PostBadge tag to show // FeedBurner FeedFlare. // ------------------------- // FeedBurner account and feed required. // Sign up at http://feedburner.com //================================================ class module_feedflare { function init(){ global $gregarious; $gregarious->add_settings ( array ( 'feedburner_url' => '' ) ); $gregarious->add_page ( 'FeedFlare', 'modules/feed-flare/icn_Flare.png', 'page_feedflare();', 'feedFlare' ); } function postbadge_tags(){ return array ( array ( 'tag' => '%FLARE%', 'replacewith' => 'feed_flare("",false)' ), ); } function update_info(){ return 100; } } //------------------------------------------ // TEMPlATE TAGS //------------------------------------------ function feed_flare($settings = '', $echo = true){ global $wp_query; $post = $wp_query->post; $sets = array('postID' => $post->ID, 'before' => '', 'after' => 'Gregarious FeedFlare', 'force' => 0 ); grab_sets($settings, $sets); if ( !$sets['force'] && hideOnID($sets['postID']) ){ return ''; } if( !$path = _get_feedburner_url() ) return ''; if( substr( $path, -1 ) == '/' ){ $path = substr( $path, 0, strlen( $path ) -1 ); } $path = str_replace ( 'feedburner.com/', 'feedburner.com/~s/', $path ); $path .= '?i='.get_permalink($sets['postID']); $result = $sets['before'] . "" . $sets['after']; if($echo) echo $result; else return $result; } function _get_feedburner_url(){ $feedurl = greg_get_option( 'feedburner_url' ); if ( $feedurl ){ return attribute_escape($feedurl); } else { $feedburner_settings = get_option('feedburner_settings'); if( is_array($feedburner_settings) && ($feedurl = $feedburner_settings['feedburner_url']) ) { return attribute_escape($feedurl); } else { return false; } } } //------------------------------------------ // OPTIONS PAGE //------------------------------------------ function page_feedflare(){ $feedurl = _get_feedburner_url(); ?> Tag Archive for ‘Iraq’ at spencerb.net

Tag Archive for 'Iraq'

Responsibility in Politics

Published on October 26, 2008 in Economics, Politics and School. 0 Comments

Something has been bothering me lately. It has been plaguing my conscience and running rampant throughout this blog.

Things go wrong. It happens. We depend on the leaders we elect to use a philosophy consistent with our own to avoid mistakes. They happen none the less. As citizens in America’s polity, the officials we elect are accountable to us in a unique way.

Currently, it is clear that political actions have had ramifications in the economy. It is also clear that foreign policy decisions by our political leaders have resulted in a war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Where does the buck stop?

Harry S. Truman promised that the buck stopped at the President’s desk. I don’t think we have the same level of responsibility among our political leaders today. I think that President Bush has taken responsibility for the wars:

“The situation in Iraq is unacceptable to the American people, and it is unacceptable to me,” Bush said. “Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me.”

Bush’s approval ratings show that the American people are not completely satisfied with this. In other words, it is too little too late.

Recently, Alan Greenspan took some responsibility for his part in our current economic woes:

The 82-year-old Mr. Greenspan said he made “a mistake” in his hands-off regulatory philosophy, which many now blame in part for sparking the global economic troubles. He quoted something he had written in March: “Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholder’s equity (myself especially) are in a state of shocked disbelief.”

My question is where will the buck stop in 2008? Will it keep going back to Bush? If the Democrats are elected, I think Bush will be blamed for the next 8 years. I think McCain got it right when he said Obama isn’t running against Bush. I think the entire DNC needs to realize this:

“Senator Obama, I am not President Bush,” said McCain in the third and last presidential debate Wednesday night after Obama pointed out that he had voted for Bush’s budget proposals. “If you wanted to run against President Bush, you should have run four years ago.”

The problem is that Americans are not happy with the buck stopping with a Republican in the White House. The party needs to convince people that the buck will stop with John McCain and he’ll take responsibility for the future of America.

If Bush keeps getting blamed, when will we move on? Bush did not have a great presidency, only history will show how it is really viewed, but we need to move on. Every candidate is campaigning on change, but if we don’t change our mindset to the future and to ownership of our actions, there will not be real change.

I’d like to see Congress take responsibility for subsidizing mortgages, Democrats take responsibility for Congress post-2006, and the next president take responsibility for the future. The past affects our future, but we cannot keep blaming the past or we will never move on.

