TW: Early in January I mentioned a hodgepodge of things I was hoping would happen in 2009. See here.
http://treylaura.blogspot.com/search/label/Things%20I%20Would%20Like%20To%20Happen%20in%202009
While I doubt much has been done to reduce the influence of lotteries, we did manage to achieve several of the hopes: more balance between Israel and Palestine, ending the eastern European missile shield, some increased funding for science amongst others.
Showing posts with label Things I Would Like To Happen in 2009. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Things I Would Like To Happen in 2009. Show all posts
Saturday, December 26, 2009
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Things I Would Like To See Happen In 2009: Stop Talking About GWOT And the Homeland
TW: Joe Klein has another good idea- get rid of the GWOT (global war on terror) term. I would add a second get rid of the use of "Homeland" within the context of defending the U.S. against terror etc. Homeland has an Orwellian reek that has always bothered me. It also creates an inward focus that engenders jingoistic populism and excessive navel gazing.
From Joe Klein at Time:
"One of the more interesting decisions Barack Obama has to make is what he's going to call the struggle against terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda. Bush called it the Global War on Terror (GWOT), which gave him rhetorical leave to do all sorts of warlike, over-the-top and inappropriate things, like invade Iraq--an act that aggrandized Al Qaeda, enabling it to set up, for a moment, an Iraqi branch.
...Britain's Foreign Minister David Miliband says not only that we shouldn't call it the GWOT--the Brits stopped doing so in 2006--but that the whole thing was a big mistake, creating more potential terrorists than it eliminated.
I have a feeling--no reporting, just a feeling--that we've heard the last of the Global War on Terror on this side of the Atlantic as well. Not that Obama won't continue the campaign against Al Qaeda, including the successful predator strikes against terrorist leaders along the Pakistan border (which are proceeding despite the public "dismay" of the Pakistani government because the Pakistanis are privately cooperating with and approving the targeting).
But the era of grandiloquent "terrorism is the greatest existential challenge of the twentieth century" rhetoric is over. The terrorist challenge will resume its more natural place in the heirarchy of foreign policy problems--at the top of the list, but not overwhelmingly so. We'll see whether Obama tips his hand in this direction in his Inaugural speech."
From Joe Klein at Time:
"One of the more interesting decisions Barack Obama has to make is what he's going to call the struggle against terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda. Bush called it the Global War on Terror (GWOT), which gave him rhetorical leave to do all sorts of warlike, over-the-top and inappropriate things, like invade Iraq--an act that aggrandized Al Qaeda, enabling it to set up, for a moment, an Iraqi branch.
...Britain's Foreign Minister David Miliband says not only that we shouldn't call it the GWOT--the Brits stopped doing so in 2006--but that the whole thing was a big mistake, creating more potential terrorists than it eliminated.
I have a feeling--no reporting, just a feeling--that we've heard the last of the Global War on Terror on this side of the Atlantic as well. Not that Obama won't continue the campaign against Al Qaeda, including the successful predator strikes against terrorist leaders along the Pakistan border (which are proceeding despite the public "dismay" of the Pakistani government because the Pakistanis are privately cooperating with and approving the targeting).
But the era of grandiloquent "terrorism is the greatest existential challenge of the twentieth century" rhetoric is over. The terrorist challenge will resume its more natural place in the heirarchy of foreign policy problems--at the top of the list, but not overwhelmingly so. We'll see whether Obama tips his hand in this direction in his Inaugural speech."
Things I Would Like To See Happen In 2009: A Balanced Approach to Israel and the Arab World
TW: Roger Cohen asks a simple question. Why is our Mideast diplomatic corps essentially void of Arab-Americans. Jewish-Americans hold prominent positions, why not Arab-Americans?
From Roger Cohen at Int'l Herald Tribune:
"...I have nothing against smart, driven, liberal, Jewish (or half-Jewish) males; I’ve looked in the mirror. I know or have talked to all these guys, except Shapiro. They’re knowledgeable, broad-minded and determined. Still, on the diversity front they fall short. On the change-you-can-believe-in front, they also leave something to be desired.
