A case of perceptions...
Submitted by James Mitchem on March 10, 2008 - 9:29pm.
I want to preface this blog by saying that I have posted this as a blog at the request of a Clinton supporter here, I had no intention of starting a food fight, I have refined some statements that might be misunderstood or misrepresented, but the argument is the same.
There is a generational divide, one sees it in every exit poll in every caucus and primary, there is a perception, accurately or inaccurately that Hillary fought the battles of the last two generations. And I will be the first to admit a lot of where we are today in terms of womens rights, civil rights is because of people like her. But many in my generation do not feel Hillary is a "fighter" for our generation, part of that is preconceived notions following the end of the Clinton years. We do not "know" Hillary Clinton, we know what we have read in books and seen on television. But a big part of the objection of the youth to Clinton has to do with her vote on the Iraq AUMF.
The second second issue is we feel it is our turn, the boomers had JFK and RFK. What do we have? When is our turn? 2012, 2016, 2020? Do we even get a turn or are we not just not ready, do we have to wait until we are wiser and more seasoned? There is nothing more insulting to a young person than to be told they aren't capable of making their own decisions, that they are somehow not old enough, experienced enough or wise enough yet.
Sometimes it feels like we young Democrats are good enough to take our money and our votes, our enthusiasm and our energy. But when it comes to putting someone who stands up for our generation in the White House we just "don't know what we are talking about". We are too idealistic, we are fuzzy headed, we need a reality check, we need to listen to the wisdom of our elders who know what is best.
It is deeply offensive, our generation is bursting with as much energy and as many good ideas as any generation past. It is discouraging to many young people that the boomers could have RFK and JFK and we are simply told by the same people 40 years later that our generation's JFK is somehow not ready for prime time. In terms of "experience", Barack is no RFK or JFK, but in terms of the fact that he appeals to our sense of what is possible Barack is my generation's JFK and maybe well be the only shot we get.
Is there anyone in our party that creates the enthusiasm and dedication amoung young Democrats on such a spectactular scale as Barack Obama? Barack has a different kind of experience, I think his time as a community organizer has a lot more value than some are willing to admit. It is a type of experience, the question is do we beleive what we need is more top down Washington style solutions and a "fighter" who is battle worn by years of conflict with the republican attack machine, or fresh ideas about how to get things done and a different kind of politics.
It is quite maddening quite honestly, here we have a man who had the judgment to see Iraq for the disaster it would be and oppose it before it was too late. A man who sees America not in red states and blue states but for what it can be. Yet we are told we are not ready to lead even though Barack has shown that he is smart enough and wise enough to see the biggest foreign policy disaster in American history since the Gulf of Tonkin resolution for what it was, a disasterous mistake.
Perhaps worst of all is this disingenous notion that Obama will not be ready on day one and only Hillary will, the 3AM ad is based on this notion, Barack is not ready, only Hillary can be trusted to keep our helpless childern safe in scary complex world, that is the message. The argument came to a head last week when Sen. Clinton said: "I think that I have a lifetime of experience that I will bring to the White House. I know Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience to the White House. And Senator Obama has a speech he gave in 2002"
Okay fair enough, I don't agree with the assessment but she's entitled to think Barack is not ready after only half a term in the Senate. She trotted out the Generals and Admirals, the 3AM ad and played the experience card most skillfully to win Texas and Ohio in a surprise landslide victory. But now Hillary and Bill are telling voters that Obama could be the Vice President in a Hillary Administraition...
Vice President? The very person who could quite possibly assume the role of the presidency in the event of *drumroll*... a national security emergency! Is it just me or if Barack somehow isn't ready for the Presidency in dangerous, complex times then why on earth should he be the one who would take over if President Hillary Clinton were unable to carry out her duties because of some unforeseen circumstances? It doesn't make sense, there is a massive logic disconnect in this message, it is this very type of Clintonian double speak that has turned me and many other young Democrats off to the Clinton campaign. Attacking Obama as too inexperienced with the one hand shamelessly lining up men and women in uniform to sow doubts into the minds of voters, and all but offering Obama the VP slot with the other hand even as they are running behind.
That is why we "Kids" support Obama, and will continue to support Obama, because he respects us enough to be honest with us, he sees our potential and is willing to empower us to change this country for the better. We know or at least think we know who Barack Obama is and what he stands for, the Clinton campaign on the other hand sends us mixed messages that frankly make no sense and come off as calculating and totally political.
