At first glance at the title to this piece you might assume this is a hit piece designed to belittle or discount the efforts of Barack Obama. You would be wrong. This is about a secret so damaging that it could rip apart families and friends. A secret so powerful that most dare not speak it for fear it will heap ridicule and shame on the head of the fool that spoke it. I however am going to reveal this secret to you now.
Republicans like Barack Obama.
From Rush Limbaugh to Fred Barns to Benjamin Cook, republicans like Obama. They like the way he campaigns, they like the way he is beating up on the Clintons, they feel his inspiration and want to be a part of it. Republicans are not the cold-hearted bastards characterized by the Clintons as wanting to starve children and kill senior citizens, we too want to be inspired. We too want to be apart of a change movement.
The question now is, does running an honorable campaign, being an inspiration and standing up to the Clinton Machine mean we will vote for Obama? For some it might. For me it will not. Obama is still a liberal. That means he doesn’t recognize that liberal social policy begets liberal social policy, and the never ending flow of money into these entitlements can not stop the social ills they are designed to stop. He doesn’t understand that national security is the most important issue of our time and that threats on our horizon are real. He doesn’t understand that the Federal Government is the second biggest problem in educating our kids and that less government involvement in education is better than more. (The biggest problem in educating our kids is the kids’ family — or the lack of one.)
Barack Obama is an inspiring and great man. He moves me when he speaks, at times to the point of tears. I am not willing to say that there is not a scenario where I vote against my own party. There is. That scenario is very unlikely. I will say this. If Obama is running against the candidate of my choice this November and the results are close when I go to bed, I will not go to bed in a state of panic or fear scared that a liberal will be the next president of the United States. (Like when Bush ran against Al Gore, or John Kerry.) I will sleep very easy knowing that if Obama wins the election two things will happen. One, he will be very good for this country in many ways, and two, after eight years of Obama the next Republican president will have his work cut out for him.
Benjamin Cook has masters in International Security and Conflict Studies. He is a graduate of Central High.
Showing posts with label Benjamin Cook. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Benjamin Cook. Show all posts
Monday, February 11, 2008
Friday, December 21, 2007
When Pageland grows, where will you be?
With Pageland’s proximity to Charlotte the growth is coming. It doesn’t really matter what you want. Pageland is going to grow.
Pageland and Chesterfield do have some say. The town and county get to either facilitate the growth or stand in the way of it.
Scenario One
Pageland elects responsible leaders that are pro smart growth. These leaders anticipate problems and look for opportunities. In the short term, leaders aggressively facilitate workforce development via resources that are already in the county while simultaneously pursuing new sustainable industry. Our leaders also up-grade our infrastructure so capital is not wasted on fines and inefficiency.
For the long term, our leaders recognize that manufacturing jobs will not sustain our communities and that agriculture, while important, can’t expand enough to cover the burden of fewer and fewer manufacturing jobs. These leaders then expand workforce development which translates into skilled labor and think outside the box for alternative industry. Pageland is no longer reliant on companies that want cheap land and cheap labor that is strategically placed near Charlotte. Industry like this will always be a percentage point on the bottom line away from moving operations overseas. Companies and industry instead are attracted to Pageland and the county because its citizens are able to perform a service or task that other communities can not do at all or do as well. Now Pageland and the county have properly invested in all of its assets not just its proximity.
Scenario Two
Pageland and the county continues its current pattern of being reactionary and under pressure to change, or else. Northeastern Technical College is not recognized as potentially the county’s most precious stepping stone. Infrastructure struggles and fails leading to fines and costly inefficiency. A continued lack of opportunity leads to more disenfranchised youth who without other opportunities turn to lifestyles that are disruptive to the community and in turn cost even more money to keep under “control.” Most distressingly Pageland and the county will experience growth by attrition; a McDonald’s here and a grocery store there, not really the kind of community investment that trickles down. The kind that is already down. Again, relying on cheap labor and location. Faced with similar jobs that pay traditional rates county citizens have no opportunity to invest and profit from county growth. Outside investors will reap the lion’s share of the rewards.
The growth is coming. It is up to the community to decide how it will work with the growth. Will you fight it? Stand in the way of the inevitable? Or will you be proactive? Electing appropriate leadership is key. But in the mean time you can let those that stand in the way of growth know your displeasure. You can call for them to step down. You can let them know you have no confidence in their ability to conduct the people’s business. Those with the loudest voice have the largest responsibility to do this. That means the town’s business owners and employers, those that stand to benefit the quickest from controlled smart growth.
