Young Voices
Exchanging ideas from the show and blogging about topics in the news from a range of perspectives.
August 6, 2007
Lots of Laughs
by Rose Capozzi
Russian President Vladimir Putin
Vladimir Putin, the President of Russia, vowed to restore Russia's greatness by creating an "energy empire", according to TIME. His first steps included seizing privately held corporations for the government to control and forcing (or blackmailing) people into backing his preferred political candidates. But this month, he took his ambitions one step further. In a turn of events more suited to a bad science fiction novel, Putin sent submarines to the ocean floor of the North Pole and placed a Russian flag there. Borrowing his methods from the conquistadores who claimed the Americas for Spain, Russia claimed a portion of the North Pole as its own.
Connected to the North Pole by no more than a small underwater ridge, the former global super power has just as tenuously laid claims on some 10 billion tons of oil.
Most of the Western world chuckled at their claim to the land.
But that is not all that Russia has been up to. Putin is also deeply concerned with the decreasing Russian population. In response, his Kremlin organized a youth movement in order to encourage procreation. Like a summer camp here in the United States, young people from across Russia gathered for a week of anti-democracy rhetoric, physical fitness...and, well, unprotected sex in the name of the motherland.
Most of the Western world was probably laughing out loud at this point.
However, it wasn't too long ago when the Western world found the actions of Reagan's "Evil Empire" quite less hilarious. Bringing back that Soviet-era respect seems to be Putin's major goal.
So, when will Russia's unpredictable actions stop being a laughing matter?
August 1, 2007
Nigeria's New President Runs The Oil
by Victor Marsh
“Nigeria matters to U.S. energy security...”
President Umaru Yar'Adua has chosen his cabinet (after two months of negotiations). He has taken on the responsibility to fight corruption, and to be the final decision-maker on issues of Nigeria's rich oil resources. Nigeria gets lots of money for its oil wealth, but shares little of that money to the communities where the oil comes from. So, the country has had conflict between the oil-rich communities - which feel robbed - and the central government.
Nigeria's problems with fighting corruption - in every state of its federal system and also in the capital city - are notorious. But this West African country also has a lot going for it. Nigerians' level of education and population size makes their people a national resource. Its oil wealth and recently soaring stock market are also huge assets. But the oil can be a curse too - if it fuels corruption.
The president's new cabinet included appointing himself to be Energy Minister - the person who has to deal with all the challenges including Nigerian oil. Dear President Yar'Adua, if there is more funny-business with the oil resources, now the citizens of Nigeria know that the buck stops with you.
Here in the USA, we are depending on your ability to keep peace at home, by sharing the oil wealth equitably with your people. Nigeria matters to U.S. energy security, but more important than serving our interests sir, you must be the president that Nigerians have long deserved.
August 7, 2007
Who's Afraid of the Big Bad Businessman?
by Rose Capozzi
“As America struggles with increasing prescription drug costs, it looks like the Big Bad Businessman might just offer the solution for struggling families.”
One of the American fairy tales that liberals love to recount is the story of the Big Bad Businessman. The Big Bad Businessman is blamed for many things, some rightly, and others wrongly. Weather too hot? The Big Bad Businessman is causing global warming. Mom and Pop out of business? The Big Bad Businessman moved into town and blew their store down. Little Billy is sick? The Big Bad Businessman does not care about the village children.
However, as America struggles with increasing prescription drug costs, it looks like the Big Bad Businessman might just offer the solution for struggling families. Publix supermarket, located in five states, including Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Alabama and Tennessee, announced Monday that it will offer its seven most popular prescription drugs for free.
Of course, the Big Bad Businessman is not truly altruistic. In exchange for the drugs, Publix hopes to earn your trust, and, most importantly, your business. And it is not the only retail giant offering a deal on drugs to lure in shoppers. Walmart offers more than 300 different drugs for only $4. Kmart charges $15 for hundreds of generic medications.
While Congress struggles to find ways to raise and waste inordinate sums of money to "solve the health care problem", it is nice to know that, in reality, people are taking action, even if those people include the Big Bad Businessman.