...“Do people in the region take note when Arab-Americans are not represented? Sure they do,” said Zogby, the president of the Arab American Institute in Washington. “A message gets sent.”
...Change is needed, and not just in the intensity of U.S. diplomatic involvement with Israel-Palestine. Some fundamental questions must be asked.
Does regarding the Middle East almost exclusively through the prism of the war on terror make sense? Does turning a blind eye to the Israeli settlements in the West Bank that frustrate a two-state solution, and the Israeli blockade of Gaza that radicalizes its population, not undermine U.S. interest in bolstering moderate Palestinian sentiment?
Should policy not be directed toward reconciling a Palestinian movement now split between Fatah and Hamas, without which no final-status peace will be possible? Beyond their terrorist wings, in their broad grass-roots political movements, what elements of Hamas and Hezbollah can be coaxed toward the mainstream?
Do we understand the increasingly sophisticated Middle East of Al Jazeera where, as Telhami, a professor at the University of Maryland, put it to me, “People are not dumb and our credibility is at a historic near-zero?”
Asking these questions does not alter America’s commitment to Israel’s security within its pre-1967 borders, which is and should be unwavering. It does not change the unacceptability of Hamas rockets or the fact the Hamas Charter is vile. But it would signal that the damaging Bush-era consensus that Israel can do no wrong is to be challenged.
...Obama should take note, name an Arab-American and an Iranian-American to prominent roles, and beware of a team that takes him — and the region — back to the future."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/12/opinion/12cohen.html?_r=1&hp
From Roger Cohen at Int'l Herald Tribune:
"...I have nothing against smart, driven, liberal, Jewish (or half-Jewish) males; I’ve looked in the mirror. I know or have talked to all these guys, except Shapiro. They’re knowledgeable, broad-minded and determined. Still, on the diversity front they fall short. On the change-you-can-believe-in front, they also leave something to be desired.
...“Do people in the region take note when Arab-Americans are not represented? Sure they do,” said Zogby, the president of the Arab American Institute in Washington. “A message gets sent.”
...Change is needed, and not just in the intensity of U.S. diplomatic involvement with Israel-Palestine. Some fundamental questions must be asked.
Does regarding the Middle East almost exclusively through the prism of the war on terror make sense? Does turning a blind eye to the Israeli settlements in the West Bank that frustrate a two-state solution, and the Israeli blockade of Gaza that radicalizes its population, not undermine U.S. interest in bolstering moderate Palestinian sentiment?
Should policy not be directed toward reconciling a Palestinian movement now split between Fatah and Hamas, without which no final-status peace will be possible? Beyond their terrorist wings, in their broad grass-roots political movements, what elements of Hamas and Hezbollah can be coaxed toward the mainstream?
Do we understand the increasingly sophisticated Middle East of Al Jazeera where, as Telhami, a professor at the University of Maryland, put it to me, “People are not dumb and our credibility is at a historic near-zero?”
Asking these questions does not alter America’s commitment to Israel’s security within its pre-1967 borders, which is and should be unwavering. It does not change the unacceptability of Hamas rockets or the fact the Hamas Charter is vile. But it would signal that the damaging Bush-era consensus that Israel can do no wrong is to be challenged.
...Obama should take note, name an Arab-American and an Iranian-American to prominent roles, and beware of a team that takes him — and the region — back to the future."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/12/opinion/12cohen.html?_r=1&hp
Saturday, January 10, 2009
Things I Would Like To See Happen In 2009 (cont.): Less $ Spent On Lotteries
TW: I hate lotteries. They are a fools play. They are a backdoor tax primarily on folks who should spend money elsewhere. Yes I know folks are free and should be free to spend their money as they wish and there are worse uses but if this economy leads to less lottery spending that would be great as far as I am concerned.
