doublespeak Through Philosophy and Jokes", and thought I would share them for your personal enjoyment.
" 'The 10 states with the lowest per pupil spending including 4- North Dakota, South Dakota, Tennessee & Utah - in the top 10 states with the highest SAT scores. Only 1- Wisconsin -was among the 10 states with the highest SAT scores. New Jersey has the highest per pupil, an astonishing $10,561, which teachers' unions elsewhere try to use as a negotiating benchmark. New Jersey's rank regarding SAT scores? 39th. ...'
George Will, Washington Post, September 12th, 1993"
"In the Journal of Statistics Education, Deborah Lynn Guber points out that a crucial factor Mr. Will ignores in his analysis is participation rates: the percentage of students in each state who actually take the SAT. It turns out that in North Dakota, state colleges require the ACT rather than the SAT, so only 5% of North Dakota students take the SAT. It is fair to say that among that 5% are a large number of students who want to go to prestigious out-of-state schools (that do require the SAT) and who, because of their proven academic abilities, think they have a shot at it. In New Jersey, by comparison, 79 percent of students take the SAT- certainly a more representative cross-section of the entire population of high school graduates. So the SAT scores of the brightest ND students are being compared to the SAT scores of more typical NJ students."
I think the implication is pretty clear. We can definitely get non-union labor to do George Will's job.
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Today Was A Good Day
Four years ago, the day after the election, I wrote the following blog post on my old blog Captain Handsome.
Election Results
Today I feel both disappointed and relieved.
I feel disappointed because John Kerry and John Edwards didn't win. It's a little like cheering for your favorite sports team if your favorite sports team directed the economy, the military and the governance of law.
A lot of people like cheering for the Yankees because the Yankees win. If you had to choose your favorite team based on how they played, how they treated their fans, etc., the distribution would be more even. Or people just wouldn't care which is what happens more often in politics.
When John Kerry and John Edwards didn't win, it doesn't mean I won't vote for Democrats two years from now. I'll still be back cheering for the same team because the same things will be important to me then and it will be the same team which will be able to deliver them to me.
As I've expressed elsewhere, this one in particular would've been nice to win.
I'm relieved because it came down to votes. There was no last minute surprise "Hey, we have Osama bin Laden," or "Holy shit, President Bush raped a bear. And that bear was my father!" shit. I think that's the stuff which really turns people off to politics and makes them think their vote doesn't count. This election really was about courting the voters, talking about issues and who is the better man for the job.
There are still votes to be counted and the television networks don't choose the president. It would be great if Bush were ushered out the same way he was ushered in. However, I'm waking up to an America in which George W Bush is the President and I can finally react to that.
The nation selected George W Bush. They elected a foreign policy where the United States actively uses its military might, a domestic policy which supports businesses who are then responsible for supporting their employees and a moral policy which is very conservative. They also selected leaving things as they are over how things could be.
And I'm not sure I fit with that. I don't fit with the Bush Administration's interpretations for sure. Yet a lot of voters looked past the pragmatic and went on the basis of values. While I can relate to those values, they aren't mine.
Atleast I know where I stand. And I can start setting my course from there.
Whether that is me following through on my festering urge to move out of the US or just into a deeper blue state or the exact opposite by going into a red state and helping to bridge the gap, I don't know.
Today is a brand new day. Today my relief is to be starting.
Now it's four years later and I can tell you what happened.
After getting over the initial shock, I decided to commit myself to work and spent the next term floating astray and trying to fit into the corporate world I found odd. For three of those years, I had the support of a wonderful and caring woman and she did more than her part to help me see the cheer in my life and why I should continue on. But the stress of our relationship pushed us apart and this summer things fell apart. I moved home from Chicago and looked around at my options.
There are two realizations I've come to in the last two months. I've found I'm back where I was four years ago and my old burning is coming back. I never really forgot that feeling and anyone who was there will tell you volunteering was the part of my Chicago job I enjoyed the most. It's no coincidence that I'd supported a community organizer for President. Then last night that community organizer won.
Yesterday the nation selected Barack Obama. They elected a foreign policy where the United States uses its military might judiciously, a domestic policy which asks people to make sacrifices for the greater good and a moral policy which is open and liberal. They left behind things as they are and want to see how things could be. And I fit with that. I can relate to those values because they are mine too.
So, with the economy in the tank and the corporate world a suit that fit poorly to begin, I'm going to look into making service my full-time occupation. I don't know if that's going to be foreign service, the Peace Corps, Americorps, some form of government job, some form of non-profit or non-governmental organization, etc. All of that is to be determined. The point is I woke up this morning in an America that needs help and I plan to do my part in helping.
