Krauthammer Drivel

More Krauthammer Drivel -  The Meaning of Hagel

I can imagine Charles Krauthammer gnashing his teeth at the thought of a Department of Defense organized by a Chuck Hagel.  As if things will really change that much.  I mean how much influence can a DoD Secretary have?  However, this doesn't stop Republican Hawks like Krauthammer from spitting more venom out of his mouth when the word Chuck Hagel for DoD Secretary is brought up.  He apparently believes that if Hagel is nominated that America will become like Penn State after the Sandusky ordeal.   Weakened, isolated, and having little morale left to tackle the world's most pressing problems.  Here are Krauthammer's problems with Hagel, and my many critiques of them.

Military Spending:

Krauthammer apparently has fallen for the line and hook that most Americans have fallen for when it comes to actually figuring out baseline budgeting.  First, the sequestration would reduce Pentagon largess by $600 billion as Mr. Krauthammer correctly said, but he left out the important detail that this would have to be absorbed over the next DECADE and only cut into the Pentagon's proposed increases.  So you have to understand that there really isn't any CUTS if sequestration happens.  This is language trickery by the Washington elites to mislead Americans into thinking that they are actually trimming down their waistline.  This brings me to my other point.  Krauthammer thinks that whenever there is any "reduction" in Pentagon spending by the current administration that this is to grow the "bulging welfare state" and to "recalibrate America's role in the world."   Even Sen. Tom Coburn (not a dove by any means) supports a $1 trillion in spending from the Pentagon in the next decade.  You should read his report about spending cuts for the DoD.  Most of the things that he advocates are reforming veteran care, weapon purchases, staffing personal, cutting troop deployment in non-combat areas, and cutting redundant programs already covered by some other government program.  In his plan he does call for downsizing the military in Europe and Asia.  Apparently for Krauthammer places that are hotbeds of terrorism and anti-American militant fever.  I don't understand how that would "recalibrate our role in the world."  If anything it would make our military stronger since we aren't all spread out in areas where there is little national interest.  Also Sen. Coburn's plan is already happening to some degree.  My favorite cut is the closing of the Department of Defense's elementary schools.  No, not overseas, but here in the U.S.  Apparently, children of military families can't go to "free" public education in their own districts so Congress created the DoD school for them.  Nice.  This could save $10 billion in the next 10 years.

Bear in mind too, that the U.S. DoD spending is not the total amount that we spend on defense.  Most critics will say that we spend close to $1 trillion on our military operations.  Also the U.S. accounts for 41% of total WORLD military spending.  Plus just our DoD ($671 billion) spending per year exceeds the next 10 nations defense spending in 2012.  I guess I am just a liberal hippy to want to have America not be the policeman of the world. 

Israel:    

I have already complained about Krauthammer's views on Israel and the Palestinians in an earlier post.  The perennial problem that I face with Krauthammer is that his writing completely leaves out any Palestinian claims and probably dismisses them.  The fact he leaves out is that the 2000 Camp David Accords completely broke down which were an attempt to settle the agreements made during the Oslo Accords.  The talks broke down on the issue of Palestinian statehood.  Ehud Barak offered a Palestinian State consisting of the Gaza Strip and 91% control of the West Bank.  Now I can hear the NeCon rabble about how this was a "great" deal and Arafat should have taken it.  Well maybe he should have, but the point it is that it wasn't what he, and many Palestinian's wanted.  They wanted the return of the pre-1967 West Bank which would include Eastern Jerusalem and the "Western Wall." The Palestinians were offered "custodianship" of East Jerusalem.  Other issues that Arafat would have had to sell to the Palestinian's was that the Al-Aqsa Mosque and Palestinian airspace would remain in Israeli control, even with accepting Barak's deal.  Also the issue of hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refuges wasn't settled either since Israel did not want them moving back to Israel proper and changing the demographics of that nation.  Granted Ehud Barak made the deal at their next meeting at Taba in 2001 much easier for Arafat to swallow, however none of that was going to happen.  Barak offered a 94% control of the West Bank with a Israeli 6% annexing and then an eventual 3% compensation for total of 97% control of the West Bank.  Robin Wright whose article from the Slate I have been sourcing said in her article, "Was Arafat the Problem?", 
 
Taba was a big step forward. A 2-to-1 land swap sure beats a 9-to-1 swap. But it still left Arafat having to answer the obvious question: Um, why not 1-to-1? If Israel really accepts the principle that pre-1967 borders are a valid goal except where rendered impractical by demographic "facts on the ground," then shouldn't it offer fair recompense for the land being withheld—especially since it created those facts on the ground, in some cases cynically?

