Commentators have become increasingly aware (and adamant!) that the Afghan portion of the War on Terror now belongs solely to Barack Obama. Since he took office, the president has made a point to emphasize a dedication to the debatable success in Iraq in conjunction with an increased troop presence and focus on Afghanistan. I'll try to steer away from the temptation of discussing or blaming the Bush administration too much in this post, but no discussion of the current situation in Afghanistan would be appropriate with some context. To that end, it must be said that America's practical abandonment of the nation nicknamed "the graveyard of empires" between 2003 and 2007, and the consequential sacrifice of Pakistani security and stability has done incalculable damage to the prospects of Afghan unification and stability. If President George W. Bush's legacy in Afghanistan is one of underserved ideals and dysfunction, then how has President Obama begun to craft a new phase in the lives of the Afghan people? The answer has three parts: he has studied the situations in Afghanistan and Pakistan, he has begun a troop surge of his own, and he has begun to replace many of the people in roles of leading the effort in Afghanistan under President Bush.
An extensive review of American policies in Afghanistan and Pakistan was a brilliant political, but also necessary, maneuver that gave Obama room to nudge the War on Terror in a new direction without saying outright that the Bush administration completely mishandled its mission there. Perhaps not coincidentally, that sentiment, at least in public, has been saved for commentary on Iraq, allowing Obama to keep such a politicall damaging situation at arm's length. Continuously referencing Iraq in conjunction with President Bush also indicates where Obama's focus lies: for better or worse, this president considers Iraq a mostly finished job, and has chosen to focus on Afghanistan and Pakistan. While the study is not complete and thus not allowed Obama's team to put forth a complete outline of how America's role in the region will change, the administration has begun to reform policy gradually as conclusions are reached.
One of the earliest and easiest steps taken to show Obama's dedication to the Afghan situation was to request the resignation of General David McKiernan, who oversaw operations in Afghanistan under President Bush. Chronic lack of resources, civilian casualties, and a relatively static position in the major cities of the country characterized much of McKiernan's time in Afghanistan, though it's not clear how much of that was being steered by Iraq-centric policies. Regardless, the strategy that has brough much of the success in Iraq - clearing an area of insurgents, staying in that area, and building relationships with the locals - has been underemployed in Afghanistan, and constant air strikes by jets and drones have soured the Afghan population's feelings about the foreign troop presence. The appointment of General Stanley A. McChrystal as the leader of operations in Afghanistan indicates the beginning of a significant shift in the momentum of the situation there.
Lastly, and perhaps most significantly, Obama has begun a troop surge of his own. This will most likely mean that many veterans of the Iraq war are redeployed to Afghanistan, but since the Iraqi government has made no overtures regarding an extension of the U.S. presence there, it means that we are genuinely free to redploy and refocus our troops and efforts where they are needed most. The new offensive against Taliban and Al-Qaeda operatives in Afghanistan is incredibly important, and, like Iraq for President Bush, may ultimately determine how his presidency is remembered.
So far, President Obama has shown an incredible aptitude for adapting his policies and goals to fit any situation. His efforts in the War on Terrorism have so far shown us a man who reads and re-reads everything there is to know about an issue and then asks for more information before finally making a decision. Obama understands that the futures of Afghanistan and Pakistan are inseperable and that he must pursue security and stability in both nations if he expects to make real progress against those who would perpetuate global violence against innocents. We can only hope that the American people do not tire further of war, because without a dedication to seeing the mission in Afghanistan to a positive conclusion, we cannot hope to avoid opening another front in the name of ending the threat of terrorism.
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Mornings in Charm City (Post 4, Part II)
Mornings in Baltimore emphasize the bizarre and often tragic differences between the peoples and neighborhoods in the city. Sleek new buses drive by abandoned and run-down homes, opening their doors to greet weary passengers with an automated message about their destination. The buses rumble past the make-shift tent city at Fayette and President Streets (or Front and Fayette via Street View) to drop their patrons off downtown. Day laborers gather at Broadway and Lombard to wait for possible employment, while professionals in glinting BMWs and Lexuses drive down Boston St. towards downtown.