It is my sincere hope Pageland and the County takes full advantage of the opportunities and responsibilities coming up in the next few months and years. I hope the community knows that it is its responsibility to provide for itself and when those that are elected to give professional public service fail to do so it is the community’s responsibility to remove them from these public offices through elections when possible and the courts if necessary. Mistakes now will reverberate for years to come and become exponentially more expensive to correct.
Benjamin Cook is a recent graduate of Dublin City University in Ireland where he received his masters in International Security and Conflict Studies. He is a graduate of Central High.
Pageland and Chesterfield do have some say. The town and county get to either facilitate the growth or stand in the way of it.
Scenario One
Pageland elects responsible leaders that are pro smart growth. These leaders anticipate problems and look for opportunities. In the short term, leaders aggressively facilitate workforce development via resources that are already in the county while simultaneously pursuing new sustainable industry. Our leaders also up-grade our infrastructure so capital is not wasted on fines and inefficiency.
For the long term, our leaders recognize that manufacturing jobs will not sustain our communities and that agriculture, while important, can’t expand enough to cover the burden of fewer and fewer manufacturing jobs. These leaders then expand workforce development which translates into skilled labor and think outside the box for alternative industry. Pageland is no longer reliant on companies that want cheap land and cheap labor that is strategically placed near Charlotte. Industry like this will always be a percentage point on the bottom line away from moving operations overseas. Companies and industry instead are attracted to Pageland and the county because its citizens are able to perform a service or task that other communities can not do at all or do as well. Now Pageland and the county have properly invested in all of its assets not just its proximity.
Scenario Two
Pageland and the county continues its current pattern of being reactionary and under pressure to change, or else. Northeastern Technical College is not recognized as potentially the county’s most precious stepping stone. Infrastructure struggles and fails leading to fines and costly inefficiency. A continued lack of opportunity leads to more disenfranchised youth who without other opportunities turn to lifestyles that are disruptive to the community and in turn cost even more money to keep under “control.” Most distressingly Pageland and the county will experience growth by attrition; a McDonald’s here and a grocery store there, not really the kind of community investment that trickles down. The kind that is already down. Again, relying on cheap labor and location. Faced with similar jobs that pay traditional rates county citizens have no opportunity to invest and profit from county growth. Outside investors will reap the lion’s share of the rewards.
The growth is coming. It is up to the community to decide how it will work with the growth. Will you fight it? Stand in the way of the inevitable? Or will you be proactive? Electing appropriate leadership is key. But in the mean time you can let those that stand in the way of growth know your displeasure. You can call for them to step down. You can let them know you have no confidence in their ability to conduct the people’s business. Those with the loudest voice have the largest responsibility to do this. That means the town’s business owners and employers, those that stand to benefit the quickest from controlled smart growth.
It is my sincere hope Pageland and the County takes full advantage of the opportunities and responsibilities coming up in the next few months and years. I hope the community knows that it is its responsibility to provide for itself and when those that are elected to give professional public service fail to do so it is the community’s responsibility to remove them from these public offices through elections when possible and the courts if necessary. Mistakes now will reverberate for years to come and become exponentially more expensive to correct.
Benjamin Cook is a recent graduate of Dublin City University in Ireland where he received his masters in International Security and Conflict Studies. He is a graduate of Central High.
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Hughes criticism is unfair, inaccurate
In recent weeks I have read article after article about departing Under-Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy Karen Hughes' job performance or lack there of. These articles range between false interpretations of good data to ignorant partisan blather to accurate reporting of the facts without political interpretation. What most have in common is that they recognize the monumental job U/S Hughes had as the person tasked with improving America's image abroad.
Often read are references to putting Lipstick-on-a-Pig or Polishing-a-Turd. These "thoughtful" literary devices were used to exemplify the writer's idea of the hopelessly difficult task of selling US policies that are seen in many places as colonial or empire driven. Luckily Karen Hughes didn't shy away from the task and did the first real work public diplomacy has seen since the days of Edward R. Murrow.
Quickly, public diplomacy simply is any exchange between people, cultures or countries that is not Government-to-Government -which would be traditional diplomacy. A blog by an Iraqi in Mosul read by an American in Charleston is public diplomacy. Starbucks coffee in China is an exchange that can be considered public diplomacy. Sadly, MTV's Sweet Sixteen program airing in Ireland is also an unfortunate exchange and is public-to-public diplomacy.