Plus add to the fire the famous visit to the Temple Mount by Ariel Sharon in September of 2000, which actually ignited much, (not all), of the Second Intifada.  This did create a series of attacks on Israeli's and Palestinian's.  However, the subsequent excessive use of force displayed by the Israeli Air Force against the Palestinian people by the end of 2001 one can begin to understand why Hagel said his quote that Krauthammer quoted, " Israel must take steps to show its commitment to peace.”  

It just so happens that Chuck Hagel at the time might have saw the conflict through a Palestinian's perspective, rather than a Krauthammer Israeli centric perspective.  As Robin Wright said about the Camp David and Taba negotiations.  "They (Israeli's) have never looked at things from the Palestinian point of view."  It is quite obvious that Krauthammer hasn't either.


Iran:  

First of Krauthammer save some enamel on his teeth because Hagel is starting to sound more and more like Krauthammer on sanctions.  However, let's examine Hagel's actions as a Nebraska Senator in regards to Iran.  It isn't a damaging as Krauthammer makes it out to be.

It seems like his views about Iran, for Krauthammer, were beginning to grow soft around 2001.  But his voting record seems conflicting.  The below information was gathered from Ileana Ros-Lehtinen piece on Politifact. 

1.  He voted against Iranian Sanctions in 2001, but then in 2006 he voted in favor of the Iran Freedom 
      Support Act.

2.  He also voted against an amendment that would have labeled the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a
      Terrorist group.

3.  In 2008 he voted against a measure in the Banking Committee called the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, 
     Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2008.

All of these "NO" votes could be considered very rational in the light of the events that were important at
the time.  The Iraq War was beginning to become very unpopular as of 2006 and even though Hagel voted
in favor of the war in 2003.  Hagel began to become a fierce critic of the unilateral handing of the Iraq War and all of the problems that began to occur because of the conflict.

I imagine with the vote against the Iranian Revolution Guard as a Terrorist group it was quite plausible that he was concerned that the Bush Administration might use this new classification as an excuse to head down the same path with Iran as it had with Iraq.  Of course Congress made similar pronouncements against Iraq prior to 2003 and then latter used that as an excuse to invade Iraq.   Heaven forbid we not get the U.S. embroiled into another conflict based upon a faulty assumption that would risk American lives, and treasure. 

The Sanction issue is an important one.  So often the sanctions are used as a way to get the people to realize that their suffering is due to their own leader and therefore the hope is to create a movement within the people to remove the leader and therefore end the suffering.  The only problem is that history doesn't have a lot of positive examples of this working.  Take Cuba for example.  Sanctions have been placed on this country since 1962 and the country is still communist and the Castro's still control the central government.   The sanctions did not cause the people of Iraq to rise up against  Saddam Hussein.  Too often the sanctions have the opposite effect of unifying the people against the country imposing the sanctions.  Plus the sanctions are responsible for moral travesties.  The Iraq sanctions of the 90s were said to have killed hundreds of thousands of lives.   Plus the Iran Sanctions are causing problems for the chronically ill due to the shortage of pharmaceuticals.  Not to mention the horrendous state that the sanctions put their economy in.  High inflation rates, foreign good shortages, also cause the Iranians to suffer.  These sanctions create resentment towards the country, or countries, responsible for them.  This creates the fuel to endure these horrible conditions and direct the hatred towards the country responsible. Sanctions are an act of war and they shouldn't be used since they attack the citizens of the country and not the regime. 

I am realist to understand that nothing will change with the direction of American foreign policy if Chuck Hagel is nominated.  I just don't understand why many Americans, (or Nebraskans for that matter) are suckered into the Neoconservative (Krauthammer) foreign policy mindset.      

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: Why was there war in Gaza anyway?

In Charles Krauthammer's latest article, "Why was there war in Gaza anyway?" Mr. Krauthammer continues his tirades against the evils of the Middle Eastern world in hopes (from my perspective) that Americans will arise out of their liberal slumber and begin to speak out against this evil.  For starters the conflict between Gaza and Israel is more complicated than what Mr. Krauthammer shows.  For him it is simple dichotomous thinking.  Israel = Good  Hamas = Evil.  This issue deserve much more elaboration than what Mr. Krauthammer gives us.  

Mr. Krauthammer complains that Israel withdrew from Gaza in September 2005 and basically gave the people/militants of Gaza their own state and therefore should lay down their arms and live like normal people should live.  However, this is where the details are left out.  Yes, Israel did unilaterally withdraw from Gaza, but Israel still "maintained control of Gaza's land borders, territorial waters and airspace. Egypt controls Gaza's southern border."  This doesn't seem to me like an independent country does it?  The vagueness continues.