We do not have the experience of the 90s as politically aware citizens, only vague impressions. What we know of the Clinton's are what we read in books, what they have done in the 2000s, and what they are doing now in this political campaign. Perhaps if we had the experience of having come of age in the golden 90s we might feel differently, but most of us 20 somethings have come of age politically in the Bush years or in the last years of Bill's term. Our perceptions of the Clinton's are based on the last 8 years, and fairly or unfairly, that is what many of us are basing our judgments on.
"If the vote by the senator from NY after 9/11, when people in her state believed Saddam Hussein had something to do with what happened that day, right or wrong and with the knowledge she was provided regarding potential WMD and her express intent that her vote was a means to having weapons inspectors back in Iraq to find said WMD (which Saddam had in Gulf War I...think Gulf War Syndrome http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7288902.stm) then your generation can't hold the Iraq War against Hillary. She was very clear that was not what her vote was meant to be. Kerry voted for it and so did John Edwards."
I didn't support Edwards and Kerry in 04, at least not until the national party had shoved them down our collective throats because of "electability". I supported Wes Clark, and I did because he was against the war from the start and opposed the very same AUMF that Hillary in the end voted for. More troubling still was the fact that she voted against the Levin ammendment, which Clark supported. I reposted that HASC committee so many times on Kos that I could just about recite it from memory for two years after Wes dropped out.
Reading that testimony, and reading Obama's speech it struck me how similar they were in call it what it was then, when it still mattered.
Now maybe her voters thought Saddam was somehow involved in 9/11, but for christs sake Max Cleland had the same intel, and served a far more conservative district, he made a heroic stand then for what was right and paid the political price for it, but it does detract from the stand he and other took despite the costs to oppose it then when it still mattered. As did about 20 other Dem senators. They all had the same intel, but less than half of the Democratic Senators stood up then for what was right. And Kerry, Edwards and Hillary were not among them.
Clark warned explictly in his HASC testimony that there should be a check on Bush, I spent 3 years arguing that to kossacks and any democrat that would listen, and trying to tell them that it did matter that the Senators did not put such a check in place.
If Barack had been in the senate that year, I do not know, I know what I beleive, but belief is not fact, it is opinion. He might have voted for it, but everything I know about Obama does not fit with that, but I have no crystal ball.
a crystal ball, least of all Obama. He made a call when his opinion didn't really matter. He simply lucked out that his particular position turned out to be correct. But hindsight is 20/20. And if that one decision is the basis for his being in the presidential race, right now, then heaven help us! Heck.....I was against it from the start, myself. You don't see me running for president!
I think that's what bothers me about Obama most of all.....the fact that he is putting himself forward as having this SUPERIOR judgement. I'm just not buying into it because I doubt very much he'd be running at all, if it weren't for this one moment in time. I ask you.....what else does he have to run on?
"What else does he have to run on?"
To give credit where credit is due, he's a very intelligent fellow, and his message of a better future resounds with people. He has a vision. In that respect he's similar to our Wes. It's just that our four-star had the experience to back it up and specific ways to implement his vision.
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark -- Make America All It Can Be!
I could name hundreds of people who have a similar level of intelligence and want a better future for America. And that "vision" thing you mentioned.....hmm.....?
Frankly, while I'm replying to your post, I consider it a serious stretch to compare BHO to Wes Clark in any way.
I think that one segment of Clarkdom saw both of them as knights in shining armor riding in on a white horse to save the day. That's the similarity I saw, but that about ends the comparison. It's the syndrome in which people project their own hopes on dreams on someone else about whom they know little and therefore can create whatever image they want.
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark -- Make America All It Can Be!
All the hearings that went on about Gulf War Illness took place during the Clinton years. It was very convenient of those who wanted the war in Iraq (think Chalabi and friends) to raise fear in people with their false intel about WMD. Bill Clinton said when he left office, they were still concerned about what Saddam had going in Iraq. Saddam wanted people kept guessing, because it helped him keep Iran at bay (and others).
I wasn't thrilled with that vote myself, but I can accept that people were lied to and they acted in the belief that they had been told the truth. Max Clelland did not represent New York. No buildings got blown up in Georgia.
If Wes and the rest of us who have been willing to give Hillary a closer look can support her, you should be able to find it in your heart to do the same. I don't expect you to do it before the primary is finished.