August 8, 2007
As Beijing '08 Approaches, A Question of Accountability
by Jeremy Freed
In Tiananmen Square, people celebrate the one year countdown to the Olympics.
The dancers sprang and pivoted, their brightly colored silks shimmering under stadium lights, as China celebrated the beginning of its one-year countdown to the Beijing Olympics. Held in Tiananmen Square, the festivities underscored the emergence of China in the 21st century as a bold, dynamic nation, with high aspirations for the future.
In the midst of these celebrations, however, elsewhere in the world, reports were emerging of the confirmed extinction of the baiji, or Yangtze River dolphin. After a six-week survey, an international team of scientists reported that it is unlikely there are any surviving members of this rare species, revered in Chinese mythology and unique to the region.
Although reported in decline since the 1980s, and officially a protected species in China, baiji continued to fall victim to China's rapid expansion, as increased shipping disrupted their habitat, and illegal fishing further devastated their numbers. Scientists and conservationists argued for decades over the best way to save the species, but were aided little by the Chinese government, who as recently as 2005 proposed expanding shipping lanes through a protected dolphin habitat. Ultimately, as today's report proves, no one was able to save the baiji from their collision course with The Chinese Century.
As China prepares to play host to the rest of the world, bulldozing its slums and westernizing its toilets, criticism of its shortfalls in protecting the environment seems to be meeting with characteristic indifference. Ecological disasters like the extinction of the baiji fall into place alongside continued human rights violations and support for Sudan's corrupt regime, all suggesting that the future into which China so rapidly hurtles is an uncertain one. As proven in their response to the recent outcry over contaminated Chinese food ingredients, China seems only ready to take serious action when its bottom line is threatened. Genocide in Sudan and environmental destruction in its own back yard, for now, appear to pose not enough of a problem to warrant a serious response.
The argument has been made, with some fairness, that China is merely suffering the growing pains of industrialization, and can't yet be held to the same standards of other fully industrialized nations. At the breakneck speed that they're growing, however, the margin for error is tiny, and as the rapid disappearance of the baiji shows us, hesitation on environmental issues such as this have serious consequences.
The 2008 Olympics will be a sort of coming out party for this billion-strong nation, and with its preparations in full swing, we can't help but wonder what kind of superpower it will emerge to be. With the long list of endangered species within its borders now slightly shorter, China's present distaste for accountability is a cause for grave concern.
August 13, 2007
We Have a Drinking Problem - All of Us
by Jeremy Freed
Recycled plastic bottles at the San Francisco Recycling Center
Whether you thirst for Fiji or crave Poland Springs, sip Arrowhead or bathe in Evian, you are killing the planet. Yes you. The New York Times reported yesterday on the latest middle-class-guilt-related national craze: the bottled water boycott.
Our dependence on bottled water, even as a healthful alternative to sugar-filled sodas and energy drinks, some say is a major problem. According to the Times, like so much else these days, it all comes back to the oil. Yesterday's article cites the millions of barrels it takes to produce, transport, and refrigerate all of those charming little plastic bottles, only 23% of which are recycled, by the way. Add that to the recent scandals outing major brands as nothing more than slickly packaged tap water, and you get a pretty good case for the stuff that comes out of your faucet.
This scrutiny and the revelations it brings are doubtless a good thing. We are as a nation becoming, finally, more conscious about our use of energy, and the ways in which that consumption can be reduced by, as our host would say, ‘everyday people'. Just as similar attention has been recently focused on the importance of eating locally grown food when possible, to cut down on the energy used in transporting it, refilling a bottle instead of buying a new one seems pretty easy, and as good a place to start as any.
The multi-billion dollar bottled water industry need not panic yet, however. Trendy, multicolored Lexan plastic bottles, no longer strictly the province of the hemp and Birkenstocks set, and hyped as an easy alternative to buying bottled water, have been shown in lab tests to disrupt chromosomes and cause cancer. These concerns notwithstanding, refillable containers by definition require refilling and chilling, and aren't anywhere near as easy and available as a bottle of water in a cooler. For the moment, at least, until public water fountains become as numerous and alluring as vending machines, bottled water still has convenience on its side.
