For many people, change is more threatening than challenging. They see it as the destroyer of what is familiar and comfortable rather than the creator of what is new and exciting.
Nido Qubein
Some Brief Notes on Defense/Foreign Policy Debate
Why are these "debates" so predictable? We heard very predictable issues: foreign aid (particularly with respect to Pakistan), waterboarding (aka "torture"), Iran's nuclear ambitions, criticizing Obama's performance (e.g., his alleged overriding of military commanders' recommendation) ,and then some discussions of one's bona fides (at least on the part of Rick Perry, i.e., a Palin-like appeal to his command of Texas National Guard troops) and the special consideration of Israel. Ron Paul, who continues to attract a very vocal and impassioned base with his views against an expansive global military presence and waterboarding. stood in sharp contrast.
I did not like the way the debate was structured; I think some of these questions were stereotypical and for the most part, the candidates had already published positions or talking points. It seemed like the moderator wanted to push them into saying if and when they would result to military force to stop Iran from deploying nuclear weapons. The candidates, for the most part, resisted being specific on this issue, preferring to work through the Iranian democratic opposition (noting disapprovingly the Obama Administration's curious silence during the Green Movement/Revolution) and in concert with international sanctions. This is dangerous territory because no Republican (with the exception of Ron Paul) wants to be seen as weaker than Obama on defense.
My take:
- If Supreme Court nominees are able to deflect judgments on future court rulings on litmus test legal issues (e.g., abortion), Presidential candidates should refrain from discussions of specific scenarios.
- In developing a case against Obama, I would focus on the fact he's been expanding the American military footprint in the Middle East and Africa (Libya, Yemen, etc.), and he's cut aggressively defense research and development. I would be critical of his overemphasis on peripheral issues like the repeal of DADT and his defensive, knee-jerk response in the McChrystal termination. (Let me be clear: a breakdown of military discipline is never acceptable. But there are a number of other ways to handle similar circumstances, including transfer, demotion and/or censure. I would make it clear is that my first priority is maintaining ongoing deployment objectives and goals, and any relevant personnel decisions would take place at a time of my choosing.)
- (This reflects my personal opinion.) We have to address the fact that we are paying an unsustainable, disproportionate price for global defense, we must acknowledge and vow never to repeat the mistakes of nation building over the past two decades, we need to resurrect Dwight Eisenhower's concerns about the military-industrial complex, we have too large a global footprint and too many alliances (we need to streamline our alliances and do a better job of "picking our battles"), we have deployed too many resources disproportionately in one area of the world, and we must adapt to the future, including decentralizing critical infrastructure components (e.g., our national power grid), aggressively investing in advanced robotics and related high technology programs, including, but not restricted to, cyber warfare. We need a paradigm shift, moving away from the Big Iron and large-scale deployments characterizing the twentieth century warfare to more efficient, faster, more flexible, technology-augmented deployments.
- As for the credentials of civilian Commanders-in-Chief, I would note the resources I have drawn on (e.g., briefings from high-level military personnel/retirees or other experts, diplomats, respected defense and foreign policy journals, transcripts from relevant Congressional committee hearings, etc.), demonstrate an awareness of regional conflicts and US alliances and obligations, specify a cohesive world view and America's role in it (including a comparison and contrast with the incumbent administration and/or prior administrations), and the kind of military leaders I would select and how I would evaluate their performance and hold them accountable. (In particular, I would distinguish how I would have handled post-invasion Iraq differently than Bush, e.g., pulling the hook earlier on Rumsfeld and his military commanders, staffing issues, and occupation stalemate. I would also go out of my way to underscore whereas I would actively listen to my military commanders and their recommendations, there is only one Commander in Chief.)
Going Back To a June Obama/Curry (NBC) Clip
Listening to Obama speak is like panning for gold: if you're lucky, you may get a speck or two of truth, but it's mostly crap. Several other commentators gave responses to this quasi-Luddite response to improved American productivity WHICH IS A GOOD THING. If you wring excess personnel costs out of your operations, you can price your goods and services more competitively, both domestically and internationally. Among other things, this may allow you to grow your current business or allow you to market new goods and services. What Obama forgets to mention is that dinosaurs become extinct--like telegraphs, dial-up Internet services, or the current day post office. There are careers today that never existed a generation ago (at least in contemporary terms): e.g., webmasters or web designers, information security officers, and personalized medicine or nanotechnology engineers.