Then Mr. Krauthammer rails against the mindless people of Gaza who in their January 2006 elections elected a majority of Hamas representatives to the Palestinian Legislative Council.   Fatah, the previous leaders of the PLC, and the Palestinian head of state Mahmoud Abbas (who had Western backing) refused to accept this new reality and dissolved the unity government that was created after the parliamentary elections.  This then led to the Fatah - Hamas conflict within Gaza and the subsequent purging of the Fatah militia.  However, Israel and the West were not prepared for this and quickly endorsed and implemented a complete blockade of Gaza.  

Life within the blockade was/is abysmal.  It is compared to life within a prison by some.  Unemployment was/is rampant, and most of the population is dependent of charity in order to meet basic needs.  Movement is strictly limited in and out of Gaza.  Shipping and Fishing is also regulated.  At least according to my perspective a blockade is an "Act of War."  

Add to that the other permanent Palestinian-Israeli issues of settlements in the occupied terrorities, and the international occupation status of the Palestinian people.  One can at least understand, (not support), Gaza resistance to this type of  handling by Israel.  It isn't (as Krauthammer makes it sound like), like Israel was just minding it's own business and then out of the blue Hamas started to rain missiles down on them.    

However, Krauthammer does have some legitimate points.  Hamas has declared Israel an ilelgal entity, and advocates violence as a means to fix this illegitimacy.  Also Hamas has routinely shot missles into Israel, even Tel Aviv, and likely would continue to stockpile weapons/missiles if any such blockade was lifted.   Since Hamas believes this is the only way to "talk" with Israel.  It is doubtful that Israel would ever negotiate with Hamas, and neither will Hamas negotiate with Israel.  Both sides regard each other as a war combatant and want each other to just "go away."  

That is the reason why the United States should not get involved in these types of squabbles.  There is no U.S. interest in Israel/Gaza.  Only Israel and Hamas will be able to solve this conflict.  It makes matters worse when the U.S. gets involved and is basically "one-sided" on this issue.  Our $3 billion/annually to Israel and our "blank check" on whatever they do is unwarranted and a prime reason for fueling Middle Eastern terrorist groups hostile to the U.S.   Oil will still go to the world market regardless of what happens to the Gaza situation and the threat of terrorism may noticeably decrease.  How would America lose if we would politically "disengage" from Israel?"

I advocate the policy of George Washington in his Farewell Address.    "The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible."   


               

Why deterrence will work with Iran Charles Krauthammer!!

Here is a link to the following story in today's paper by Charles Krauthammer, "Applying Cold War deterrence plan to Iran is silly."  Here is my rebuttal to his article.

This article's point was that conservatives often time say that we shouldn't fret about Iran because we stood up to the Soviets who had 30,000 nuclear missiles starring us at the face.  We deterred the Soviets so we could deter Iran.   Charles Krauthammer thinks that this is dangerous and foolish.  Iran can't be deterred because.  1)  Iran isn't rational  2)  Iran wants Israel to go away.  3)  Iran can easily wipe out Israel with nuclear weapons

Basically Charles Krauthammer has a long of history of Neo-Conservative rants but I am sick and tired of the story about Iran being the boogeyman.  I think the story is based on faulty logic and and generic assumptions. 

1. His first argument. Deterrence assumes that both participants are rational actors otherwise it won't work. True. Krauthammer assumes that the Soviet Union was rational but then declares Iran irrational and therefore incapable of rational thinking. Oh deterrence doesn't work because of the nature of the Iranian regime Krauthammer says. Iran has had its history of support for suicide bombers and the Soviet Union didn't. So therefore we have to blow them up now in case they develop a nuke in 5-10 years to challenge Israel's nuclear monopoly.

Bogus: Comparing the Soviet Union to Iran is a worthless analogy. Did the Soviet Union have a history of Western Imperialism, a U.S. backed coup of a democratically elected leader, (1953), and a history of U.S. intervention in the Middle East. Mr. Krauthammer apparently cites the Hezbollah attack on U.S. troops in Beirut in 1983 as the reason why we must kill Muslims in Iran. (oh somehow this is rational). Yes, most likely Iran supports Hezbollah, but the suicide attack was because of a desire to end occupation, not because of a desire to spread their Islamic Revolution throughout the Middle East. Krauthammer assumes that Iran isn't rational because they supported the removal of U.S. troops from Beirut. It would occur to me that this is a very rational, (not moral), argument. Of course suicide bombing is the worst evil to commit. But the process to remove an occupying force with that method is an entirely reasonable response. So if the United States wanted to remove Iranian soldiers from Canada through a suicide attack that wouldn't be a rational move? Just because they believe in the return of the "Madhi" doesn't make them radicals. How many other religions believe that in the future some Messiah like figure will appear and lead the righteous to salvation and the unrighteous to destruction and eternal punishment? Answer: Every major Monotheistic religion does. Once again Krauthammer assumes that the belief in the "end times" is a reason why Iran will ignite a nuclear bomb in Tel-Aviv. Never mind the fact that Iran's leading cleric says that seeking nuclear weapons goes against Islam, and is a "great sin".