Having volunteered (and briefly stayed) at homeless shelters in DC, I'm fully aware that these kinds of contrasts rear their ugly heads in every major American city, but Baltimore seems to suffer in ways that these other cities don't. I'm not just talking about crime or the crumbling infrastructure. Baltimore seems to be exhausted; resigned to a future of abandoned buildings, abject poverty, and a negligent education system.
I think I'll touch on Baltimore's problems in more detail in a later post, but if you're itching for a clearer understanding of how the city ended up in the mess it's in, I've got two words for you: race riots. In 1968, the city experienced a week-long riot following Martin Luther King Jr.'s assasination. Thanks to Google Street View, you can follow the path of the riot with these directions and see just how little has been fixed and renovated in the city since then. Pay special attention to streets just off North Avenue, like this one, to see the kinds of conditions that people live in.
With a clear view down my street to the heart of downtown and the Inner Harbor, I can see the skyscrapers that loom over the commercial heart of the city. Looking three blocks north of my neighborhood reveals an area of the city wracked by drugs, violence, and urban decay. This patchwork of broken neighborhoods and fancy renovated rowhomes is an enduring reminder that the city suffers from brain drain, a lack of motivation, and a lack of any serious political entities willing to put in the time and effort to change how the city operates. Simultaneously, that same patchwork compels the people who live here to love their city. They might speak poorly of it, and have little to boast about, but I can't think of any instance in which life-long residents have allowed outsiders to talk badly about Baltimore. That is the essence of Baltimore's relationship with it's people; not one of love and hate, but of caring and despair.
Having volunteered (and briefly stayed) at homeless shelters in DC, I'm fully aware that these kinds of contrasts rear their ugly heads in every major American city, but Baltimore seems to suffer in ways that these other cities don't. I'm not just talking about crime or the crumbling infrastructure. Baltimore seems to be exhausted; resigned to a future of abandoned buildings, abject poverty, and a negligent education system.
I think I'll touch on Baltimore's problems in more detail in a later post, but if you're itching for a clearer understanding of how the city ended up in the mess it's in, I've got two words for you: race riots. In 1968, the city experienced a week-long riot following Martin Luther King Jr.'s assasination. Thanks to Google Street View, you can follow the path of the riot with these directions and see just how little has been fixed and renovated in the city since then. Pay special attention to streets just off North Avenue, like this one, to see the kinds of conditions that people live in.
With a clear view down my street to the heart of downtown and the Inner Harbor, I can see the skyscrapers that loom over the commercial heart of the city. Looking three blocks north of my neighborhood reveals an area of the city wracked by drugs, violence, and urban decay. This patchwork of broken neighborhoods and fancy renovated rowhomes is an enduring reminder that the city suffers from brain drain, a lack of motivation, and a lack of any serious political entities willing to put in the time and effort to change how the city operates. Simultaneously, that same patchwork compels the people who live here to love their city. They might speak poorly of it, and have little to boast about, but I can't think of any instance in which life-long residents have allowed outsiders to talk badly about Baltimore. That is the essence of Baltimore's relationship with it's people; not one of love and hate, but of caring and despair.
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
The Best Serious Quote Ever (Post 4, Part I)
Earlier posts have been very serious and I'm a bit exhausted (already!) of keeping up that level of intensity, so I'm moving away from that for a post or two. Mornings in Baltimore will be the subject of the next post, but in order to do the early hours in Charm City justice, I'll be putting off writing until tomorrow before work. In the mean time, I'll leave you with something completely unrelated: a serious quote from a real article on Yahoo! that I read today.
"As soon as we are done with the brain, we will return it."