Colin Powell Endoreses Obama

Published on October 19, 2008 in News and Politics. 0 Comments

I was watching political shows this morning, as I always try to do on Sundays and heard Colin Powell endorse Barack Obama.  This is interesting for several reasons: 1) Powell’s military experience (and Obama’s lack thereof) 2) Powell’s friendship with McCain 3) Powell is a lifetime Repbulican.

1 – Powell has made a career out of military and government service.  He was one of the forces of the Bush- 43 administration that pushed us into Iraq. Obama’s judgment and lack of military experience of been one of the main attacks opponents have used against him. Remember Hillary Clinton’s 3 a.m. emergency ad? I think it is going to be hard to make this same attack after this endorsement.

2 – Powell said he has known and been friends with John McCain for 25 years. That is a long time to be friends and fellow veterans and decide not to vote for someone. Obviously, Powell put a lot of thought into this and it was a hard decision. Listening to him on MtP, I believe he was being quite sincere.

3 – This one speaks for itself. A military man who served under two separate Republican, Bush administrations. Clearly, he is not happy with where the party is going. I have a post on this subject in draft form. Look out for it tonight.

He praised Obama’s “ability to inspire,” pick for vice president– Joe Biden– and for running an “inclusive” campaign crossing racial, ethnic and generational lines. Powell said Obama was a “transformational” figure and was clearly troubled by McCain tapping Sarah Palin because he praised Biden as ready to lead from day one.

Plan B (Not the Pill)

Published on November 1, 2007 in News and Politics. 0 Comments

Sorry, but all of the sudden I have gotten hung up on this Iran thing. From the previous post you can tell I need to do more research (and think the politicians do too), but while watching the 10/30/2007 Democratic Debate I could not help, but wonder why would we not make a Plan B?

The Transcript

Obama:

Now, there may come a point where those measures have been exhausted and Iran is on the verge of obtaining a nuclear weapon, where we have to consider other options, but we shouldn’t talk about those options now when we haven’t tried what would be a much more effective approach.

I grant you that I would not like to see our policymakers spending most of their time talking about military action, but should we not consider it? Bush has gotten lambasted for not having a contingency plan in Iraq. That is fair how can we be paying all of these advisers and filling the coffers of government departments and not have a Plan B? How could we go to war and have NO ONE advising the President think that this could happen and draw a plan up for it? It is beyond me how we pay for these people to perform like this.

By the same token it seems to me that we should be prepared to take evasive military action against Iran. This is dangerous because just preparing can be interpreted as an act of war, but this is not a peaceful utopia we live in. We have a ridiculous number of nuclear arms, so if that is not something one can interpret as a potential act of war, I do not know what is. I think just the prospect of organizing a Plan B, the thing that Bush is criticized for not doing in Iraq is essential here. It would be foolish not to even consider it until all other options are exhausted. Lets actually consider every option and proceed with the least risky first, but have the extreme in the back of our minds just in case.

At least in this case Hillary was more reasonable:

I also think when you go to the table to negotiate with an adversarial regime, you need both carrots and sticks.

Lesson of the day: If you wake up in the morning and realize you have made a mistake, have a backup plan!

Diplomacy

Published on November 1, 2007 in News and Politics. 0 Comments

How come politicians can just say diplomacy to ignore potential threats and empirical evidence? I do not like wars any more than the next rational person, but just saying talking to countries that threaten us will work because you are going to do it more than anyone previously does not solve the problem. I wish either side of this sort of issue would historically address what works. I am not going to take the time right now to look at who says what, what the real threat is, what has happened in the past, and what this leads us to do now, but I think it would be interesting.

Next time someone says they are going to use diplomacy to deal with Iran, North Korea, et cetera I am going to ask when has such diplomacy worked? I would even accept an answer in a situation that was in better circumstances. I think we can see from Iraq that our liberating power has erroded and war probably is not the best choice. If we would have asked for empirical evidence before this, would we still have attacked?

It is the 21st Centruy, can we not think of something new? The rest of the world is sure throwing us for a loop, especially the parts that do not like us. I suggest we step up to the challenge not by saying the Iraq War was stupid and Bush is the devil, but by finding truly genuine and creative solutions to new problems.

I do not think humanity is pro-war, but is it possibly anti-peace?