2. The nature of the grievance. Here again Krauthammer assumes that since the Iranian clerics and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad want the Israeli state to "go away" that that implies they will nuke Israel as soon as they develop one.  If this line of thinking is true then the millions of Republicans that want "Obama" to go away are also secretly plotting his demise. This doesn't make sense. Why is it that if you don't like something that you automatically want to destroy it too? I don't like smoking cigarettes but I don't want to deprive the rest of the public their right to enjoy them if they want.

3. The nature of the target. Oh Iran can't wait to bomb Israel because it is "easy" to do. One bomb would wipe them out. If Krauthammer logic is sound then the fact that Israel has over 100 nuclear weapons pointing at Iran and Iran has none pointing at Israel would cause the Iranians to worry that their country could be destroyed very easily by 100 nuclear weapons. Why is it radical if they want to build one to deter the Israeli government? Oh but in Krauthammer eyes only Israel is allowed nuclear weapons, god forbid there be a nuclear free zone in the Middle East. Israel having a monopoly on nuclear weapons in the middle east will always entice other nations to develop one. Why can't they figure this out?

THE FOURTH PURPOSE!!!!

THE FOURTH PURPOSE VIDEO

I stumbled across this video trailer after reading John Taylor Gatto's book.  Weapons of Mass Instruction

This video trailer was made awhile ago, and as far as I know it the movie hasn't been made.  But this idea behind the video is very interesting.  Its assumption is that education has proved a big failure in the past century.  It's compulsory nature, its institutionalization, bureaucracy, and standardization have diminished our educational outcomes, and created a lobotomized culture of teenagers that seek its escape from this institution by indulging in music, video games, TV, or illegal activities (drugs, alcohol, or violence).  

The problem is that school doesn't meet the needs of the individual, and tries to implement a "one size fits all" plan on everyone.  This doesn't work for every person, (just like one sized fits all health care plans), and creates resentment.   The goal for education used to be to create moral individuals, help individual gain skills for the economy, and help them to be good citizens.  The video proclaims that these three goals have not been obtained, and never will be because of the way the system was started.  

The institution of public schooling was a Prussian invention of the early 19th century.  It was imported into academic circles in the late 19th century because of the growing power, and success of Germany and how America needed to emulate what the Germans were doing or risk losing to them economically and then militarily.  The idea behind Prussian schools was to create an obedient, docile citizenry, that would follow orders and fit nicely into the industrial/militaristic economy.  Each person was to produce for the state, and so therefore individualism was reduced and collectivism was increased.  (much like Ancient Sparta).  The emphasis wasn't on "liberal education" but on "memorization".  

There are many other reasons for the beginning of public education that aren't linked to the three original goals as stated above. 

1.  Labor Unions pushed hard for compulsory schools in the 19th century because that would ensure 

     higher wages for the work that they did.

2.  Protestants also pushed hard for compulsory schools in the 19th century because that way the

      Southern and Eastern Immigrants (which were mainly Catholic), would be indoctrinated with

      Protestantism.  (this is how the private Catholic school movement started.

3.  Evangelical Protestants also pushed hard for compulsory schools in the 19th century since they 

     thought schools would be a good place to help kids from doing victimless behavior, like drinking,

     smoking, dancing, using drugs, cussing, and gambling.  

 

The solution is to decentralize education.  Remove the state from the equation. This will open up diversity of educational programs, more efficient use of resources (those that don't want to go won't have to), and greater responsibility for students, teachers, and parents.  More on this later.

  

Sudbury Schools

This is a video about the Sudbury schools.  I always like to show my students this video, because it shocks them silly.  The Sudbury school is a completely unstructured school that gives students freedom and allows them to decide what to do with their time each day.  There is no curriculum, standards, tests, school goals, grades, and class periods.  

Every day they are asked by the teachers there, (which don't do much but inquire about what students are doing), what are you going to do today?  As with freedom, some students use the time wisely, others do not.

You will see students reading books, and you will see students playing video games, or sleeping.  Students are encouraged to make decisions for their own lives rather than being forced to learn, or sit in a classroom.