I could dig into topics like the new offensive in Afghanistan or the coup in Honduras, but tonight I'm going to make sure everything is taken care of around the house, while being callous towards consistently asinine coverage of Michael Jackson's death. I don't mind if you loved him and what he accomplished... he's just not that big a deal to me. More specifically, I have trouble reconciling the two halves of his life - both haunted by things beyond his control, but also equally entrancing (though for completely different reasons).
Catch up with me tomorrow morning as I finish Post #4 in my continuing challenge to write 750 words or more every 24 hours. See you on the flip side.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Reading and Writing Aren't Dead (Yet)
Working at a company that runs virtual classrooms for students across the country provides me with plenty of opportunities to observe and analyze the effects of technology on student learning. As someone dedicated to education, I'm surprised that I haven't yet fled for the mountains. Every day, I read emails that use the English language in ways that would make most professors curl up in a ball and weep. A casual disregard for grammar often clouds the meaning and content of messages so badly that I can't tell if a parent or their 2nd grade student sent it. Constant exposure to such material drives my coworkers and I ever closer to the brink of insanity, so I can certainly relate to the people who claim that Twitter, Facebook, MySpace, email, blogs, and instant messaging are the meteors, volcanoes, and tidal waves setting the reading and writing dinosaurs on a course to extinction.
There are now a good deal of studies showing how younger people interact with their computer screen. There is a corresponding number of (mostly) older alarmists crying over the "Dumbest Generation", which they have already written off as a lost cause. If my discussions with older friends are any indication, most Americans over the age of 50 are silently predicting the downfall of civilization brought on by apathetic teens and yuppies who are too enthralled by their computer screens to do anything but sit and refresh their comment counter, hoping for a hint of social acceptance. It is important to heed Ronald Reagan's warning that "freedom is always one generation away from extinction", but I get the distinct impression that what older folks (read: Boomers) fear could happen is far more dramatic than anything that will, or even could.
Until recently, I was firmly entrenched on the side of the those predicting the apocalypse, right next to my Boomer friends and relatives, readying my arsenal for the attack on English that was sure to come at any moment. Four years tutoring writing, earning a History degree and teaching certification, and a life-long debilitating dependency on coherent thoughts held me in place and gave me strength as I looked down my nose at the unwashed masses tweeting about their lives. Then a coworker sent me to a blog post that snapped me back to reality. As with any new idea, product, or technology, we must separate the tool from how the tool is used.
Obviously, I'm aware that nearly everything annoying in life (visits to the DMV not included) can be avoided, and to this day I have not visited a Twitter feed. It's just not my thing. Even without exposing myself to various social networking sites, I know that if Twitter and other social networking devices were as bad for society as people make them out to be, we would already be seeing cracks in the foundation of our republic. I'm sure that any trend showing America getting dumber started long before the dawn of YouTube, courtesy of our "everyone's a winner" educational theories and policies.
"But children don't learn when they're online!" cry our elders. In the sense that the Internet won't direct students to prepare for the SAT or learn about the Renaissance, this is probably true. The Internet won't direct kids to videos of cats playing the piano either, but that doesn't mean youngsters won't find them. The problem, then, obviously exists outside of the computer's realm altogether. Kids form interests and goals before they ever sit down at the keyboard, but they expand on these things based on what they think the Internet offers and how their online activity is monitored.
That last thought is incredibly important, so I'll repeat it: kids expand on their goals and interests based on what they think the Internet offers and how their online activity is monitored. The Internet can be an incredibly powerful tool, but if students are allowed to have a computer in their room and be on it without any restrictions, then of course their inquisitive minds will wander, followed quickly by their mouse cursor. In stark contrast to the whimsical exploration of children, computer users over the age of 30 tend to be much more cautious - almost suspicious - about new technologies. When parents and teachers alike are so intimidated by computers and the Internet, it's no wonder that youngsters have so completely taken over cyberspace for their own purposes, thus giving the older members of society the ability to hurl accusations of seflishness and apathy at their younger counterparts.