August 9, 2007
Who's Afraid of Big Bad Government?
by Victor Marsh
“...could have prevented this...housing crisis...”
Historically, U.S. citizens have been distrustful of government. As my blogging teammate Rose points out, that does not mean that our citizens are always trusting businessmen. But, while the popularity of businesspeople goes up and down, the distrust of government power seems more constant.
On the one hand, this is quite an effective way to protect our liberties - questioning the government is wise. On the other hand - in areas where regulation actually helps markets work better - our own suspicions can turn out to be incorrect, and in today's example, will likely cost up to $100 billion.
Take the ongoing housing crisis for example. Remember all those government-loving liberals complaining about “predatory lending.” Liberals have been warning us for at least 6 years that this stuff was bad. What is predatory lending? You have seen the commercials that sound like “1-800-EASY-MONEY,” promising to get you a house mortgage loan even if you have bad credit or no credit at all.
Liberals said that this easy credit was a bad idea, and demanded an end to predatory lending. Conservatives balked - and demanded the freedom for people to mess up their own credit. But what happens when one person's actions do not just mess up his or her own credit - but starts to mess up the whole economy?
At the heart of predatory lending was fraud, and too little oversight. The liberals were right, the conservatives were wrong, and the centrists too slow to choose sides. Oversight and fraud-busting is an efficient role for government. Centrists like myself just did not know what the heck was going on, but were reluctant to ask for an immediate stop to these ‘easy money' practices.
The failure of these mortgages has affected the world economy, because even innocent investors whose money was in different sectors and in different countries are now feeling the pinch. All told, the Federal Reserve Chairman, in his last speech, even hinted that the housing crisis could lower our economic growth. The Financial Times estimates that the crisis could cost American investors up to $100 billion.
So now we have these results: middle-class people are being evicted from homes they should never have bought. Upper-income people who invested their money smartly are being punished on Wall Street for crimes that they did not commit. The whole economy may even have slower growth - all because we did not act to prevent this mess in the first place. Many lost money or homes. We are all connected.
Centrists, conservatives - maybe we should all listen carefully to our liberal friends next time. Behind their desire to watch out for "the little guy" is some very clear logic about how to do what is best for the economy as a whole.
August 21, 2007
Dick Cheney's Viral Video
by Jeremy Freed
“"We look at it in terms of trying to decide what's the right thing to do..."”
When this video appeared in my inbox last week, I found it infuriating, but I find pretty much everything Dick Cheney says to be that way. Mostly, though, I just had questions.
How did we miss this in 2003? The video suggests that Cheney understood, to a remarkable degree, what the outcome of the Iraq invasion would be, and pushed to go ahead with it anyway. This should be shocking, but it isn't. Next they'll be saying he knew more about the no-show WMD in Iraq than he let on. In any case, had this video surfaced a few years sooner it might have done serious damage to the Bush team's plans for that country, and ours.
How could Saddam Hussein have been worth “not very many” American lives in 1991, and thousands a decade later? Even considering 9/11, this makes no sense. The Al Qaeda-Iraq connection has been very publicly debunked, and even if there were Al-Qaeda operatives in Iraq in 2001 (which there weren't) there were certainly fewer than there are now.
On a very special episode of Larry King in July, Dick Cheney was asked if he ever questions his decisions (he does not) or asks himself if he might be wrong (also, never). Decision-making, said Cheney, is a process of "doing what you think is right, and what's best for the country. We look at it in terms of trying to decide what's the right thing to do,” he said. How could entering into a “quagmire” ever seem like the best thing for the country? How could entering “a very volatile part of the world,” and removing the central government, with only a minimal idea of what would take its place, ever seem like the right thing to do?
These, however, are questions, and doubtful ones at that. Such things, apparently, have no place in government.
August 22, 2007
Save Sudan - All of It
by Victor Marsh
“...genocide is an imperial strategy...”
To save more lives, diplomats and the Save Darfur Coalition should focus on preventing the next genocide in Sudan. Sudan needs a totally new bargain between all its parts - north, south, east and western Darfur - that includes acknowledging all cultures in diverse Sudan and sharing the oil wealth.