In 2008, Yes We Can!
Election Results
Today I feel both disappointed and relieved.
I feel disappointed because John Kerry and John Edwards didn't win. It's a little like cheering for your favorite sports team if your favorite sports team directed the economy, the military and the governance of law.
A lot of people like cheering for the Yankees because the Yankees win. If you had to choose your favorite team based on how they played, how they treated their fans, etc., the distribution would be more even. Or people just wouldn't care which is what happens more often in politics.
When John Kerry and John Edwards didn't win, it doesn't mean I won't vote for Democrats two years from now. I'll still be back cheering for the same team because the same things will be important to me then and it will be the same team which will be able to deliver them to me.
As I've expressed elsewhere, this one in particular would've been nice to win.
I'm relieved because it came down to votes. There was no last minute surprise "Hey, we have Osama bin Laden," or "Holy shit, President Bush raped a bear. And that bear was my father!" shit. I think that's the stuff which really turns people off to politics and makes them think their vote doesn't count. This election really was about courting the voters, talking about issues and who is the better man for the job.
There are still votes to be counted and the television networks don't choose the president. It would be great if Bush were ushered out the same way he was ushered in. However, I'm waking up to an America in which George W Bush is the President and I can finally react to that.
The nation selected George W Bush. They elected a foreign policy where the United States actively uses its military might, a domestic policy which supports businesses who are then responsible for supporting their employees and a moral policy which is very conservative. They also selected leaving things as they are over how things could be.
And I'm not sure I fit with that. I don't fit with the Bush Administration's interpretations for sure. Yet a lot of voters looked past the pragmatic and went on the basis of values. While I can relate to those values, they aren't mine.
Atleast I know where I stand. And I can start setting my course from there.
Whether that is me following through on my festering urge to move out of the US or just into a deeper blue state or the exact opposite by going into a red state and helping to bridge the gap, I don't know.
Today is a brand new day. Today my relief is to be starting.
Now it's four years later and I can tell you what happened.
After getting over the initial shock, I decided to commit myself to work and spent the next term floating astray and trying to fit into the corporate world I found odd. For three of those years, I had the support of a wonderful and caring woman and she did more than her part to help me see the cheer in my life and why I should continue on. But the stress of our relationship pushed us apart and this summer things fell apart. I moved home from Chicago and looked around at my options.
There are two realizations I've come to in the last two months. I've found I'm back where I was four years ago and my old burning is coming back. I never really forgot that feeling and anyone who was there will tell you volunteering was the part of my Chicago job I enjoyed the most. It's no coincidence that I'd supported a community organizer for President. Then last night that community organizer won.
Yesterday the nation selected Barack Obama. They elected a foreign policy where the United States uses its military might judiciously, a domestic policy which asks people to make sacrifices for the greater good and a moral policy which is open and liberal. They left behind things as they are and want to see how things could be. And I fit with that. I can relate to those values because they are mine too.
So, with the economy in the tank and the corporate world a suit that fit poorly to begin, I'm going to look into making service my full-time occupation. I don't know if that's going to be foreign service, the Peace Corps, Americorps, some form of government job, some form of non-profit or non-governmental organization, etc. All of that is to be determined. The point is I woke up this morning in an America that needs help and I plan to do my part in helping.
In 2008, Yes We Can!
Saturday, October 18, 2008
I Make It Rain
I had a friend who posted an article on his Facebook about the American tax system explained through beer. Here it is and then my comments follow...
Tax System explained in Beer
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten guys comes to $100.
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. 'Since you are all such good customers'' he said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.' Drinks for the ten now cost just $80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers?
How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?' They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33.. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 ( 22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
'I only got a dollar out of the $20,' declared the sixth man.
He pointed to the tenth man, 'but he got $10!'
''Yeah, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I'
''That's true!!' shouted the seventh man. 'Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!'
''Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!'
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
I think there's a falacy in the logic of this article. It assumes that all of people's needs (the beer) are met by the bartender (the government). But that's not the economic model used in the capitalistic, free market United States. That's actually large-C Communism.
This article is actually a pretty sound illustration of why a tax break doesn't benefit the middle class. Despite paying taxes on a percentage basis, real world costs (food, housing, clothing, gas) are on a dollar for dollar basis. And the tax cut you describe gives the tenth man ten times the actual dollar for dollar benefit as the fifth man and provides no benefit for the first through fourth men.
Take college tuition for example. That is a flat cost. If you go to the University of Minnesota and are from Minnesota, you pay the same rate regardless of your ability to pay. So a middle class family who makes too much to qualify for financial aid has a penalty in sending their children to college. They have to choose on a dollar for dollar basis where their money would be better spent.