This is the ultimate challenge to professional educators and parents with regards to integrating technology into education. Without a real understanding of how students place computers in the context of their lives, we cannot hope to use these technologies to their fullest potential. I realize how silly it is to be discussing all this on a blog, but the moral of this story is that we need to start embracing new technologies instead of shunning them in order to better apply them in the processes we've created to improve our lives. If we continue to shun the use of Wiki pages, chat rooms, and yes, Twitter, then we will voluntarily surrender the control of some of our biggest assets to the people who create - and profit from - online content.
To bring this post back to where it started, it should be noted that my work also allows me to see the incredible talent of children who are excited about learning, and who love to read and write (properly). They might not always understand that the tone and syntax used in an email is completely inappropriate for a research paper, but guess whose responsibility it is to teach them the difference? Youngsters are still driven to learn, but what they focus their efforts on is still under the direct influence of parents and teachers.
There are now a good deal of studies showing how younger people interact with their computer screen. There is a corresponding number of (mostly) older alarmists crying over the "Dumbest Generation", which they have already written off as a lost cause. If my discussions with older friends are any indication, most Americans over the age of 50 are silently predicting the downfall of civilization brought on by apathetic teens and yuppies who are too enthralled by their computer screens to do anything but sit and refresh their comment counter, hoping for a hint of social acceptance. It is important to heed Ronald Reagan's warning that "freedom is always one generation away from extinction", but I get the distinct impression that what older folks (read: Boomers) fear could happen is far more dramatic than anything that will, or even could.
Until recently, I was firmly entrenched on the side of the those predicting the apocalypse, right next to my Boomer friends and relatives, readying my arsenal for the attack on English that was sure to come at any moment. Four years tutoring writing, earning a History degree and teaching certification, and a life-long debilitating dependency on coherent thoughts held me in place and gave me strength as I looked down my nose at the unwashed masses tweeting about their lives. Then a coworker sent me to a blog post that snapped me back to reality. As with any new idea, product, or technology, we must separate the tool from how the tool is used.
Obviously, I'm aware that nearly everything annoying in life (visits to the DMV not included) can be avoided, and to this day I have not visited a Twitter feed. It's just not my thing. Even without exposing myself to various social networking sites, I know that if Twitter and other social networking devices were as bad for society as people make them out to be, we would already be seeing cracks in the foundation of our republic. I'm sure that any trend showing America getting dumber started long before the dawn of YouTube, courtesy of our "everyone's a winner" educational theories and policies.
"But children don't learn when they're online!" cry our elders. In the sense that the Internet won't direct students to prepare for the SAT or learn about the Renaissance, this is probably true. The Internet won't direct kids to videos of cats playing the piano either, but that doesn't mean youngsters won't find them. The problem, then, obviously exists outside of the computer's realm altogether. Kids form interests and goals before they ever sit down at the keyboard, but they expand on these things based on what they think the Internet offers and how their online activity is monitored.
That last thought is incredibly important, so I'll repeat it: kids expand on their goals and interests based on what they think the Internet offers and how their online activity is monitored. The Internet can be an incredibly powerful tool, but if students are allowed to have a computer in their room and be on it without any restrictions, then of course their inquisitive minds will wander, followed quickly by their mouse cursor. In stark contrast to the whimsical exploration of children, computer users over the age of 30 tend to be much more cautious - almost suspicious - about new technologies. When parents and teachers alike are so intimidated by computers and the Internet, it's no wonder that youngsters have so completely taken over cyberspace for their own purposes, thus giving the older members of society the ability to hurl accusations of seflishness and apathy at their younger counterparts.
This is the ultimate challenge to professional educators and parents with regards to integrating technology into education. Without a real understanding of how students place computers in the context of their lives, we cannot hope to use these technologies to their fullest potential. I realize how silly it is to be discussing all this on a blog, but the moral of this story is that we need to start embracing new technologies instead of shunning them in order to better apply them in the processes we've created to improve our lives. If we continue to shun the use of Wiki pages, chat rooms, and yes, Twitter, then we will voluntarily surrender the control of some of our biggest assets to the people who create - and profit from - online content.