This is an interesting idea, and it always sparks great debate in my classes.  Many students say how the school is useless, and no one really learns anything.  But then others say that this happens anyway, and those students that want to learn in public schools, would learn in a Sudbury school.  Those that don't learn in a public school, wouldn't learn in a Sudbury schools.  

The person in charge of the school, has some interesting ideas.  If you check out their website there are more

articles, and videos trying to justify what they are doing.   He links current public schools to the Industrial Revolution, and how we have to treat children like cars, and not human beings. 

What are your thoughts?  I think of so many students that are dependent on "us" to teach them, and they grow up dependent on "government" to tell them what to think or do.  Students aren't really taught how to use their freedom.  We keep them busy little bees with homework, activities, sports, jobs, in hopes that they

will be productive members of society, and many become that.  But then I wonder what we are missing out on by not allowing students the freedom to choose for themselves what they want to learn. 

Link:  Sudbury Schools Website

 

Sir Ken Robinson - Changing Education Paradigms

The following TED talk video is from Sir Ken Robinson.  This individual does a fabulous job of trying to explain the root problems in education, and offer a solution out of them.  He sets forth the theory that
our education is still stuck in the early 20th century model of industrialism.  Schools are factories that are designed to fashion students into a certain way, just like how a car factory creates a car a certain way.

Side note:  Here are a few videos about how kids aren't cars.

What bothers Mr. Robinson the most is that our educational system doesn't take into account the diversity, creativity, and intellectual abilities of students.  But instead wants students to be good listeners, follow orders, and pass the state tests.  For example he mentioned how the arts take a back seat to this type of education, or anything that isn't deemed by the education establishment as "productive".

I believe that Sir Ken Robinson does a wonderful job of describing our problems as an education industry, however I still believe that there is room in our educational system to sit, listen, and think (not memorize as an end in itself).  However, siting, listening, and thinking need to produce real world application.  There is nothing wrong with training the mind to think for itself, which is the opposite of just trying to memorize a bunch of facts to pass a state test.  The model of the independent thinking individual is something every citizen should strive for just because they need to be able to sort through all the information that they are bombarded with on a daily basis.  This will allow for citizens to be critical thinkers when politicians, corporations, and other people begin to tell them what to think.  The arts of course will aid this critical thinking process, since the arts focuses on creativity and individualism.   

    

Taking students beyond the textbook

I am a High School Social Studies teacher in Nebraska and I have been for 15 years. I have been one of the biggest critics of our History Social Studies standards in our state ever since they were adopted in 2003. From my perspective there were to many of them and they emphasized that students should just basically memorize important historical people, and historical events covering almost every major event in World/American history. Here is a link to the old standards.

The problems with this were legion. First, according the old standards 6th grade students were taught Ancient History, but then never again. The idea was that if you were taught it in 6th grade you would retain it for the rest of your life. This does not happen. Students may need to be exposed to things more than once in order to learn them. (hmm..insightful idea I know.:) Second, how much in depth could you take 6th graders in Ancient History?? I doubt a teacher would be able to have 6th graders dive into the complexities of the downfall of the Ancient Roman Republic and the emergence of dictatorship. Wouldn't it benefit high school students to really jump into Ancient Roman History when they are 11th graders with a teacher that knows a lot about it and can bring it to life for them? Third, there were to many standards. For example, for 9-12 World History teachers they had to teach everything from year 1000 A.D. to the Present. This is impossible if you want your students to really get anything out of it except just route memorization, which research says most students will forget 2-3 minutes after they take the multiple choice test. My perspective is that it isn't important that students learn all of history, but just that they get a great experience learning some of history.

Well, the "Taking students beyond the textbook" article in the Lincoln Journal Star reports that Nebraska has issued an early draft of the revised Social Standards and I am very pleased with them. Here is a link to the early draft of the standards. If these are adopted it looks like the history standards are very broad based and just contain three main themes that must be learned by students.

1. Understanding Chronological Thinking
2. Understanding Historical Comprehension
3. Thinking Critically About Multiple Perspectives

So if I am reading this correctly, (which I hope I am) as long as history teachers are able to get students to learn these three important skills then they are free to dive into whatever subject matter they want to in order to teach these three skills. So if I wanted to spend extra time studying Ancient Roman History, that would be fine as long as I am addressing those above skills. I think this would allow students to spend more time analyzing, synthesizing, and evaluating history. This would make history more relevant to their lives, and encourage them to be critical thinkers, rather than Jeopardy masters.

I am very encouraged by this move by the Nebraska Department of Education, and hopefully this idea isn't changed by political interests.