In my opinion, the great flaw in conservative fiscal policy is not giving tax breaks to the rich. Freeing money from the grandstanding whims of politicians (who gave $700B to Treasury to "I dunno. Fix the economy or somethin'," without oversight) is a good idea. Taxes can only benefit the people who are paying in, the citizens of the country. Investment capital can benefit anyone anywhere, especially in areas that are poised for rapid growth in the globalized economy aka The Third World. It is that the money doesn't end up being put in investments that benefit everyone.
The money is ending up emphasizing the investments over the capital. People are buying dot.com stock and mortgage-backed securities to get a healthy return for their portfolios because investing in government projects (in the form of bonds) have been money losers in the conservative fiscal world. There's no reason in the profit motive to do something that's altruistic.
Merck, for example, isn't going to do a whole lot of R&D on a new tuberculosis treatment in order to share that research with its competitors. It would be foolish to expect people to work hard, get ahead and then flush that advantage down the drain. But the Centers For Disease Control would.
So if you're saying that there should be tax breaks to free investment capital for use in the world economy, then I agree with you especially if that money is bringing basic needs to developing nations.
If you're saying that a tax break is a way to create wealth, I still need to be sold because it seems to me to be just moving water out of one bucket and into another.
If you're saying that the rich are going to take their ball and go home, I encourage you to tell me a better economy for the wealthy than the one we've got. You know that liberals have been waiting 40 years to say this...
Love it or leave it.
Tax System explained in Beer
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten guys comes to $100.
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. 'Since you are all such good customers'' he said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.' Drinks for the ten now cost just $80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers?
How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?' They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33.. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 ( 22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
'I only got a dollar out of the $20,' declared the sixth man.
He pointed to the tenth man, 'but he got $10!'
''Yeah, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I'
''That's true!!' shouted the seventh man. 'Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!'
''Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!'
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
I think there's a falacy in the logic of this article. It assumes that all of people's needs (the beer) are met by the bartender (the government). But that's not the economic model used in the capitalistic, free market United States. That's actually large-C Communism.
This article is actually a pretty sound illustration of why a tax break doesn't benefit the middle class. Despite paying taxes on a percentage basis, real world costs (food, housing, clothing, gas) are on a dollar for dollar basis. And the tax cut you describe gives the tenth man ten times the actual dollar for dollar benefit as the fifth man and provides no benefit for the first through fourth men.
Take college tuition for example. That is a flat cost. If you go to the University of Minnesota and are from Minnesota, you pay the same rate regardless of your ability to pay. So a middle class family who makes too much to qualify for financial aid has a penalty in sending their children to college. They have to choose on a dollar for dollar basis where their money would be better spent.
In my opinion, the great flaw in conservative fiscal policy is not giving tax breaks to the rich. Freeing money from the grandstanding whims of politicians (who gave $700B to Treasury to "I dunno. Fix the economy or somethin'," without oversight) is a good idea. Taxes can only benefit the people who are paying in, the citizens of the country. Investment capital can benefit anyone anywhere, especially in areas that are poised for rapid growth in the globalized economy aka The Third World. It is that the money doesn't end up being put in investments that benefit everyone.
The money is ending up emphasizing the investments over the capital. People are buying dot.com stock and mortgage-backed securities to get a healthy return for their portfolios because investing in government projects (in the form of bonds) have been money losers in the conservative fiscal world. There's no reason in the profit motive to do something that's altruistic.
Merck, for example, isn't going to do a whole lot of R&D on a new tuberculosis treatment in order to share that research with its competitors. It would be foolish to expect people to work hard, get ahead and then flush that advantage down the drain. But the Centers For Disease Control would.
So if you're saying that there should be tax breaks to free investment capital for use in the world economy, then I agree with you especially if that money is bringing basic needs to developing nations.
If you're saying that a tax break is a way to create wealth, I still need to be sold because it seems to me to be just moving water out of one bucket and into another.
If you're saying that the rich are going to take their ball and go home, I encourage you to tell me a better economy for the wealthy than the one we've got. You know that liberals have been waiting 40 years to say this...
Love it or leave it.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Thoughts Before A Debate
The general consensus this election cycle is the Obama campaign needs to be careful about not being a bully, especially towards Sarah Palin. Let's set aside general politicking for a minute. I find it more interesting that bullying is considered the natural order of the Obama campaign if not politics in general.
It's odd to me because what one side perceives as bullying is often just criticism by the other side. Since the two-party system works best when the two sides are collaborating (because then it really is the will of the people and not just the ruling party), the necessary first step is to collect the consensus of the other party. Part of this consensus-building is defining and then mediating the differences between your viewpoint and that of your collaborator.