Hillary and the Debate

Published on November 1, 2007 in News and Politics. 0 Comments

Well, for those of you following the political mess that is the campaigns that feel like they have been running forever, you may have saw or certainly heard about Tuesday’s Democratic debate.

Since she has been the front runner for some time, her rivals are starting to go on the offensive.

The campaigns of both Illinois Sen. Barack Obama and former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, running in second and third place in most surveys, hinted that their candidates would come out swinging. The two candidates didn’t disappoint: Both hammered Mrs. Clinton for her stances on Iraq and Iran, Social Security and other issues.

I am not certain I fully follow this logic though

Her fighting spirit was all the more impressive because so many of the positions she was defending were virtually indefensible.

Thank you, New York Times for that gem. At least the article saves face by acknowledging how poorly this appears in a debate

Clinton needs to ration her obfuscations. Otherwise, she risks looking as silly as she did at the end of the debate…

and:

But you would have to be a very, very committed Hillaryite to be comfortable listening to two solid hours of dodging and weaving on everything from her vote on the Iran resolution to her husband’s attempt to keep records of their White House communications secret until after 2012.

Will this even have an impact though? I tend to agree with NYT article, if you read it, that Obama and Edwards do not stand to capitalize on this much. I think if they did they would have done so by now. What is fueling Hillary forward? Why is she the front runner now? I think these are interesting questions to answer and while on face may seem simple, I think the underlying answers would be fascinating. Perhaps, the political atmosphere is just in her favor. Perhaps, her political machine is the most well oiled. Perhaps, Bill is giving her a few pointers?

n the 1990s, “Clintonesque” became a by-word for political double-speak. We even became, briefly, a nation of deconstructionists when President Bill Clinton mused on the meaning of “is.”

Such existential questions seemed to be in the past. But with another Clinton running as if she’s all but a sure thing for the White House, Clintonesque is once again becoming a politically relevant adjective. In Tuesday night’s Democratic Presidential debate, the moderators and Hillary Clinton’s fellow panelists took pains to pin her down on one question after another, without notable success. The junior Senator from New York seems increasingly to have adopted her husband’s political methods, minus the savoir-faire. The result is that it’s impossible to know what she believes about anything.

Regardless, this election will be interesting (when it finally comes). This early campaigning albeit ridiculous, probably is not going anywhere anytime soon. In the mean time, let us ask ourselves what are the Republicans doing?

Interesting Article about the War on Terror

Published on October 27, 2007 in Politics. 0 Comments

I have not checked recently, but I do not think the readership to this blog is extremely high, but I am not trying to make money from advertising or change the world. So I will give a shoutout to my friend Bill’s Blog and an interesting article he linked to written by one of his profs.

As my political views mature and the political landscape of the United States changes life is becoming increasingly frustrating. I feel disconnected from the way our country works because to me it just does not make sense. I would highly recommend trying out this podcast by Dan Carlin. If you have never dabbled into podcasts before I think this would be a great way to become hooked. It is a reasonable and interesting commentary on current events without the political skew. It is also long enough where an issue can be developed, but you do not get bored. As of right now it does not have any commercials either!

Anyway back to my frustrations and this article. This deserves a more well developed post so I will try to make it short and let the article stand on its own. I think the really frustrating thing is the perverse incentives that are created by the destruction of state and individual rights. The scary thing about this is the lack of responsibility it creates in all levels of government.

It is fair asking how we kicked so much ass in World War II, but how we are failing so badly now. The article answers this question on a variety of issues fundamental to waging a war. What really concerns me and I think answers this question on a more broad basis is that Congress has not declared war. I think if we want to wage and win a war it should be a declared and focused effort. The War Powers Act should probably be limited and scaled back. I am all about the people. The Executive takes power away from the Congress, which represents the people. Remember when you vote for President that you are not only voting for their policies that will not be fulfilled, but you are voting for numerous appointments to Federal Administrations. People who make policy without a vote of Congress or approval of the President. Of course, Congress takes power away from the people, it was meant to make government more efficient so everyone does not have to show up to Town Hall. The problem is when they take so much power that the states lose their rights (10th Amendment, anyone?).

There is just so much disconnect between the citizens and our wonderful state.

Get Adobe Flash playerPlugin by wpburn.com wordpress themes
Close
E-mail It