peace corps

Toward the end of 2005, I wrote the following diary at My Left Wing.  I'm reprinting it here without altering the few references that date it.   I'm also leaving it with the somewhat too-streamlined presentation of the Powell Doctrine (which has no standard form), leaving out the explicit, separate call for ecaluating risks, costs and concequences, as well as genuinely broad international support. I want to emphasize both how sound the approach expressed is, in my view, and how long it has been not just evident, but clearly supported by evidence and individuals who command mainstream respect.  I feel this is particularly necessary, given the overall blurring and lack of resolve being shown by Obama with regard to the military, foreign policy and the war on terror. Rejecting the neocon's disastrous hijacking of US foreign policy, and returning to a focus on America's core ideas and ideals should not be a polarizing, partisan idea.  read more »

I'm hoping to weigh in later on the general outlines of neo-Hooverism, picking up on Matt's post "Why the Right Will Oppose Getting Us Out of Recession" along with a few others coalescing into a general theory.  But here I just want to slice and dice a truly hallucinatory neo-Hooverite fantasy piece from a few weeks back by Amity Shlaes.  It shows just how utterly divorced from reality these people are.

"Obama Will Take Us Backward By Channeling Keynes" was a Bloomberg commentary piece that ran on Nov. 19.  Not only does Shlaes slam Keynes, that's the easy part.  She actually attacks the interstate highway system, and equates it to the "Bridge To Nowhere"!

Well, on second thought, that's not really that strange.  read more »

In my earlier diary, Digby, Hegemony and the Policy-Personnel Debate, I wrote that:

Wednesday, Nate Silver weighed in with what purports to be a fairly comprehensive sorting of Obama's policy initiatives into their ideological positions, showing a huge overall tilt in the progressive direction. I think Nate's categorization is somewhat questionable, but I do think that the impression he has is one that is widely shared: Obama appears quite progressive to many who have supported him, and that is a major reason why they have felt little or no need to pressure him. Digby is correct in saying that there's misperception involved, but it's just not as simple as she indicates.

First off, Nate's general point that Obama's agenda is more liberal than centrist is certainly true.  read more »

Question: Why are the US so bad at the readings and the maths?

Obama:  This has to do with our economic future and national security, and we've got to get our education system right.  We need more money and we need reform.  Early childhood education, for instance.  We need to recruit an army of new teachers, higher standards, accountability, college affordability, lots of college debt.  He also wants more service, military, peace corps, etc.  It's not just schools, parents have to show more responsibility, turn off TV set and video games, etc.

McCain:  It's the civil rights issue of the 21st century.  Why send a poor child to a failed school?  Choice and competition is the key, it's been proved in places like New York and New Orleans.  Give parents the same choice the Obama and McCain families have.  Teach for America, troops to teachers, etc.  read more »