What has changed in America in the last 15 years is things have gotten really tight, really negative and really focused on winning. There is so much at stake in each race because of the former that candidates are willing to do the middle to because they are the latter. More and more candidates are doing it and will continue to do it because it works. People respond to clear, simplified black and white more enthusiastically than muddled greys.
Which flies completely in the face of the necessary first step of collaboration and actually harms American politics. Everything is so amped up and focused on ripping out the other guy's jugular what's lost that governance is really supposed to be about moving the whole country together into prosperity. That comes with making some sacrifices especially in the "always needing to be right" arena.
You need to slow things down, think about the three fingers pointing back when you point one away and use your reasoning to criticise yourself. If you were going to fight to the death, would this be the issue? Is this really something that you really want to be your legacy, the thing people think of when they think of you?
Each of the candidates for President this year are promising change. Obama has been known as a man who focuses on change since he gave the keynote address at the Democratic convention four years ago and John McCain's allure to voters on both sides of the aisle since 2000 springs from his deserved reputation as a bipartisan worker. I hope whomever wins in November stays true to his roots and he knows the way to really create change is through grace.
Our country has endured bullying as the modis operandi of politics for too long, almost a whole generation. It's time to begin collaborating again, not berating the other side into deep-held anger. The necessary first step in collaboration is to collect the consensus of the other party. Our focus should be on how we're the same and how we all can get better and not how we can win by pointing out the other side is wrong.
So that's why I was really saddened by the news this week. For all of the talk of change and maverick reformers by these two men I deeply respect, it's going to be politics as usual in the last month before the election. And that hurts even more than if it had just been another two Ivy League-educated, wealthy white men duking it out.
It's odd to me because what one side perceives as bullying is often just criticism by the other side. Since the two-party system works best when the two sides are collaborating (because then it really is the will of the people and not just the ruling party), the necessary first step is to collect the consensus of the other party. Part of this consensus-building is defining and then mediating the differences between your viewpoint and that of your collaborator.
What has changed in America in the last 15 years is things have gotten really tight, really negative and really focused on winning. There is so much at stake in each race because of the former that candidates are willing to do the middle to because they are the latter. More and more candidates are doing it and will continue to do it because it works. People respond to clear, simplified black and white more enthusiastically than muddled greys.
Which flies completely in the face of the necessary first step of collaboration and actually harms American politics. Everything is so amped up and focused on ripping out the other guy's jugular what's lost that governance is really supposed to be about moving the whole country together into prosperity. That comes with making some sacrifices especially in the "always needing to be right" arena.
You need to slow things down, think about the three fingers pointing back when you point one away and use your reasoning to criticise yourself. If you were going to fight to the death, would this be the issue? Is this really something that you really want to be your legacy, the thing people think of when they think of you?
Each of the candidates for President this year are promising change. Obama has been known as a man who focuses on change since he gave the keynote address at the Democratic convention four years ago and John McCain's allure to voters on both sides of the aisle since 2000 springs from his deserved reputation as a bipartisan worker. I hope whomever wins in November stays true to his roots and he knows the way to really create change is through grace.
Our country has endured bullying as the modis operandi of politics for too long, almost a whole generation. It's time to begin collaborating again, not berating the other side into deep-held anger. The necessary first step in collaboration is to collect the consensus of the other party. Our focus should be on how we're the same and how we all can get better and not how we can win by pointing out the other side is wrong.
So that's why I was really saddened by the news this week. For all of the talk of change and maverick reformers by these two men I deeply respect, it's going to be politics as usual in the last month before the election. And that hurts even more than if it had just been another two Ivy League-educated, wealthy white men duking it out.
Thursday, April 3, 2008
Obama-ama-eh-eh-eh
On Tuesday, I changed my status on Facebook to say, "All of the troops would be home from Iraq today if Obama were President" to reflect the date (3/31/08) the Senator's Iraq War De-Escalation Act of 2007 set as a goal to make a full withdrawl. Soon thereafter the debate was joined.
Gerry: Actually, all the troops would be exactly where they are since Obama said that if al Qeada increased violence after the withdrawal of American troops (which they would) he would send troops to stabilize the country. But who knows if he knew what he meant...he's pretty new at this. ;-)
Mike: It seems to me the violence is surging with our troops there now.
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23467708-5005961,00.html
If we wait until Al-Qaeda isn't violent, we're going to be in Iraq for a long time and we're going to keep on losing. Time for the troops to come home and time to stop wasting resources on a failed military objective.