From Economist:
"ECONOMISTS tend to deride state lotteries as a regressive tax. Poorer people generally spend more than the $[170] American annual average on lottery tickets. Participation in a lottery has a minuscule probability of paying off. Yet every one I know who buys lottery tickets claims they do not waste their money. They feel as though they purchase a fantasy...
I would expect that the lottery fantasy is an inferior good. The smaller your income the more you desire that winning fantasy. This would suggest that in these uncertain times lottery ticket sales would increase. But actually, sales of lottery tickets, and gambling generally, have slowed. It seems people are cutting back on lottery tickets along with other forms of discretionary spending...
Lower sales may also occur because the typical prize money has decreased. The jackpot is based on expected lottery revenues..About 30% of lottery revenues go toward funding state education, but declining lottery sales will probably not have a noticeable impact. Typically, lottery revenues make up less than 1% of state education budgets.
The regressive nature of the lottery means its decline in popularity may not be the worst thing to come out of the downturn. Perhaps this trend reflects the move toward a new era of sobriety and realistic risk calculations."
http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2009/01/cutting_back_on_the_fantasy.cfm#list-comments
From Economist:
"ECONOMISTS tend to deride state lotteries as a regressive tax. Poorer people generally spend more than the $[170] American annual average on lottery tickets. Participation in a lottery has a minuscule probability of paying off. Yet every one I know who buys lottery tickets claims they do not waste their money. They feel as though they purchase a fantasy...
I would expect that the lottery fantasy is an inferior good. The smaller your income the more you desire that winning fantasy. This would suggest that in these uncertain times lottery ticket sales would increase. But actually, sales of lottery tickets, and gambling generally, have slowed. It seems people are cutting back on lottery tickets along with other forms of discretionary spending...
Lower sales may also occur because the typical prize money has decreased. The jackpot is based on expected lottery revenues..About 30% of lottery revenues go toward funding state education, but declining lottery sales will probably not have a noticeable impact. Typically, lottery revenues make up less than 1% of state education budgets.
The regressive nature of the lottery means its decline in popularity may not be the worst thing to come out of the downturn. Perhaps this trend reflects the move toward a new era of sobriety and realistic risk calculations."
http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2009/01/cutting_back_on_the_fantasy.cfm#list-comments
Monday, January 5, 2009
Things I Would Like To See Happen In 2009 (cont.)
TW: Tom Barnett came up with his own list of things he would like to see happen in 2009. I liked two or three in particular. He mentioned opening up Cuba which we have already discussed but in addition:
From Barnett:
"6. The "rise of the rest" continues, with more Lula and less Vlad.
Fareed Zakaria sees a "post-American" world in the making. I spot a natural shift in America's alliances from old powers to new amidst our model of globalization's rapid networking around the planet. While India and China slowly emerge from their long-time shells, and Vladimir Putin reminds us just how 19th-century Russia's foreign policy remains, Brazil under Lula da Silva provides a shining example of great power leadership. Obama should make him a best friend for life.
5. Chinese peacekeepers in Afghanistan.
British Prime Minister Gordon Brown floated this recently, and after Beijing's announcement that it will send two naval ships to combat piracy off Somalia, this scenario borders on the credible. To quell fears over its defense spending, China must rebrand the People's Liberation Army as a force for global stability.
4. America's strategic missile shield in Eastern Europe gets put on hold.
With everything going on right now and given Europe's overwhelming resistance, picking this fight with Moscow is just plain dumb. Obama's bold offer to extend America's nuclear shield over Israel vis-a-vis Iran is a much better way to go, logically extending that guarantee to concerned Arab states."
http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2009/jan/04/top-10-foreign-policy-wishes-for-2009/
From Barnett:
"6. The "rise of the rest" continues, with more Lula and less Vlad.