I turned 21 in 1968. Here have been my choices for President:
Nixon-Humphrey
Nixon-McGovern
Ford-Carter
Reagan-Carter
Reagan-Mondale
Bush-Dukakis
Bush-Clinton
Dole-Clinton
Bush-Gore
Bush-Kerry
There isn't an ounce of charisma in the whole list, except maybe for Clinton. I'm now 60, and grieve every day that Wes Clark didn't get the nomination in 2004.
Okay...back to JFK and RFK. Especially in JFK's case, we're in love with the memory of JFK. I was 13 when he ran and 14 when he was inaugurated.
I was ready to vote for Bobby and never got the chance. He was killed two months before I hit voting age.
So I will say that at least this Boomer never got his turn, either, and the window of opportunity is closing.
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark -- Make America All It Can Be!
;-) kelly
"Our public servants work for us - we don't work for them. We have an obligation, as citizens of this country, to always remember that - and to never let them forget it." - DeadMessengers
especially if thinking is an imminent requirement!
heh heh.
"Our public servants work for us - we don't work for them. We have an obligation, as citizens of this country, to always remember that - and to never let them forget it." - DeadMessengers
for you on what you wrote. Tell me what you mean byt the following terms:
(I'm not trying to be insulting or preachy, but some of the terms you've used are current buzz words/phrases, tand they have different meanings to different people)
1. define 'top down Washington style solutions'
2. 'fresh ideas about how to get things done'
3. 'different kind of politics'
By the way - your point that it is illogical to imply that Obama is ready to be VP, but not Pres, is - in pure logic, absolutely correct. The problem is, the argument has nothing to do with that particular line of logic, which really screws things up, lol. Despite what is often said, and what should be one of the criteria in choosing a VP, the choice is often based on entirely different criteria - like providing something the candidate neeeds and can't get from anyone else, i.e., delivering a particular state or region, exceptional fundraising prowess, strength with a particular demographic group, insurance against potential assassination forgive me!), exceptional experience in a particular sector (like econ or diplomacy or military), power of his/her network.
Rare is the candidate who is truthfully looking for the best person available to take the reigns of the country in an emergency. For one, 90% + of candidates have no intention of dying or being incapacited in office. It's sort of like the feeling of immortality when your ten.
"Our public servants work for us - we don't work for them. We have an obligation, as citizens of this country, to always remember that - and to never let them forget it." - DeadMessengers
"Rare is the candidate who is truthfully looking for the best person available to take the reigns of the country in an emergency. "
Now why hasn't everyone whose been jumping on Hillary for making that VP comment (including BHO) considered that thought? Because they needed to make a point to support Obama's credentials!
I wonder if JFK ever gave it a second thought (that he wouldn't be alive to serve out his term of president) when he chose Lyndon Johnson as his VP? The answer to that is probably, Hell No! He chose LBJ because he gave the ticket the balance it needed to be successful in the GE. It's a well documented fact that Kennedy didn't even like Johnson! But that is an example of the reasoning that is behind the VP selection process.
In other words, it boils down to, "What can this person do for me, in order to help me get elected." Not, "Gosh.....in the event of my not being able to fulfill my term as president, would this guy/gal be able to take over?"
Let's face it, until the Bush/Cheney era, VPs were largely ignored, once the new president was sworn in. It was a position nobody really aspired to because it more or less "neutered" that individual for as long as the president was in office. I think that many regular people see it as being far more prestigious a position then it really is, politically.
lol! Got it one! ;-)
"Our public servants work for us - we don't work for them. We have an obligation, as citizens of this country, to always remember that - and to never let them forget it." - DeadMessengers
for Hillary and Bill bringing up the Obama VP thing is to get him, on the record and in public, as to "turning it down" . This gets Hillary off the hook and let's her choose her choice.
(Hillary running against McCain, is even more reason for her to choose Clark)
The fact that Kennedy chose Johnson did not turn out well at all. Kennedy was trying to keep us from becoming entangled in Vietnam... LBJ plunged America head long into Vietnam.
When one does not select someone who is "ready", someone who agrees with your policies then LBJ or someone like him is what we invaribly will get. Political appointments of the VP can be a disasterous mistake.