Diplomats have achieved peacekeepers in dusty Darfur. That was hard enough - but now they must help Sudanese sew together a new bargain between all Sudan's people, a convention that includes rebels from the eastern part of the country too.
The history of Sudan reveals that the Khartoum-based central government might be evil, but it is not stupid. It commits genocide strategically - never against two groups at a time - and focused on regions attempting to break away from Sudan.
First, for twenty-one years, 1983-2005, Khartoum lashed out at the southerners, in a war that pitted northern Muslims against southern Christians. Khartoum actually killed over 2 million southerners as of 2002, over 4 times more than the debated 4 hundred thousand victims in Darfur.
Second, once the rebels in the Darfur west started causing trouble, Khartoum closed the war with southerners so that it could open up a new war against the westerners.
Third, Khartoum decided recently to permit foreign soldiers to keep peace in western Darfur - a surprise to me.
Perhaps now Khartoum seeks the flexibility to start war in a forgotten crisis in another part of Sudan. After all, rebels from the east have been causing headaches for Khartoum. If rebels or refugees ever threaten Port Sudan, where all the oil is exported, they may expect retributive genocide from Khartoum.
In Sudan, genocide is an imperial strategy, not an emotional decision. If you want to Save Darfur, you should also want a peace deal for all of Sudan.
August 27, 2007
The 'Shady' Factor
by Rose Capozzi
"Shady" is a term used by my generation to describe a person, place, or action that seems suspicious. A good example of the use of the word "shady" is the Alberto Gonzales debacle. As I have said before, the firing of eight U.S. Attorneys was not in and of itself illegal. After all, Clinton fired every one of his attorneys at the onset of his first term. The real problem was that Gonzales could not play the game of politics well enough to wiggle himself out of his sticky situation.
Gonzales was a "Bush Crony." But, all cabinet level officials are cronies. They are meant to serve the president in power, just as much as the law and the American people. The difference is that other cabinet level officials realized that as servants of the law and the American people, and not just of the president, you must play politics. That means that some effort is made to avoid looking shady.
Instead, Gonzales was overtly shady. For example, it was shady when Gonzales visited John Ashcroft, the former Attorney General, while he was sick and in the hospital in order to ensure that the secret domestic wiretapping program was reauthorized. Equally as shady was when Gonzales said that he "could not recall" the details of the attorney firings 45 times in the course of the Congressional hearings.
His actions alone may not have been illegal, but the way he handled himself as Attorney General left an unsavory taste in most peoples' mouth. As President Bush said in a speech yesterday, "It is sad that we live in a time when a talented and honorable person like Alberto Gonzales...was dragged through the mud for political reasons." Even more sad is that a man could have reached such a high level in public service and still lack the finesse to avoid acting shady.
August 28, 2007
Katrina Two Years On
by Jeremy Freed
Today marks the two-year anniversary of Hurricane Katrina's landfall on the Gulf Coast, and provides us with the opportunity, if not the obligation, to reexamine the devastated region, its inhabitants, and its future. In this sampling of perspectives from the news of the last few days, there is a sense of what's being done there, what isn't, and how things have changed.
In Washington, finger pointing continues as people continue to ask where all the money went. FEMA blames Louisiana, Louisiana blames FEMA, and the pace of reconstruction leaves many frustrated.
In the Hamptons, Brad and Angie leave the kids with the nanny for the night to host a fund-raiser for Pitt's New Orleans rebuilding project. They arrive and depart by helicopter.
The BBC reports on the New Orleans' struggling musicians, as they continue to suffer the losses of old-timers who'll never return, peers, venues, and tourists.
In Mississippi, one reporter wonders where the $23.5 billion federal reparation dollars went, and calculates just how many new homes and Honda Accords it could buy.
A Canadian paper reports that formaldehyde-laced wood paneling in FEMA trailers is making residents sick. The agency knew of this toxicity for months, the article claims, before letting on. Still, a toxic trailer on your own property doesn't seem as bad as one in a FEMA trailer park.
A dispatch in the L.A. Times called "A Day in New Orleans" documents the music, the trash, the crime, and the people who remain. It tells the story of a city, infamous and beloved, through its migrant laborers, gumbo chefs, and national guardsmen.