Fareed Zakaria sees a "post-American" world in the making. I spot a natural shift in America's alliances from old powers to new amidst our model of globalization's rapid networking around the planet. While India and China slowly emerge from their long-time shells, and Vladimir Putin reminds us just how 19th-century Russia's foreign policy remains, Brazil under Lula da Silva provides a shining example of great power leadership. Obama should make him a best friend for life.
5. Chinese peacekeepers in Afghanistan.
British Prime Minister Gordon Brown floated this recently, and after Beijing's announcement that it will send two naval ships to combat piracy off Somalia, this scenario borders on the credible. To quell fears over its defense spending, China must rebrand the People's Liberation Army as a force for global stability.
4. America's strategic missile shield in Eastern Europe gets put on hold.
With everything going on right now and given Europe's overwhelming resistance, picking this fight with Moscow is just plain dumb. Obama's bold offer to extend America's nuclear shield over Israel vis-a-vis Iran is a much better way to go, logically extending that guarantee to concerned Arab states."
http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2009/jan/04/top-10-foreign-policy-wishes-for-2009/
Saturday, January 3, 2009
Things I Would Like To See Happen In 2009: Open Up Cuba Relations
TW: It has now been 50 years since Castro ascended to power in Cuba. Our 49 years of sanctions have made the reactionary Cuban exiles feel empowered but have accomplished little else. Yes Castro has some repressive policies but if you think that is why we have maintained the sanctions then you would be wrong. It is time to move on and perhaps provide a nice economic stimulus for our own economy in the process.
From Eugene Robinson at WaPo:
"President-elect Barack Obama will have more urgent matters to deal with after he takes the oath of office. But somewhere on his long to-do list, he should make a note to finally bring five decades of counterproductive American policy toward Cuba to a definitive end...
The laws and regulations that prohibit U.S. companies from trading with Cuba and forbid U.S. citizens to travel there made little sense during the Cold War. It was ironic that when Ronald Reagan went to Berlin and implored Mikhail Gorbachev to "tear down this wall," our government was maintaining an analogous wall -- one made of rules, not of concrete -- between the United States and Cuba.
U.S. policy for dealing with the rest of the communist world was always to push for more contact and exchange, on the theory that exposure to Western ideas, freedoms and prosperity would hasten communism's demise. It worked.
I'm convinced that it would have worked in Cuba, too. At the very least, if the U.S. government had treated Cuba the way it treated other communist nations, the onus would have been on Castro. If he wanted to keep Cuban society from being infected by democracy, consumerism and other yanqui diseases, he would have had to justify measures to keep Americans and American products out. Instead, he has been able to portray his revolution as a noble David, menaced by a hulking, aggressive Goliath to the north.
Over the years, I've made 10 reporting trips to Cuba. I've been struck by the fact that even Cubans who are harshly critical of the Castro regime -- privately, of course, since public criticism is not allowed -- are equally scornful of the U.S. trade embargo and travel ban, which they believe have hurt the Cuban people while bolstering hard-liners in the leadership..."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/01/AR2009010101784.html
From Eugene Robinson at WaPo:
"President-elect Barack Obama will have more urgent matters to deal with after he takes the oath of office. But somewhere on his long to-do list, he should make a note to finally bring five decades of counterproductive American policy toward Cuba to a definitive end...
The laws and regulations that prohibit U.S. companies from trading with Cuba and forbid U.S. citizens to travel there made little sense during the Cold War. It was ironic that when Ronald Reagan went to Berlin and implored Mikhail Gorbachev to "tear down this wall," our government was maintaining an analogous wall -- one made of rules, not of concrete -- between the United States and Cuba.
U.S. policy for dealing with the rest of the communist world was always to push for more contact and exchange, on the theory that exposure to Western ideas, freedoms and prosperity would hasten communism's demise. It worked.