It's not just technology can make our companies more globally competitive but cutting down other cost factors reflecting the dysfunctional policies of government--including taxes and regulations, not to mention government debts driving up the cost of capital, and the declining dollar, which makes imported resources (like oil) much more expensive. And of course, Ann Curry (who has never impressed me as the sharpest knife in the drawer) neglects to follow up with the obvious question raised by Obama occasionally slipping in lip service to economic reality: for example, just why haven't we seen the same kinds of operational efficiencies come from government? Why, for instance, does it take more teachers per student today than 4 decades ago, while basic outcome measures (e.g., achievement scores, graduation rates, etc.) have not risen? Why haven't we been able, given all the improvements in technology, to leverage the benefits of great teachers to more students? Democrats like Obama just don't seem to grasp that core concept; they actually see increasing the costs of public education as a positive thing; in fact, educational inefficiency is a key objective of the President's jobs bill.
I remember when buying a basic laptop meant spending over $1000; my first math professor explained how she spent $150 on a no-frills basic calculator. Today you can buy more functional netbooks at a quarter or less of that cost, and you can get a free solar-powered calculator as a perk for a magazine subscription. Maybe there are fewer workers per PC or calculators today: but I'm now able to spend, say, $800 I had to spend in the past buying a notebook, on other things--things that involve the employment of other workers.
I could go on for an extended discussion on this topic, but a number of conservative sources also expressed related comments (e.g., see here). But let me conclude this discussion with Curry talking about "record profits" (as if businesses should respond to profits by hiring people they don't need! [Before going further, not all industries have enjoyed strong growth; "record profits" only refers to certain companies--we have not seen a 3% or more growth rate, which most economists tell us is necessary to put a serious dent in unemployment.] Of course, only the government can afford to hire people it doesn't need, because it has a monopoly on tax power...) Ms. Curry obviously never took a class in economics. There are a variety of reasons, but big ones are uncertainties in both prices and costs: are today's big profits sustainable? There are factors beyond my control as a businessman: there're the general economy and/or industry-specific market conditions, shifting government policies affecting costs or business plans (taxes, regulations, anti-trust activities, etc.)
Ms. CURRY: You're here encouraging private sector hiring. this just after "the new york times" just passed this past friday reported that since the recovery began, businesses have spent just 2% more on hiring people, while at the same time spending 26% more on equipment. so why at a time when corporate america is enjoying record profits have you been unable to convince businesses to hire more people, mr. president?
OBAMA: I don't think it's a matter of me being unable to convince them to hire more people. they're making decisions based on what they think will be good for their companies. a couple of things happened. Look, we went through the worse crisis since the great depression. we are now in a process where the economy is growing again and we created 2 million jobs over the last 15 months. but it's not as fast as it needs to be to make up for all the jobs that were lost. The other thing that happened, though, and this goes to the point you were just making, is there are some structural issues with our economy where a lot of businesses have learned to become much more efficient with a lot fewer workers. You see it when you go to a bank and you use an atm, you don't go to a bank teller , or you go to the airport and you're using a kiosk instead of checking in at the gate. so all these things have created changes in the economy and this counsel is identifying where the jobs of the future are going to be, how do we make sure there's a match between what people are getting trained for and the jobs that exist, how do we make sure that capital is flowing into those places with the greatest opportunity. we are on the right track. the key is figuring out how do we accelerate it.
Political Humor
"Everybody's talking about Rick Perry’s "performance" at the Republican debate. He had a brain freeze trying to name the three — I forgot what I was talking about." - Craig Ferguson
[When asked to comment by the media the next morning, Rick Perry asked, "Was there a debate last night?" And then he said, "I knew I should have asked Herman to pinch me..."]
"It's not a good week for Republican memories. Rick Perry forgot the name of the agency he wanted to cut. Herman Cain forgot there was a harassment settlement. And Ron Paul forgot he has no chance of winning." - Craig Ferguson
[The moderator started to ask Newt Gingrich about the Gettysburg Address when Michele Bachmann said, "Wait! I got that one: 531 Main Street."]
Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups
Foreigner, "That Was Yesterday"