Despite far-reaching ruins and a lot of uncertainty about what the future holds for New Orleans, the place retains its spirit, humor, and sense of self.
August 28, 2007
Live from Turkey
by Victor Marsh
“...integrate...with Europe, while pleasing...Islamic...base.”
Reporting live, I can share a bit why Turkish society surprised itself today by electing Abdullah Gul, a politically religious man, to be President of the Republic. When I decided to come to Turkey, I had no idea that I would be here during the inauguration of a new president, the first openly religious president of secular Turkey.
The thing to remember about Turkey is that its Muslim politics is like the opposite of many other Muslim polities. Here, they take the separation of church and state so seriously; that having an openly religious president whose wife wears the Muslim headscarf is a huge political shift that sparked mass protests.
So instead of governments forcing women to wear the veil, in Turkey, it is considered illegal for women to wear the veil in public schools and government buildings. In Turkey today, the courts say that the women's headscarf is unconstitutional if worn in a public school. There is therefore a huge education attainment gap between women who cover their heads at puberty and women who do not.
While in Istanbul last week, catching up with a Turkish friend, we overheard heated conversation about whether women should be allowed to wear the veil at public universities.
One side of the table said that it was dangerous to allow the headscarf into university life. Some university students fear that veiled classmates would be spreading an extreme Islamist political agenda.
On the other side of the table were Turkish students who felt that choosing to wear the veil was a matter of free speech. They suggested that the Turkish secularism system was taken too far by keeping religious women locked out of educational opportunities.
No matter what side of the table you are on, the election of President
Abdullah Gul represents a major
pro-democracy change in Turkish politics. The people of Turkey turned out in droves to out-vote the traditional and
military elite, and voted instead to reward the AKP party, which seeks to integrate Turkey with Europe, while pleasing its Islamic religious base.
August 14, 2007
Fancy Footwork
by Jeremy Freed
Chromeo performing. (Photo by Caitlin Powers)
Call their lyrics nerdy, call their love for ‘80s music obsessive, just don't call them ironic. Chromeo, the two-man party band out of Montreal, is all about sincerity.
Back in 2004 when their first album, She's in Control, hit the scene, a lot of people didn't know what to make of Chromeo's Dave 1 and P-Thugg, who look, respectively, like a collegiate hipster and a gangster rapper. Add to that their music, dance-happy electrofunk rich with irresistible synth hooks reminiscent of Prince and New Edition, and you have a combination that is at once puzzling, magnetic, and wholly original. Arriving on the cusp of the ongoing ‘80s resurgence, people tended to see Chromeo, initially, as another retro throwback band, making fun of the decade of big hair and neon fashion, tongue in cheek. Their totally encompassing love of funk and soul, and the need to share their appreciation of people like Hall & Oates, Rick James, and Roger & Zapp with the world, seemed unusual for kids of their generation, to say the least.
Onstage they are pure fun, performing some of the most danceable love songs since Brick House. Pee, the stone-faced gangsta, sits behind his keyboards, singing backups through a vocoder, while Dave grins between lyrics, and wails on his guitar. It's an impressive show, and obvious that the two are enjoying themselves. It's nothing if not sincere.
Now on tour promoting their second album, Fancy Footwork, the duo has to fight a little less hard to be taken seriously. With sold-out shows at home, as well as in Paris, London, Copenhagen, and Berlin, and a recent sidebar in über-hip Dazed and Confused magazine, Chromeo are well on their way to attaining the status once held by their semi-forgotten idols. In the meantime, they're happy enough just to get people dancing.
August 23, 2007
Hand Waiver to Politician
by Rose Capozzi
“There used to be an understanding in political campaigning, that spouses of politicians were there to smile and wave, and, if their "other half" were elected, they would host tea parties and redecorate.”
This presidential election has already turned out to be an interesting one. Four of the front runners include a woman, a black man, an Italian Catholic, and a Mormon.