Gerry: So you disagree with Obama's position? Since he clearly said that if al Qaeda threatened to destabilize the country after we left that he would send troops.
Also the spikes in violence recently have more to do with Sadr and the Iraqi government than alQ. alQ is in a mess right now in Iraq. Mostly because of the surge and Petraus. Hopefully we will have a government that will continue to destroy our enemies long enough for Sadr and Maliki to get their shit together. Then we can have a nice orderly, responsible shift from American control to Iraqi control. Instead of some neophyte recklessly withdrawing troops only to send them back when all the shit breaks loose.
If you really think a President Obama would have had troops home by now, I only suggest you look at the posturing of the Democrat congress since '06. Any objective person would conclude that they didn't want troops pulled out of Iraq. But if you want to keep your Obama fantasies, hope away.
Mike: You contradict yourself in your own retort. Which is it? Obama would have sent troops back to Iraq because of al-Qaeda or is al-Qaeda in Iraq in disarray? I'm unclear which position you're taking.
The surge was a temporary fix to a longer lasting problem. Like the man himself said, "I'm not against all wars. I'm against this war." He's got the executive perspective to realize the war in Iraq is a fool's errand. Our objectives there are impossible and no amount of resources will win the battle.
Pulling out won't destabilize Iraq. Iraq is destabilized. We're just there trying to fix what's irreparably broken. Our position is like a hand in a bucket of water. There may be a few drops when we pull our hand out and they'll create ripples for a few minutes. After those ripples subside, you'd never know we were there. Iraq will go on being as destabilized as we've made it.
So I actually agree with Obama. Our fight is not with the Iraqi people. It's with al-Qaeda.
P.S. Why would Congressional Dems send a bill to withdraw troops to President Bush? He's not going to sign it and they don't have a 2/3rds majority. So it's penalty-kill time until a Dem is President and then things will change.
Gerry: I did not contradict myself. We messed alQ's shit up with the surge. Leaving would allow them to once again attack the country and the Iraqi government. We have our foot on the throat of the most destabilizing element in Iraq. Leaving would let them get back up kneecap the unprepared Iraqi government. Which is why Obama said that he would send troops in to stop that. Obama's position is amateurish. You're either in to win or out damned of the consequences. His position is hokey-pokey. We need to give the Iraqi people more time. They are not ready to protect themselves and their government.
p.s. Why wouldn't they send a bill to President Bush? That is what they were elected to do, wasn't it?
p.p.s. If you think a democrat president would change how those congressional votes went you are dreaming. "Withdrawing the troops" is a red herring democrats use to get people against the war to vote for them. They wouldn't actually do it because they know if they actually did that the consequences would turn large majorities against them. They would be rightly blamed for the massive widespread carnage and death that would result. We a force for stability in Iraq, like it or not. And we will be there until Iraq is ready for us to leave.
Mike: Less amateurish than "stay the course" though, right? In fact, I'd say that it verges on decision-making instead of simple "well, once this happens and it's politically convenient then we'll do this." You can't look at what's happened in Iraq over the last five years, 4,000 US soldiers dead and $500 billion sucked down the drain and declare that a success. The war in Iraq leaves us weak at home (Hello, Katrina!) and diminishes us abroad (proving our enemies right). To continue in the war at this point of dimishing returns and increasing violence is foolish. In fact, it might take some courage to stop it.
I like that you bring up that a Democratic presidential nominee is weak and waffles on his positions. I suppose if you say things enough times people will actually believe they're true. I'd also like to point out that Republicans are religious nut, crypto-fascists who are intent on stripping regular Americans of their civil liberties and creating a police state.
P.S. Congress's goal is to enact legislation. Why send something to the White House you know is going to be immediately shot down by a President who is more concerned with being right than doing what is right. His obstinance is not the same thing as determined leadership. It's more like childish petulance.
P.P.S. Having the same party in control of both the White House and Congress always leads to that party's agenda being advanced. Do you think Part D of Medicare would be run through private insurance companies if the Democrats had held the either branch in 2003? Do you really think a close margin holds up against a Presidential veto?
P.P.P.S. We destabilized Iraq and we're spreading carnage already. Even worse, we're taking blame just for even being there. So what's our gain for fighting Iraqis instead of al-Qaeda? The Bush-Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz policy toward stability in the Middle East has failed categorically.
Gerry: A few things, decision-making can be bad or good. Leaving now and dropping the middle east into chaos I would deem a bad decision. To say, as Obama does, that at that point we would send troops back in to clean up an even bigger mess, doesn't make any sense. I've never claimed the war was a success or even well handled. But that has no bearing on how we move forward. If you think the war weakens us at home and abroad watch what would happen if we let the middle east devolve into chaos and hand alQ a victory. Violence is actually down (aside from the Basra dustup with Sadr that has more to do with Iraqi politics; and since then Sadr has called a cease-fire, since ultimately he wants a table in government.)