To bring this post back to where it started, it should be noted that my work also allows me to see the incredible talent of children who are excited about learning, and who love to read and write (properly). They might not always understand that the tone and syntax used in an email is completely inappropriate for a research paper, but guess whose responsibility it is to teach them the difference? Youngsters are still driven to learn, but what they focus their efforts on is still under the direct influence of parents and teachers.
Monday, July 6, 2009
The Sad State of Marriage
JUST in case anybody had managed to convince themselves that the institution of marriage wasn't a trampled, tattered shadow of its former self, feel free to read this article by Sandra Tsing Loh. I first read the article on The Atlantic Monthly's website about two weeks ago, but the article has quickly made its rounds on the internet. If you're too tired to read the entire article, know that even the jaded and often spiteful readers of FARK.com couldn't believe how poorly this woman had handled her affairs. Loh's article pretends to be a "coming of middle-age" expose. In reality, her article is a 4100-word farce; an embarassingly public and desperate attempt to rationalize immaturity and irresponsibility. She blames mental exhaustion and a father prone to wrath before finally taking aim the classic target of every guilty lover's frustration: the society that forced her into a monogamous life-long relationship.
Like any good apologist, Loh comes up with several examples of people and books that suggest marriage might not be the best way to maintain stability for modern American couples and their children. It's true that some studies have shown we aren't exactly wired for monogamy, and I think there are many reasonable arguments to be made on how to change the American family to better suit our lifestyles. However, Loh uses all this information for the exclusive purpose of justifying her actions. Even as she admits her "failure as a wife", she claims that an outdated norm is responsible for the misery of her and so many others. Loh is a performance artist, a regular on NPR, a contributor to The Atlantic, and a finalist for the National Magazine award, and yet she cannot find it in herself to "'work on' falling in love" again with her husband. This seems to be an increasingly common form of cowardice, reserved for those who didn't think about their needs, wants, goals, and ambitions before they lept into a long-term commitment of the highest caliber.
Note: I'm regretting not finishing this post in one sitting... the two comments made before I started writing again this morning covered a lot of what was on my mind before I called it a night.
Before anybody starts accusing me of wanting everyone to mimic the Cleaver family from television, it should be noted that I could not care less how people handle their relationships, as long as they do it responsibly. I would have gladly given my approval to Ms. Loh's story if it had described long discussions with her husband about possibly branching out to different people for physical relationships. This kind of responsible planning and exploration might not have alleviated all of the problems that drove Loh and her husband to divorce, but it surely would have made it seem more reasonable. In her article, Loh asks,
Marriage statistics dating back 20 years are the subject of some of the most common and thorough studies performed in this country. Many people like to cite a number in the range of 50-60% when referencing the divorce rate in the United States, but, as the Census Bureau points out, the actual numbers are far different. In 2004, the average divorce rate for men was 20.7%, with 9.3% divorced at the time of the study. Women had been divorced at a slightly higher rate - 22.9%, with 10.9% divorced at the time of the study. On top of these lower numbers, it turns out that first marriages that end in divorce typically take an average of 8 years to do so. More than 95% of both genders are married by the time they reach the age of 70, so there must be something about marriage that continues to bring people together.
The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development tracked marriage as well. Between 1970 and 2007, crude marriage rates fell from about 11 people per 1000 getting married per year to about 7 per 1000. People are still getting married, though at a lower rate than before, which implies that Americans are already revaluating what marriage should mean. Where this reformation takes us is unclear, but I have a sneaking suspicion that it will include both a push for equal rights for the LGBT community and a significant shift in the responsibilities of men and women in the home. This could be particularly beneficial to women who are struggling to balance the professional and domestic aspects of their lives.