That is why I don't think Obama should be on a Hillary ticket and Hillary should not be on an Obama ticket. They are in different camps on what sould be done and how to do it, having one or the other on the ticket would be a distraction from the policies they are trying to push through and how they would go about getting it done..
That dog just doesn't hunt...
Well, the choice of Johnson did work out well in the sense that they won, and wouldn't have won had Kennedy selected someone else.
Johnson was successful as President, but let me define my terms. He was successful in that he was able to get his agenda enacted, and much of that agenda on the domestic side, fighing poverty and enhancing civil rights, was a continuation of the Kennedy agenda.
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark -- Make America All It Can Be!
and not really something to be placed in the "win" column IMO. The kids receive junk, and they are humiliated in the process. A genuine lose/lose scenario.
Proud to be an American.
Kids went hungry, much like today when kids are out of school for summer and on holiday. I worked in an urban school district where we dreaded breaks for this very reason. We posted info on where parents could take their kids to get food at a soup kitchen and pantries they might get food. Another more rural school district I worked for used to have a program in the summer where they handed out sack lunches in the park for kids that was paid for with federal school lunch money. LBJ had been a teacher and was very aware of hunger in America. One of the teachers I worked with in that rural district was from there and told me when she was a child, the teacher kept a pot going in the classroom and kids brought whatever they could from home to throw in the pot (stone soup they called it) so the kids would have vegetable soup or whatever soup for lunch. Otherwise, most of them would have nothing. Schools may give kids lunch that's not up to your standard for nutrition, but try teaching hungry kids. I used to keep crackers with cheese on them for some of the kids I worked with in therapy sessions who came to school hungry after the weekend. For many of the kids in our schools, if it weren't for the breakfast and lunch they got at school, they didn't eat.
http://www.organicconsumers.org/school/school-lunch.cfm
Organic School Lunch Program Expands in California
Berkeley Daily Planet
July 2, 2004
Waters Signs Deal to Upgrade School Lunches
By MATTHEW ARTZ (07-02-04)
Imagine lunch hour at a Berkeley middle school: Eighth graders tossing salad side by side with cafeteria workers, seventh graders eating the chard they grew in the school garden while receiving a geography lesson, sixth graders sorting seeds to plant for the next harvest.
Every morsel is organic, locally grown and guaranteed not to plunge Berkeley Unified into bankruptcy.
We're Starting a Revolution http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2003/01/ma_207_01.html http://www.frac.org/html/ctech/ctech_index.html http://www.frac.org/html/news/news_index.html Did you know? The School Breakfast Program serves 8.1 million low-children each day. (learn more) "The Campaign to End Childhood Hunger is a brilliant advocacy strategy. It is the example I use of how national organizations can work effectively with the grassroots. The Campaign has highlighted the tragic effects of hunger and undernutrition on children in their early stages of development." http://www.eldredschools.org/id14.html The Federal government has made several changes in the Free and Reduced Lunch Program. According to these regulations, the following guidelines are provided:
Revolution Foods delivers tasty and healthy meals and nutrition education to schools and programs across the San Francisco Bay Area. Every child’s education should include healthy eating and learning about nutritious food.
According to the latest USDA numbers, 35.5 million Americans continue to face a constant struggle against hunger. (learn more)
Looking for the latest Weekly News Digest? Visit the Digest Archives
Terri Langston
Public Welfare Foundation
Reduced lunch will cost $.25
Milk (K-2) will cost $.30
Regular lunch will cost $1.45 for Grades K-6; $1.70 for Grades 7-12
New income guidelines have been established
Like most Americans I see my doctor pretty frequently. - Sen. John McCain
And good for them. But just a few days ago I was talking about the lunch program with a neighbor who is a teacher. She told me what the kids got one day for lunch last week here and believe me, it wasn't organic. There wasn't even any fresh produce. And for breakfast - a small pop-tart type of concoction. Like I said, abysmal.
Proud to be an American.
to see motherjones and other links describing the fat junk food in the programs but
the success of organic food affordable lunch programs in San Francisco and area are leaders in the movement to feed hungry kids and they
can help change the school programs from the grassroots up;
Like most Americans I see my doctor pretty frequently. - Sen. John McCain
in every locale. Where I worked, the school districts had their own food service. There were no contractors.
I would like to see one sample of O's non-top down solutions, one example of his "fresh ideas" and one sample of his "different kind of politics." If this is what he is preaching, he is totally full of it and anyone who believes this is a complete naive fool.