I'm convinced that it would have worked in Cuba, too. At the very least, if the U.S. government had treated Cuba the way it treated other communist nations, the onus would have been on Castro. If he wanted to keep Cuban society from being infected by democracy, consumerism and other yanqui diseases, he would have had to justify measures to keep Americans and American products out. Instead, he has been able to portray his revolution as a noble David, menaced by a hulking, aggressive Goliath to the north.
Over the years, I've made 10 reporting trips to Cuba. I've been struck by the fact that even Cubans who are harshly critical of the Castro regime -- privately, of course, since public criticism is not allowed -- are equally scornful of the U.S. trade embargo and travel ban, which they believe have hurt the Cuban people while bolstering hard-liners in the leadership..."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/01/AR2009010101784.html
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Something Else For Obama To Do: Revitalize Science
TW: Because Obama does not have enough things to do, this article, and I concur, proposes another task, re-vitalizing American science after eight dreary years of Republican know-nothingness. The only stories I saw for eight years were those where the Bush Administration was one way or the other demeaning, downsizing, injecting religion or in some other form diminishing science and research (AIDS treatment in Africa being an exception). Perhaps I missed some more positive stories. But hopefully this is one of those initiatives where Obama with minimal involvement, a few more dollars and good implementers can get some things done.
From NYT:
"The most notable characteristic of the Bush administration’s science policy has been the repeated distortion and suppression of scientific evidence in order to fit ideological preferences about how the world should be, rather than how it is.
In his disturbing book “Undermining Science: Suppression and Distortion in the Bush Administration,” the journalist Seth Shulman describes case after case of intimidation of scientists in government posts, the suppression of scientific evidence and the perpetuation of misinformation.
The fields affected range from climate change to public health. Although some incidents are small in and of themselves, the cumulative effect is horrifying. Shulman also catalogs a long list of established government scientists who, during the course of the Bush administration, resigned their posts in despair...
...I don’t want to idealize this. To claim that scientists are free of bias, ambition or desires would be ridiculous...Moreover, to downplay evidence that doesn’t fit your ideas, and to place more weight on evidence that does — this is something that human brains just seem to do...
However, the beauty of the scientific approach is that even when individuals do succumb to bias or partiality, others can correct them using a framework of evidence that everyone broadly agrees on. (Admittedly, this can sometimes be a slow process.) But arguing over data is different from suppressing it. Or changing it. Or ignoring it. For these activities debase the whole enterprise and threaten its credibility. When data can’t be accessed or trusted, when “facts” are actually illusions — well, this threatens the nature of knowledge itself. And a society without knowledge is steering blind..."
http://judson.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/02/back-to-reality/?partner=rss&emc=rss
From NYT:
"The most notable characteristic of the Bush administration’s science policy has been the repeated distortion and suppression of scientific evidence in order to fit ideological preferences about how the world should be, rather than how it is.
In his disturbing book “Undermining Science: Suppression and Distortion in the Bush Administration,” the journalist Seth Shulman describes case after case of intimidation of scientists in government posts, the suppression of scientific evidence and the perpetuation of misinformation.
The fields affected range from climate change to public health. Although some incidents are small in and of themselves, the cumulative effect is horrifying. Shulman also catalogs a long list of established government scientists who, during the course of the Bush administration, resigned their posts in despair...
...I don’t want to idealize this. To claim that scientists are free of bias, ambition or desires would be ridiculous...Moreover, to downplay evidence that doesn’t fit your ideas, and to place more weight on evidence that does — this is something that human brains just seem to do...
However, the beauty of the scientific approach is that even when individuals do succumb to bias or partiality, others can correct them using a framework of evidence that everyone broadly agrees on. (Admittedly, this can sometimes be a slow process.) But arguing over data is different from suppressing it. Or changing it. Or ignoring it. For these activities debase the whole enterprise and threaten its credibility. When data can’t be accessed or trusted, when “facts” are actually illusions — well, this threatens the nature of knowledge itself. And a society without knowledge is steering blind..."
http://judson.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/02/back-to-reality/?partner=rss&emc=rss
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)