Do I expect everyone to be perfect? Of course not. I'm in no way suggesting that divorce be made illegal or otherwise more difficult to obtain, and I see a plethora of benefits to changing the expectations of men and women in the household. I freely admit the the point Sandra Tsing Loh is trying (badly) to make is a valid one: marriage isn't necessarily for everyone, and people should do what they feel is best for the stability of their family and relationship. However, the flippant and casual nature with which Sandra Tsing Loh explores this issue offends even the most sincere advocates of changing marriage and family. Take it from me, a man who got (happily) married at 22: to disregard the level of responsibility that any emotional bond requires of both partners seriously detracts from the quality of the relationship and the ability of those involved to be themselves.
Like any good apologist, Loh comes up with several examples of people and books that suggest marriage might not be the best way to maintain stability for modern American couples and their children. It's true that some studies have shown we aren't exactly wired for monogamy, and I think there are many reasonable arguments to be made on how to change the American family to better suit our lifestyles. However, Loh uses all this information for the exclusive purpose of justifying her actions. Even as she admits her "failure as a wife", she claims that an outdated norm is responsible for the misery of her and so many others. Loh is a performance artist, a regular on NPR, a contributor to The Atlantic, and a finalist for the National Magazine award, and yet she cannot find it in herself to "'work on' falling in love" again with her husband. This seems to be an increasingly common form of cowardice, reserved for those who didn't think about their needs, wants, goals, and ambitions before they lept into a long-term commitment of the highest caliber.
Note: I'm regretting not finishing this post in one sitting... the two comments made before I started writing again this morning covered a lot of what was on my mind before I called it a night.
Before anybody starts accusing me of wanting everyone to mimic the Cleaver family from television, it should be noted that I could not care less how people handle their relationships, as long as they do it responsibly. I would have gladly given my approval to Ms. Loh's story if it had described long discussions with her husband about possibly branching out to different people for physical relationships. This kind of responsible planning and exploration might not have alleviated all of the problems that drove Loh and her husband to divorce, but it surely would have made it seem more reasonable. In her article, Loh asks,
"Do you see? Given my staggering working mother’s to-do list, I cannot take on yet another arduous home- and self-improvement project, that of rekindling our romance."No, Ms. Loh, I don't understand. You entered into a binding emotional contract - the legal aspects of which I will disregard for this article - with a person who, regardless of their feelings now, loved you and wanted to spend the rest of their life with you. The fact that you were too weak or overcome with passion to think clearly about the consequences of marriage does not excuse your infidelity or the impact it will have on your family. And just so we're clear, I feel that way about anyone who cheats on their significant other. If marriage is truly as outdated and misrepresented as Loh claims, then surely she had some hint of this when she got married 20 years ago.
Marriage statistics dating back 20 years are the subject of some of the most common and thorough studies performed in this country. Many people like to cite a number in the range of 50-60% when referencing the divorce rate in the United States, but, as the Census Bureau points out, the actual numbers are far different. In 2004, the average divorce rate for men was 20.7%, with 9.3% divorced at the time of the study. Women had been divorced at a slightly higher rate - 22.9%, with 10.9% divorced at the time of the study. On top of these lower numbers, it turns out that first marriages that end in divorce typically take an average of 8 years to do so. More than 95% of both genders are married by the time they reach the age of 70, so there must be something about marriage that continues to bring people together.
The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development tracked marriage as well. Between 1970 and 2007, crude marriage rates fell from about 11 people per 1000 getting married per year to about 7 per 1000. People are still getting married, though at a lower rate than before, which implies that Americans are already revaluating what marriage should mean. Where this reformation takes us is unclear, but I have a sneaking suspicion that it will include both a push for equal rights for the LGBT community and a significant shift in the responsibilities of men and women in the home. This could be particularly beneficial to women who are struggling to balance the professional and domestic aspects of their lives.