"Oh, just a broken-hearted Hoover fixer sucker guy." suggested Obama supporter theme song
#1 Top "down washington style solutions"
I would define that as a policy or set of policies that emphasis the role of the federal and state government in effecting change, but do not look to American citizens for more than tax dollars.
To give you an example, in my childhood I had issues within the education system. In 1st grade my grades were bad, I had trouble with kids at school, it was a serious problem. However instead of really digging and looking for the actual cause my teachers and school faculty labeled me as being ADHD, it was the thing to do with problem childern at the time. Put them on Ritalin and move them along was the attitude, many of my cousins were put on Ritalin with less than impressive results. In truth I was not ADHD, there was a serious domestic issue that would have sunken the grades of any child... I won't go into detail but simply put my teachers looked for a nice easy pre defined box I would fit into instead of really digging, I think that says a lot right there about the limits of the ability of government to do good.
My mother fought that notion and was a real advocate for my education. Instead of helping her, government fought her at every turn because at the time home schooling was something of a taboo, fears about religious fundies and all that. In the end I was withdrawn and I was home schooled, I never took Ritalin. The government thought that what was best for me and thousands like me was drugs, ADHD was a big thing in the 90s, and many people who probably didn't have it got put into the ADHD box anyway because we "fit the bill".
In the end my mother, not the government was vindicated. I dropped out in first grade, yet now here I am making straight As in College. Government policy even with the best of intentions can be deaf to the needs of citizens and I think that has a price.
Too many public servants get burnt out and treat their jobs as if it were a private sector job. People are depending on them. My family has experienced this time and again in many of our dealings with employees of the federal government. So I think government has limits in it's ability to effect change.
#2 Fresh ideas about how to get things done
I think that college tutition for short term public service is a new idea about how to deal with the needs of the population without creating a massive government infastructure. I would define that a little more but I am pressed for time.
#3 different kind of politics
Really I think this has to do with how one frames political debate, whether one sticks to policy or goes personal. When politicians develop personal rivals that gets in the way of honest debate on issues. Barack does not have many political enemies because he tries to keep the way he goes about making a point as inoffensive as is fairly possible. When it becomes something that is personal it is much harder to bridge disagreements, the emotional knee jerk reaction that forces logic to take a back seat role.
About VP, I think it is possible to make the case politically that it makes sense, it may be good politics, but is it good policy? LBJ was not part of the Kennedy line of thinking, he was a nessicary political evil, but when JFK was murdered the fact that LBJ was who he was led to Vietnam becoming the mess that it became.
I think given that historic experience with the kinds of risks one takes in making purely political appointments for VP we should be very cautious about buying into the idea we can somehow have both when the two of the are at odds on many important things. People I think deserve a clear choice when they vote for a ticket, not a ticket that includes a vice president who will do a complete 180 on the policies of the last President should the original president be unable to execture his/her duties.
I really think Wes should be Hillary's VP because in terms of idealogy and the lens that they view policy through they are much more alike than Clinton and Obama. A message disconnect is a dangerous thing for a political campaign.
Nor is it Obama's idea. He proposes only $4,000 in exchange for public service. That pays for tuition at very few colleges.
Democrats have made variations on that sort of proposal since the 1970s. Obama's proposal is actually far less generous than Hillary's proposal to forgive loans in exchange for public service. We've been over this before. What is it that you don't understand?
Obama has indeed gone very personal, going so far as to make wildly incorrect statements about what Hillary thinks and does. I've mentioned some of them in my diary concerning Wyoming. Which of those sound fine and like a different kind of politics to you?
Nick Kelly
Wes Clark could still secure America as a national security candidate.
still given the fact that he keeps bringing it up I think he is serious about it. The $4,000 alone is not enough, but with the pre-exsisting pell grant system which Obama has fought to increase as will cover costs at most 2 year colleges and greatly reduce costs at 4 year public colleges.
As for the generousity factor, the great thing about policy is that it is not set in stone. Positions can hardern, soften, change and yes even over time with debate improve. Barack actually set up a mechanism to do just that by bringing public ideas into his campaign.
