Send a JibJab Sendables® eCard Today!
Courtesy of Marc Ambinder
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Monday, July 14, 2008
Kenya: The Fragile Right to Protest
It is truly disturbing how police continue to brutally crackdown on peaceful political protest. I applaud Muthoni Wanyeki and strongly support her comments here.
Where is the People's Prime Minister? Can he not restore a basic tenant of democracy that he once championed?
Where is the People's Prime Minister? Can he not restore a basic tenant of democracy that he once championed?
Thursday, July 03, 2008
Think Orange Juice
Wow. I guess Obama does have an elitist problem. The McCain family is remarkably down to earth!
Wednesday, July 02, 2008
Was Clark's Simple Argument Too Complex?
General Wesley Clark was the center of media attention this past week when his comments about John McCain's wartime experience generated a media firestorm.
There has been a lot of outrage from the media and, especially, John McCain. The consensus is that Clark has effectively ruined his chances of becoming Obama's VP.
Lost in all the outrage and media hype was a willingness to deal with the argument that Clark was making. It was not so complex that it was beyond the comprehension of the average person. His argument was as follows:
John McCain is a war hero. He should be respected for that and our nation owes him a debt of gratitude for his service.
His experience as a war hero demonstrated character and courage. His military experience is a valid credential for demonstrating character and courage--at any level, including the presidential one.
Military experience, in and of itself, however, does not mean that you have the knowledge, judgment, and skill needed to be a commander-in-chief. Privates serve honorably and admirably in their service. They demonstrate heroism, courage, and bravery in their service to America.
But spending two years as a private does not automatically qualify you to become a lieutenant. It does not automatically qualify you to become a general. It does not automatically qualify you to become the commander-in-chief.
In order to move up the rankings, you have demonstrate the appropriate knowledge, skill, and, yes, judgment required of the position.
This is not difficult to understand. It is simply common sense. The logic of experience and qualification is the same as the following analogy: Flipping burgers at Mickey D's does not make you qualified to become the CEO of McDonald's. Does someone with experience working at the bottom of a corporation bring unique, useful insight to the role of CEO? Perhaps, but not necessarily. It is perfectly logical to assume that the skills, knowledge, and qualifications to serve in one position do not necessarily transfer to another position.
I do not know enough about John McCain's military record to determine how much we ought to value his military service as a credential for his capability to serve as a commander-in-chief. Clark was simply making the argument that John McCain and the media were wrong to automatically grant him enoromous credibility on national security issues on the basis of his military service.
While that military service certainly does generate respect for McCain's character and courage, it does not necessarily follow that he would make better strategic decisions because of it.
I know none of this is difficult to understand. I know it is not really that complicated, nor is it really even all that nuanced. I also know that when it is boiled down into its simplest form (McCain's military service does not qualify him to be commander-in-chief), the media goes into hyper overdrive fueling a controversy that isn't really all that much to begin with.
There has been a lot of outrage from the media and, especially, John McCain. The consensus is that Clark has effectively ruined his chances of becoming Obama's VP.
Lost in all the outrage and media hype was a willingness to deal with the argument that Clark was making. It was not so complex that it was beyond the comprehension of the average person. His argument was as follows:
John McCain is a war hero. He should be respected for that and our nation owes him a debt of gratitude for his service.
His experience as a war hero demonstrated character and courage. His military experience is a valid credential for demonstrating character and courage--at any level, including the presidential one.
Military experience, in and of itself, however, does not mean that you have the knowledge, judgment, and skill needed to be a commander-in-chief. Privates serve honorably and admirably in their service. They demonstrate heroism, courage, and bravery in their service to America.
But spending two years as a private does not automatically qualify you to become a lieutenant. It does not automatically qualify you to become a general. It does not automatically qualify you to become the commander-in-chief.
In order to move up the rankings, you have demonstrate the appropriate knowledge, skill, and, yes, judgment required of the position.
This is not difficult to understand. It is simply common sense. The logic of experience and qualification is the same as the following analogy: Flipping burgers at Mickey D's does not make you qualified to become the CEO of McDonald's. Does someone with experience working at the bottom of a corporation bring unique, useful insight to the role of CEO? Perhaps, but not necessarily. It is perfectly logical to assume that the skills, knowledge, and qualifications to serve in one position do not necessarily transfer to another position.
I do not know enough about John McCain's military record to determine how much we ought to value his military service as a credential for his capability to serve as a commander-in-chief. Clark was simply making the argument that John McCain and the media were wrong to automatically grant him enoromous credibility on national security issues on the basis of his military service.
While that military service certainly does generate respect for McCain's character and courage, it does not necessarily follow that he would make better strategic decisions because of it.
I know none of this is difficult to understand. I know it is not really that complicated, nor is it really even all that nuanced. I also know that when it is boiled down into its simplest form (McCain's military service does not qualify him to be commander-in-chief), the media goes into hyper overdrive fueling a controversy that isn't really all that much to begin with.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