Do I expect everyone to be perfect? Of course not. I'm in no way suggesting that divorce be made illegal or otherwise more difficult to obtain, and I see a plethora of benefits to changing the expectations of men and women in the household. I freely admit the the point Sandra Tsing Loh is trying (badly) to make is a valid one: marriage isn't necessarily for everyone, and people should do what they feel is best for the stability of their family and relationship. However, the flippant and casual nature with which Sandra Tsing Loh explores this issue offends even the most sincere advocates of changing marriage and family. Take it from me, a man who got (happily) married at 22: to disregard the level of responsibility that any emotional bond requires of both partners seriously detracts from the quality of the relationship and the ability of those involved to be themselves.
Sunday, July 5, 2009
Sarah Palin Continues to Mesmerize, Confuse
NOW that she has resigned as Governor of Alaska, the only person who knows what Sarah Palin is going to do is... Sarah Palin. There is, however, plenty that we can discern about her personality and political future from the press conference she held on Friday, July 3, which, in case you missed it, was one of the most awkward things I've ever seen on national television (click here for video). The quick pace, exasperated tone, and contradicting ideas that characterized her speech sent commentators and viewers alike into spasms of speculation. Several days have passed since her speech, and everyone who isn't Sarah Palin is still confused, but there has been time for more careful analysis and, as Mark Ambinder from The Atlantic puts it, "we ought to begin by taking her at her word."
We know from her time with the McCain campaign that Palin doesn't work well with others. As a politician, you have to roll with the punches, no matter what form they come in, and Palin has had trouble with that from the start. The comments about her son Trig or her daughter Bristol were, for the most part, mean-spirited and completely unethical. I can count on one hand the number of comments about her family that made a reasonable connection to how she would handle being the Vice President. But unethical attacks didn't stop Barack Obama from becoming president, and some of these attacks had long-lasting consequences; 11% of the country still thinks he's a Muslim. He overcame unfounded accusations of being a non-citizen and terrorist to win the White House. Having no experience on the national stage, Palin was probably suffering from sever culture shock and therefore couldn't handle such attacks as discreetly as Obama, but when you decide to run for national office, you'd better be ready to chew what you bite off.
What remains to be seen is how Palin will reconcile her resignation speech with her future endeavors. Her refusal to be a lame duck as she finishes her term seems reasonable at first. It may even be the only thing in the speech that made much sense, though not for the reasons she outlined in her speech. The Alaskan state legislature (read: Democrats and Republicans) has become increasingly combative with the Palin administration, epitomized by the "protracted battle with Senate Democrats" over the appointment of Bill Egan to fill the post vacated by the disgraced Ted Stevens. Palin's speech indicates that she bowed out to avoid being tempted to "milk" her position and travel abroad, but I have a feeling that her inability to move on her own legislative agenda had more to do with her decision than the temptation of luxury. If this truly is a reason for stepping down, how can she be expected to handle the same temptation at the national level?
The speech continued to run itself in ideological U-turns. Palin said, "I am not wired to operate under the same old 'politics as usual.' I promised that four years ago – and I meant it." Unfortunately for her, the status quo of finishing your term unless there's a health issue or indictment still holds sway with most Americans. If she expected to survive on the national stage, most likely in a bid for the presidency in 2012, she must not realize that she's given opponents the last nail for her coffin. All the Democrats have to do is run ads reminding Americans that she abandoned her post during the worst recession in 80 years while claiming she wanted what was best for Alaska.
After some more rhetoric, and a quick but pointed reference to the "superficial wasteful political bloodsport" that has afflicted her in recent months, Palin writes "I have given my reasons… no more 'politics as usual' and I am taking my fight for what’s right – for Alaska – in a new direction," thus bringing an unexciting end to a confusing presentation of loosely connected ideas; a trademark of Palin politics. The FBI has said she is not under investigation, but questions still abound regarding state-level inquiries into alleged abuses of power by the Palins. In conjunction with a complete lack of detail with regards to her future plans, it's no wonder the press and public have been drumming up a new theory every hour.