I've only talked about what Obama said he would do. If I've mischaracterized it, please point out how. I haven't. A reasonable person wouldn't say that I sink to empty partisan-baiting. Don't accuse me of such.
We destabilized Iraq (if it was justified or in our interest is a different argument). And we completely botched the establishment of a stable government. And we are only now getting over those mistakes. It took a change of strategy and a change of personalities to do it. But there is clearly a path to a stable government if we only have the patience and foresight to give the Iraqi government the time.
You tell me what will happen when we leave Iraq. Because everyone who wants to just bring troops home never talks about it. Do you think everything will just work itself out? Do you think it will be consequence-free? Can you still pretend that we live in a disconnected world; that turning our backs on the world will lead to anything but dissaster?
p.s. retort: I only point out that the dem congress, after 2006 midterms, spent more money and send more troops to Iraq. Troops will not come out of Iraq until the Iraq government is established and ready. Plain and simple. Repub or Dem.
Mike: So a decision based on recognizing the sweeping failures of a previous tactic cross-referenced against the will of the people is NOT something the President should do? I'll have to go back to Civics class on that one.
I'll make a historical connection here and then I can lay off. The domino theory actually happened. When we stopped fighting in 1973 against the North Vietnamese, they took over South Vietnam. Then Cambodia and Laos fell to Communist regimes. Then nothing happened. The Russians and the Chinese crumbled under their own ascetic values and ressentiment and are now playgrounds for the American free market machine. Al-Qaeda will similarly crumble under its own ascetic values and ressentiment if people are drinking Coca-Cola in Saudi Arabia and making fair wages in Indonesia.
My point in my status is this. A little over a year ago Obama introduced the Iraq War De-Escalation Act of 2007 to Congress which set the goal of having all American combat troops home by March 31st, 2008. Since that was two days ago, I thought I would point that out. Since President Bush and now Nominee McCain are in favor of extending the war, I think it's pretty clear who supports the position held by the majority of the American people.
Gerry: Too bad Obama isn't as clearly on the side of leaving and letting the chips fall as you. ;-) That position I can respect and understand, even if I have major disagrements with it. (I also know that the nature of politics in America probably won't let that happen.)
Have you read the De-Escalation Act? It had a bunch of benchmarks for leaving (similar to the ones we are using now with the surge), which if not met would suspend the redeployment (with congressional approval of course.) War power issues aside...again, do you really think the democrat congress would bring troops home before we are ready? Or even a dem prez?
Or troops will leave Iraq when Iraq is stable enough for us to leave. Not a day sooner.
Mike: You're right that it's unfortunate Obama is an American politician. He does have to leave some room for compromise instead of simply bullying his opponents a la Putin or Sarkozy. Still I'll trade a little waffling for not having to deal with a right wing police state. (Ha ha!)
I know that the De-Escalation Act had benchmarks. Chances are we wouldn't have met them since they were based on the Iraq Study group's recommendations and we only met half(?) of those. Still Reagan and Weinberger vowed to stay in Lebanon after the 1983 barracks bombing and our boys were home less than six months later. Though that area of the world remains in trumoil (Did they ever get those two Israeli soldiers back?), there are hardly Hezbollah members blowing themselves up on my train in the morning. So, yes, I do think a popular and charasmatic President would've had troops home, even if it meant leaving the Iraqis to their own civil war, regardless of whether or not he's Democratic or Republican.
Gerry: My problem isn't with Obama *saying* he would leave and go back in. My problem is with how shortsighted that policy is. Admitting you'd go back in pretty much says you know you can't let the area degrade past a certain point. The quickest way to ensure it never gets to that point is to stay now, continue providing security until Iraq can handle it, and then leave. It is just common sense. I don't understand someone that would draw this out by advocating leaving too soon, with the full intent of returning as soon as, what pretty much every expert considers the logical result, happens.
Iraq is a much bigger strategic interest than Lebanon. Ask members of the Cedar revolution if they appreciated that we cut and run and left them to Syria's whims for 20 years. It is all interconnected, dispite how hard we try to shove our own heads up our own asses.
Gerry: Actually, all the troops would be exactly where they are since Obama said that if al Qeada increased violence after the withdrawal of American troops (which they would) he would send troops to stabilize the country. But who knows if he knew what he meant...he's pretty new at this. ;-)
Mike: It seems to me the violence is surging with our troops there now.