If all that were not enough, many potential First Spouses have taken a vocal and public stand against their candidate's competition and detractors. Elizabeth Edwards for example, has been on the campaign trail supporting her husband, and used her position to rip Ann Coulter a new one. While Coulter was a guest on CNN's Hardball, Mrs. Edwards called in, saying:
I'd like to ask Ann Coulter -- if she wants to debate on issues, on positions -- we certainly disagree with nearly everything she said on your show today -- um but uh it's quite another matter for these personal attacks that the things she has said over the years not just about John but about other candidates -- it lowers our political dialogue precisely at the time that we need to raise it. So I want to use the opportunity … to ask her politely stop the personal attacks.
And she is not the only First Lady contender hot on the campaign trail. Michelle Obama questioned the ability of Hillary Clinton to control the presidency effectively, saying:
...if you can't run your own house, you certainly can't run the White House. She continued: One of the most important things that we need to know about the next President of the United States is, is he somebody that shares our values? Is he somebody that respects family? Is a good and decent person?
Both of these women make good, albeit antithetical points. The American people are sick of the backbiting and personal attacks that are synonymous with high level campaigning. However, the American people also want to know all the flaws and blemishes, to judge not just the policymaker, but the man (or woman, as the case may be). These points are not new, but the source is.
There used to be an understanding in political campaigning, that spouses of politicians were there to smile and wave, and, if their "other half" were elected, they would host tea parties and redecorate. The electorate knew that the spouse's opinion really did not matter; we vote for their counterparts, not for them. Now that the spouses are being more active in campaigning, and a former hand waiver is running, who knows what role the future president's spouse will have in the White House?
August 22, 2007
Skid Row: Coming to a Theater Near You
by Jeremy Freed
On Monday's program, former Fugees member Pras Michel discussed his forthcoming documentary, Skid Row. The film is an account of the musician's experiences spending nine days homeless in downtown L.A., where some 11,000 others spend their days and nights on the street. Homelessness is a major problem in Los Angeles, and in cities across the country. This is especially true for African Americans, who as Pras says, make up 45% of the homeless in downtown L.A., despite comprising only nine percent of the population in California.
This is an extremely important film for Los Angeles, whose exorbitant homeless population serves as a reminder of just how bad things have become for some Americans, disproportionate numbers of whom are veterans or mentally ill, despite our country's otherwise prosperous times. Homelessness in the City of Angels has been well documented in recent years, notably by Los Angeles Times columnist Steve Lopez, who spent a week there himself in 2005. Strategies for positive change are being discussed, but like any good cause, it needs as much attention as it can get from the media and elsewhere.
Pras' film, which opens in this week in New York, Los Angeles, and D.C., puts a human face on the horrific trials faced by the residents of L.A.'s Skid Row every day. While it may not offer a solution to alleviating these peoples' suffering, it opens up Skid Row to moviegoers who might otherwise never suspect just how bad things can be, as the film's trailer boldly points out, “just 8 miles from Beverly Hills.”
August 16, 2007
Taking a Lesson from the Left
by Rose Capozzi
“It takes courage for lawmakers to tighten the rules of their own game.”
Congress has been plagued with scandal in recent years. To just name a few, there was (former) Rep. Mark Foley and his page scandal, disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff and his seedy golf trips to Scotland, and Rep. William Jefferson's $90,000 of bribe money hidden away in his freezer.
Democrats are finally making good on one of their November campaign promises by strengthening loose ethics standards on Capitol Hill. To curtail the lobbyist/lawmaker relationships in the beltway, Congress overwhelmingly supported a lobbying reform bill that would ban gifts, meals and travel provided by lobbyists for members of Congress.
Still, President Bush is threatening a veto. The reasons he gives for such a position are shaky at best and downright shameful at worst. According to a New York Times editorial, the administration fears that the president would have to pay to use Air Force One for campaign trips (unlikely, of course) and, perhaps even more appalling, is the administration claiming that the legislation is not tough enough on earmark accountability (something Republicans failed to do while they held a majority in Congress).
It is true, the legislation is not perfect. But it takes courage for lawmakers to tighten the rules of their own game. Despite the administration's threat to veto, most Americans (and most of the GOP) are ready for a change. And a president on his way out of office should not stand in the way of that change, even if it comes from the wrong side of the aisle.
August 14, 2007
Restore the Draft? Trick Question.
by Victor Marsh
“...Democrats are going on offense - stealth style.”