On the other hand, that's exactly how Palin thrives: she plays the martyr. By allowing the media and DC insiders to speculate so wildly about how she's going to proceed, Palin creates the appearance that she does know what she's doing, and that "Washington and the media will never understand; it's about country." She's managed to get this far without having a plausible game plan, but all that will change once she heads out to the lower 48 on her own. Whatever happens next will be big, and it will probably be ugly.
Follow up: Anne Applebaum at the Washington Post picked up where I left off regarding Sarah Palin today. She pointed out some other ironies and fallacies in Palin's speech, most notably her love of interacting with ordinary people "who now constitute the opinion-making classes", while simultaneously berrating those who would have negative opinions about her.
We know from her time with the McCain campaign that Palin doesn't work well with others. As a politician, you have to roll with the punches, no matter what form they come in, and Palin has had trouble with that from the start. The comments about her son Trig or her daughter Bristol were, for the most part, mean-spirited and completely unethical. I can count on one hand the number of comments about her family that made a reasonable connection to how she would handle being the Vice President. But unethical attacks didn't stop Barack Obama from becoming president, and some of these attacks had long-lasting consequences; 11% of the country still thinks he's a Muslim. He overcame unfounded accusations of being a non-citizen and terrorist to win the White House. Having no experience on the national stage, Palin was probably suffering from sever culture shock and therefore couldn't handle such attacks as discreetly as Obama, but when you decide to run for national office, you'd better be ready to chew what you bite off.
What remains to be seen is how Palin will reconcile her resignation speech with her future endeavors. Her refusal to be a lame duck as she finishes her term seems reasonable at first. It may even be the only thing in the speech that made much sense, though not for the reasons she outlined in her speech. The Alaskan state legislature (read: Democrats and Republicans) has become increasingly combative with the Palin administration, epitomized by the "protracted battle with Senate Democrats" over the appointment of Bill Egan to fill the post vacated by the disgraced Ted Stevens. Palin's speech indicates that she bowed out to avoid being tempted to "milk" her position and travel abroad, but I have a feeling that her inability to move on her own legislative agenda had more to do with her decision than the temptation of luxury. If this truly is a reason for stepping down, how can she be expected to handle the same temptation at the national level?
The speech continued to run itself in ideological U-turns. Palin said, "I am not wired to operate under the same old 'politics as usual.' I promised that four years ago – and I meant it." Unfortunately for her, the status quo of finishing your term unless there's a health issue or indictment still holds sway with most Americans. If she expected to survive on the national stage, most likely in a bid for the presidency in 2012, she must not realize that she's given opponents the last nail for her coffin. All the Democrats have to do is run ads reminding Americans that she abandoned her post during the worst recession in 80 years while claiming she wanted what was best for Alaska.
After some more rhetoric, and a quick but pointed reference to the "superficial wasteful political bloodsport" that has afflicted her in recent months, Palin writes "I have given my reasons… no more 'politics as usual' and I am taking my fight for what’s right – for Alaska – in a new direction," thus bringing an unexciting end to a confusing presentation of loosely connected ideas; a trademark of Palin politics. The FBI has said she is not under investigation, but questions still abound regarding state-level inquiries into alleged abuses of power by the Palins. In conjunction with a complete lack of detail with regards to her future plans, it's no wonder the press and public have been drumming up a new theory every hour.
On the other hand, that's exactly how Palin thrives: she plays the martyr. By allowing the media and DC insiders to speculate so wildly about how she's going to proceed, Palin creates the appearance that she does know what she's doing, and that "Washington and the media will never understand; it's about country." She's managed to get this far without having a plausible game plan, but all that will change once she heads out to the lower 48 on her own. Whatever happens next will be big, and it will probably be ugly.
Follow up: Anne Applebaum at the Washington Post picked up where I left off regarding Sarah Palin today. She pointed out some other ironies and fallacies in Palin's speech, most notably her love of interacting with ordinary people "who now constitute the opinion-making classes", while simultaneously berrating those who would have negative opinions about her.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