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23467708-5005961,00.html
If we wait until Al-Qaeda isn't violent, we're going to be in Iraq for a long time and we're going to keep on losing. Time for the troops to come home and time to stop wasting resources on a failed military objective.
Gerry: So you disagree with Obama's position? Since he clearly said that if al Qaeda threatened to destabilize the country after we left that he would send troops.
Also the spikes in violence recently have more to do with Sadr and the Iraqi government than alQ. alQ is in a mess right now in Iraq. Mostly because of the surge and Petraus. Hopefully we will have a government that will continue to destroy our enemies long enough for Sadr and Maliki to get their shit together. Then we can have a nice orderly, responsible shift from American control to Iraqi control. Instead of some neophyte recklessly withdrawing troops only to send them back when all the shit breaks loose.
If you really think a President Obama would have had troops home by now, I only suggest you look at the posturing of the Democrat congress since '06. Any objective person would conclude that they didn't want troops pulled out of Iraq. But if you want to keep your Obama fantasies, hope away.
Mike: You contradict yourself in your own retort. Which is it? Obama would have sent troops back to Iraq because of al-Qaeda or is al-Qaeda in Iraq in disarray? I'm unclear which position you're taking.
The surge was a temporary fix to a longer lasting problem. Like the man himself said, "I'm not against all wars. I'm against this war." He's got the executive perspective to realize the war in Iraq is a fool's errand. Our objectives there are impossible and no amount of resources will win the battle.
Pulling out won't destabilize Iraq. Iraq is destabilized. We're just there trying to fix what's irreparably broken. Our position is like a hand in a bucket of water. There may be a few drops when we pull our hand out and they'll create ripples for a few minutes. After those ripples subside, you'd never know we were there. Iraq will go on being as destabilized as we've made it.
So I actually agree with Obama. Our fight is not with the Iraqi people. It's with al-Qaeda.
P.S. Why would Congressional Dems send a bill to withdraw troops to President Bush? He's not going to sign it and they don't have a 2/3rds majority. So it's penalty-kill time until a Dem is President and then things will change.
Gerry: I did not contradict myself. We messed alQ's shit up with the surge. Leaving would allow them to once again attack the country and the Iraqi government. We have our foot on the throat of the most destabilizing element in Iraq. Leaving would let them get back up kneecap the unprepared Iraqi government. Which is why Obama said that he would send troops in to stop that. Obama's position is amateurish. You're either in to win or out damned of the consequences. His position is hokey-pokey. We need to give the Iraqi people more time. They are not ready to protect themselves and their government.
p.s. Why wouldn't they send a bill to President Bush? That is what they were elected to do, wasn't it?
p.p.s. If you think a democrat president would change how those congressional votes went you are dreaming. "Withdrawing the troops" is a red herring democrats use to get people against the war to vote for them. They wouldn't actually do it because they know if they actually did that the consequences would turn large majorities against them. They would be rightly blamed for the massive widespread carnage and death that would result. We a force for stability in Iraq, like it or not. And we will be there until Iraq is ready for us to leave.
Mike: Less amateurish than "stay the course" though, right? In fact, I'd say that it verges on decision-making instead of simple "well, once this happens and it's politically convenient then we'll do this." You can't look at what's happened in Iraq over the last five years, 4,000 US soldiers dead and $500 billion sucked down the drain and declare that a success. The war in Iraq leaves us weak at home (Hello, Katrina!) and diminishes us abroad (proving our enemies right). To continue in the war at this point of dimishing returns and increasing violence is foolish. In fact, it might take some courage to stop it.
I like that you bring up that a Democratic presidential nominee is weak and waffles on his positions. I suppose if you say things enough times people will actually believe they're true. I'd also like to point out that Republicans are religious nut, crypto-fascists who are intent on stripping regular Americans of their civil liberties and creating a police state.
P.S. Congress's goal is to enact legislation. Why send something to the White House you know is going to be immediately shot down by a President who is more concerned with being right than doing what is right. His obstinance is not the same thing as determined leadership. It's more like childish petulance.
P.P.S. Having the same party in control of both the White House and Congress always leads to that party's agenda being advanced. Do you think Part D of Medicare would be run through private insurance companies if the Democrats had held the either branch in 2003? Do you really think a close margin holds up against a Presidential veto?
P.P.P.S. We destabilized Iraq and we're spreading carnage already. Even worse, we're taking blame just for even being there. So what's our gain for fighting Iraqis instead of al-Qaeda? The Bush-Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz policy toward stability in the Middle East has failed categorically.