Speaking of which I have one such idea I'm working on, is there a similar mechanism in the Clinton campaign for average people to bring their ideas to the attention of the Clinton higher ups? I'm already planning on submitting the idea to the Obama campaign but I'd also be interested in submiting it to the Clinton campaign and would be interested to know if there is such a grassroots mechanism for bringing ideas to the campaign.
as John, her husband. Not sure if you already know this, but John's the Grassroots Coordinator for WesPAC, and would probably be the best person to ask about that, at least that I can think of. Check with Kat, or email John about it at joeffinger at securingamerica dot com.
P.S. - sorry for the delay in answering - day job and tax prep gets in the way. Will post tonight.
Thanks for answering the questions too - will get to that after.
Man, it's nice to havedebates like this again, lol - thanks for that!)
"Our public servants work for us - we don't work for them. We have an obligation, as citizens of this country, to always remember that - and to never let them forget it." - DeadMessengers
I'll be sure to ask when I get the chance, it would be nice if I could.
I can certainly understand the delays, I had to cut my thoughts much shorter than I would have liked because I had a history paper I needed to work on. It really can be most frusrating.
I look forward to hearing your prespective.
Conversation with America has been partly about getting input from the grassroots about what needs to be done, as well as any thoughts people might offer on how to do it. She actually listens to what people say, and she thanks them for bringing specific problems and suggestions to her attention. Then, if the problem/solution mentioned stands up to scrutiny, she follows up with action.
Yes, one's policies should not be set in stone. However, they do provide insight into the level of expertise and understanding of whomever is promoting them. That's part of what convinces me that O is not yet at his prime as a political figure. His policies are far from fully developed, and some of them reflect either poor judgment or poor understanding of the problems they are aimed at solving.
Nick Kelly
Wes Clark could still secure America as a national security candidate.
They told lies to LBJ to get us into Vietnam. JFK was actually going to pull us out of Vietnam, but the CIA didn't want to leave. There's an interesting documentary called The Fog of War, about Robert McNamarra (sp?) that's very interesting. Had it not been for Vietnam, LBJ would have been one of our very best presidents. On the domestic side, he did very good things and he was the only one who could have gotten them done.
I think Johnson's own judgment came into the picture somewhere along the line, he did a lot of good domestically, particuraly on civil rights, but his foreign policy was a disaster.
He did a complete 180 on Kennedy's policy of no nukes for Israel, that decision Pres. Johnson made turned America into a pariah even to this day in the middle east when talking about nuclear proliferation. And don't even get me started on the bombing of the liberty...
When the "blue ribbon panel" held hearings all over the country on this subject, I was asked on behalf of military whistle-blowers (Wounded Eagles as the group at the time) to speak in support of these vets. When they first reported being sick, the military locked them up in military mental wards to keep them from talking to "the media and others" and for years tried to make everyone believe their condition was "stress induced" or all in their heads. Vets had symptoms of ALS, many were paralyzed and later died, but they were being told it was in their heads. That's what the knee jerk response also has been to military whistle-blowers....they're crazy. It was common practice for commanders to have whistle-blowers locked up against their will in retaliation for whistle-blowing. Gitmo and Abu Grahib were not a big surprise to me. Read a book called Military Justice is to Justice, What Military Music is to Music.
Tonight the CBS Evening News did a story on manufacturing jobs in the US going begging because companies cannot find qualified employees. 90% of US manufacturers report that they are short of qualified employees. The owner of one company said that with the high tech machines used in factories today "you need to have good computer skills if you're gonna work in high-tech manufacturing today." But US students graduating from high school aren't good enough in math and science to do the job. The jobs they're talking about pay $60,000 plus benefits.
"More and more companies who I'm talking to are not moving now for cheap labor," said Mark Meyer, a professor at the College of DuPage. "They're moving due to a lack of a … labor force that can come in and do it."
Barry
Are you safer today than you were seven years ago?©
Now that is really scary. I guess we have our answer about why Huckabee could get so many votes and is a likely future president. People don't see the need for basic education.
Proud to be an American.
Since I deal with graduates of US high schools every day in classes I wasn't surprised. Its incredible what they don't know.
Barry
Are you safer today than you were seven years ago?©
I wonder whether this has something to do with the problem. Schools in Illinois - and probably around the country - are not able to buy new books or get updated equipment due to budget constraints. Then you toss a pop-tart at them for breakfast and some string cheese for lunch and the recipe doesn't predict a successful outcome. That and the teevee, parents working multiple jobs, and who knows what else. Such a mess.
http://www.aplusillinois.org/issues/facts.asp
Proud to be an American.