I have to give Representatives Charlie Rangel (D-NY) and Ellen Tauscher (D-CA) a lot of credit - someone should give them both honorary degrees in political psychology. They have done more to advance the cause of those who oppose the war in Iraq than anyone taking to the streets in protest. How can I say this? They have primed us all to compare today's Iraq to the quagmire in Vietnam.
Rep. Rangel has been the most vocal supporter of reintroducing the military draft. He has given impassioned speeches about the equality of the draft, and how serving alongside men of different backgrounds than he really made him appreciate America more.
Meanwhile Rep. Tauscher has taken the politically smart move of challenging the administration to guarantee that soldiers have time to rest between long deployments so that they are ready for battle. Tauscher's arguments persuaded enough people. Her bill passed the full House of Representatives on a vote of 229-194 on August 2nd.
Tauscher is not playing defense. She is arguing loud that it is the Republican administration that is not supporting our troops, and citing worn-out troops as proof. She then dared others in the House to vote against her bill.
Most people know, however, that in politics, the reason you bring up the draft is to make people think to themselves, "Gosh, when was the last time that we used the draft.....Vietnam."
Five years after Rangel first made the proposal - he is still getting lots of free press about it. I am shocked that his efforts have gone so well. My guess is that Rangel and Tauscher do not really want their bills to pass. But, they sure are keeping debates going. The Freakonomics guy at The New York Times seems fooled into believing that the proposals are real. FOX News is covering Tauscher's bill in detail. And Time magazine ran a long report on the whole idea just a few weeks ago.
If you are anti-war, this is a great thing, because it means that more and more people will associate the war mentally with Vietnam. In September, since Gen. Petraeus completed his doctoral dissertation on Vietnam's lessons for counterinsurgency, Democrats will probably ask him to make comparisons and contrasts to Vietnam - a legitimate area of his expertise.
If you are supporting the Iraq War, you ought to be deathly afraid of Representatives Charlie Rangel, and Ellen Tauscher, for all the press that their ideas are getting.
The soon to depart Karl Rove worked hard to make most Americans - initially - believe that Saddam was behind 9/11.
Might there be a Democratic version of Karl Rove out there somewhere plotting a slow end to the war by making us all think of failures in Vietnam?
Tired of being accused of not supporting troops, Democrats are going on offense - stealth style.
August 7, 2007
Lessons Hard-Learned In Iraq
by Jeremy Freed
Whether you support the war in Iraq or just the troops serving there, whether you're gung-ho for a surge, or ready for a phased withdrawal, it's hard not to be dismayed by last week's Government Accountability Office report to Congress. It says that around 190,000 firearms, as well as many thousands of pieces of body armor, amounting to some 30% of the weapons issued to Iraqi military forces by the U.S., have gone missing. According to news stories about the report, it is likely that some of these weapons, purchased by American taxpayers, are now being used against U.S. soldiers.
This is only the latest in a long list of post-Mission-Accomplished blunders in our occupation of Iraq, a list that is sure to grow in the coming years. Former Secretary of Defense and Iraq war planner, Donald Rumsfeld, famously said, “you go to war with the army you have…not the army you might want…” Insufficiently armored Humvees aside, it has for a while been pretty clear that Rumsfeld and the others in charge of orchestrating the invasion and occupation had little idea what was going on in Iraq, and less a notion of what needed to be done to fix it. Content to throw billions of dollars and piles of arms at the situation without proper thought to how the money would be spent, or where those guns would end up, Rumsfeld and his fellow Iraq war planners might just as well have said, “You go to war with the war that you want, not the one that you have.”
The Pentagon has promised to be more careful with its tracking of U.S. weapons in the future, but that is hardly comforting. Every time news like this appears, it only serves to suggest the tip of a lurking iceberg of mismanagement, ineptitude, and corruption, the extent of which may not fully be revealed for years. It is good that our government seems to be getting the hang of the occupation, tracking its money and guns, having meetings, and appearing to learn from its mistakes. It is unfortunate, however, that these mistakes must continually be paid for with the lives of our troops.
Subscribe to RSS Feed
E-mail a friend