Gerry: A few things, decision-making can be bad or good. Leaving now and dropping the middle east into chaos I would deem a bad decision. To say, as Obama does, that at that point we would send troops back in to clean up an even bigger mess, doesn't make any sense. I've never claimed the war was a success or even well handled. But that has no bearing on how we move forward. If you think the war weakens us at home and abroad watch what would happen if we let the middle east devolve into chaos and hand alQ a victory. Violence is actually down (aside from the Basra dustup with Sadr that has more to do with Iraqi politics; and since then Sadr has called a cease-fire, since ultimately he wants a table in government.)
I've only talked about what Obama said he would do. If I've mischaracterized it, please point out how. I haven't. A reasonable person wouldn't say that I sink to empty partisan-baiting. Don't accuse me of such.
We destabilized Iraq (if it was justified or in our interest is a different argument). And we completely botched the establishment of a stable government. And we are only now getting over those mistakes. It took a change of strategy and a change of personalities to do it. But there is clearly a path to a stable government if we only have the patience and foresight to give the Iraqi government the time.
You tell me what will happen when we leave Iraq. Because everyone who wants to just bring troops home never talks about it. Do you think everything will just work itself out? Do you think it will be consequence-free? Can you still pretend that we live in a disconnected world; that turning our backs on the world will lead to anything but dissaster?
p.s. retort: I only point out that the dem congress, after 2006 midterms, spent more money and send more troops to Iraq. Troops will not come out of Iraq until the Iraq government is established and ready. Plain and simple. Repub or Dem.
Mike: So a decision based on recognizing the sweeping failures of a previous tactic cross-referenced against the will of the people is NOT something the President should do? I'll have to go back to Civics class on that one.
I'll make a historical connection here and then I can lay off. The domino theory actually happened. When we stopped fighting in 1973 against the North Vietnamese, they took over South Vietnam. Then Cambodia and Laos fell to Communist regimes. Then nothing happened. The Russians and the Chinese crumbled under their own ascetic values and ressentiment and are now playgrounds for the American free market machine. Al-Qaeda will similarly crumble under its own ascetic values and ressentiment if people are drinking Coca-Cola in Saudi Arabia and making fair wages in Indonesia.
My point in my status is this. A little over a year ago Obama introduced the Iraq War De-Escalation Act of 2007 to Congress which set the goal of having all American combat troops home by March 31st, 2008. Since that was two days ago, I thought I would point that out. Since President Bush and now Nominee McCain are in favor of extending the war, I think it's pretty clear who supports the position held by the majority of the American people.
Gerry: Too bad Obama isn't as clearly on the side of leaving and letting the chips fall as you. ;-) That position I can respect and understand, even if I have major disagrements with it. (I also know that the nature of politics in America probably won't let that happen.)
Have you read the De-Escalation Act? It had a bunch of benchmarks for leaving (similar to the ones we are using now with the surge), which if not met would suspend the redeployment (with congressional approval of course.) War power issues aside...again, do you really think the democrat congress would bring troops home before we are ready? Or even a dem prez?
Or troops will leave Iraq when Iraq is stable enough for us to leave. Not a day sooner.
Mike: You're right that it's unfortunate Obama is an American politician. He does have to leave some room for compromise instead of simply bullying his opponents a la Putin or Sarkozy. Still I'll trade a little waffling for not having to deal with a right wing police state. (Ha ha!)
I know that the De-Escalation Act had benchmarks. Chances are we wouldn't have met them since they were based on the Iraq Study group's recommendations and we only met half(?) of those. Still Reagan and Weinberger vowed to stay in Lebanon after the 1983 barracks bombing and our boys were home less than six months later. Though that area of the world remains in trumoil (Did they ever get those two Israeli soldiers back?), there are hardly Hezbollah members blowing themselves up on my train in the morning. So, yes, I do think a popular and charasmatic President would've had troops home, even if it meant leaving the Iraqis to their own civil war, regardless of whether or not he's Democratic or Republican.
Gerry: My problem isn't with Obama *saying* he would leave and go back in. My problem is with how shortsighted that policy is. Admitting you'd go back in pretty much says you know you can't let the area degrade past a certain point. The quickest way to ensure it never gets to that point is to stay now, continue providing security until Iraq can handle it, and then leave. It is just common sense. I don't understand someone that would draw this out by advocating leaving too soon, with the full intent of returning as soon as, what pretty much every expert considers the logical result, happens.
Iraq is a much bigger strategic interest than Lebanon. Ask members of the Cedar revolution if they appreciated that we cut and run and left them to Syria's whims for 20 years. It is all interconnected, dispite how hard we try to shove our own heads up our own asses.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)