Lack of funding is certainly part of the problem. But mandated funding on things like standardized testing is part of it too. Students are taught to pass test and not to think as a result they can't do even simple problem solving. Ask them a simple question on a quiz, like "where does the sun set", and not only do they not know the answer they claim its an unfair question because we didn't go over it in class and review it before the test!
I think that blaming TV can be a cop out. In general my students don't watch much TV, which may at least indicate good taste. :)
Barry
Are you safer today than you were seven years ago?©
This shocked me, Barry. It flies in the face of the conventional wisdom.
According to Gen. Clark, the labor movement should step in to help its members get the education and training needed to perform the jobs described in your report.
Heavy in the training should be computer science, CAD/CAM, and statistics.
Is it the suggestion that low-tech workers can't assemble high-tech products?
Maybe these workers succumb to the flashing 12:00 syndrome from a few years ago, before video devices started setting their clocks from the nearest PBS station.
(Pardon my rambling, disjointed post.)
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark -- Make America All It Can Be!
That's the idea. Its not assembling high tech products, its using high tech machines to produce products - electric motors in one case they reporter. The CBS report had examples of the companies going into local schools to upgrade facilities and the curriculum.
Barry
Are you safer today than you were seven years ago?©
We've got plenty of highly qualified talent here in the US. For example, the engineering company I work for has over 1 million resumes (of qualified people) in the HR system.
These companies just talk to the Congress-critters to bring in more foreign workers under visas under this myth so that they can undercut the salaries of American workers. With the way some engineering people have been screwed in this country, no wonder students don't want to bother learning math/science in school.
The first baby boomer was born in 1946. JFK ran for president in 1960. That means the oldest boomer was 14. One of the oldest boomers, Bill Clinton, met JFK when he was in high school. It is true that JFK and his family were glamorous. They came at a time when we had the best economy in US history. We had no hot wars going on anywhere, although we did have to cold war. You seem to forget that both JFK and RFK were murdered. Our hearts were broken twice and also with the murder of MLK. When we were young, we had to wait until we were 21 to vote. People went to war, but couldn't vote.
Really James, it's not about anybody's turn. It's about who is best to fill the job. It's a job vacancy. We are in deep economic sh*t. Iraq is a big part of all the problems we have going on right now. Understand that we boomers understand the feelings of your generation. Some 50,000 of us were killed in Vietnam with many more injured, including our Wes Clark. Still more are homeless to this day, never having fit in on their return. The first baby boomer to be president was Bill Clinton and he did a great deal to improve our country, given the hand he was dealt. George W. Bush (never wanting to be associated with his own generation) did all he could to undo the changes made in the Clinton years.
If the vote by the senator from NY after 9/11, when people in her state believed Saddam Hussein had something to do with what happened that day, right or wrong and with the knowledge she was provided regarding potential WMD and her express intent that her vote was a means to having weapons inspectors back in Iraq to find said WMD (which Saddam had in Gulf War I...think Gulf War Syndrome http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7288902.stm) then your generation can't hold the Iraq War against Hillary. She was very clear that was not what her vote was meant to be. Kerry voted for it and so did John Edwards. I suspect, had Barack Obama been in the senate at that time and under the circumstances, he would have also voted for it. He's voted to fund the war. He voted for the promotion of Gen. Casey, which Hillary did not.
If your perceptions of the Clintons are based on the last 8 years (and the rest of your sense of history is based on what Andrew Sullivan has written or told you) you have a great deal to learn about our recent history.
I was a federal whistle-blower who worked for the Army in Europe in 1988-1990. You have no idea how the federal government works and neither does Barack Obama. Elliot Spitzer is just finding out for himself today and he's a smart guy. To be sure, the Rezko trial will taint your candidate. He's already had to admit his judgement was "boneheaded," in regard to the land deal from which he benefited greatly and Rezko did not. I was idealistic before I had to tangle with the forces of darkness as a whistle-blower. Hillary has had to deal with them as well. She has a clue. That is the biggest reason she is ready from day one. Your candidate seems like a great guy, but he doesn't have a clue. And you sure don't want him to be your JFK or RFK. Our hearts are still broken from the deaths of those two men.
I don't expect to change your mind, James. Just letting you know we boomers really have learned something along the way and that we have something better than having read recent history. We have memory.