U/S Hughes and the State Department as a whole only really work in the Government-to-Public realm. Under Hughes the State Dept. increased its sad little budget ,opened regional Public Diplomacy Hubs in London, Brussels and in Dubai, and Rapid Reaction teams were formed to counter misinformation, conspiracy theories and needless hysteria often seen in online forums, chat rooms and weblogs throughout the Islamic world. These moves by Hughes constitute a wholesale change in direction and performance by the State Department. Both Clinton and Bush "43" had Public Diplomacy officers that worried only about "branding" rather than any kind of exchange. It was a one way communication effort -much like advertising. The problem is that these actions are actually reactions and are meant to limit damage rather than be a true dialogue or exchange of information. Now, Hughes and Co. have posted a State Department blog (http://www.blogs.state.gov/) where any interested party from all over the world can exchange views with the various State officials that post. This constitutes a proactive exchange and I believe the first of its kind for State public diplomacy.
Efforts like this constitute the State Departments first foray, or should I say unintended consequence, into Public-to-Public diplomacy. By allowing the conversations to be public and open for engagement by anyone Hughes and State have taken an important step towards a global dialogue. Ideas are not presented and then forgotten as was the old "branding" way. Conversations are now taking place, albeit on a small scale.
There is much more to be done in terms of policy and grassroots efforts here at home to be full participants in all forms of public diplomacy. Chief among these is teaching the concept of public diplomacy at a much earlier age. Next is providing the tools necessary to engage effectively in public diplomacy. The number one tool missing in the United States is the ability to speak a second language. It would be nice if more of us spoke Spanish or French. It would be best if we spoke Farsi or Chinese! We have a long way to go and Karen Hughes has barely scratched the surface. The great thing about Public Diplomacy is it is best accomplished by "publics" as the name suggests. So perhaps we should look to ourselves as the responsible party for allowing misinformation, conspiracy theories and propaganda to run rampant amongst our global neighbors?
Benjamin Cook
http://arenablog.blogspot.com/
Often read are references to putting Lipstick-on-a-Pig or Polishing-a-Turd. These "thoughtful" literary devices were used to exemplify the writer's idea of the hopelessly difficult task of selling US policies that are seen in many places as colonial or empire driven. Luckily Karen Hughes didn't shy away from the task and did the first real work public diplomacy has seen since the days of Edward R. Murrow.
Quickly, public diplomacy simply is any exchange between people, cultures or countries that is not Government-to-Government -which would be traditional diplomacy. A blog by an Iraqi in Mosul read by an American in Charleston is public diplomacy. Starbucks coffee in China is an exchange that can be considered public diplomacy. Sadly, MTV's Sweet Sixteen program airing in Ireland is also an unfortunate exchange and is public-to-public diplomacy.
U/S Hughes and the State Department as a whole only really work in the Government-to-Public realm. Under Hughes the State Dept. increased its sad little budget ,opened regional Public Diplomacy Hubs in London, Brussels and in Dubai, and Rapid Reaction teams were formed to counter misinformation, conspiracy theories and needless hysteria often seen in online forums, chat rooms and weblogs throughout the Islamic world. These moves by Hughes constitute a wholesale change in direction and performance by the State Department. Both Clinton and Bush "43" had Public Diplomacy officers that worried only about "branding" rather than any kind of exchange. It was a one way communication effort -much like advertising. The problem is that these actions are actually reactions and are meant to limit damage rather than be a true dialogue or exchange of information. Now, Hughes and Co. have posted a State Department blog (http://www.blogs.state.gov/) where any interested party from all over the world can exchange views with the various State officials that post. This constitutes a proactive exchange and I believe the first of its kind for State public diplomacy.
Efforts like this constitute the State Departments first foray, or should I say unintended consequence, into Public-to-Public diplomacy. By allowing the conversations to be public and open for engagement by anyone Hughes and State have taken an important step towards a global dialogue. Ideas are not presented and then forgotten as was the old "branding" way. Conversations are now taking place, albeit on a small scale.
There is much more to be done in terms of policy and grassroots efforts here at home to be full participants in all forms of public diplomacy. Chief among these is teaching the concept of public diplomacy at a much earlier age. Next is providing the tools necessary to engage effectively in public diplomacy. The number one tool missing in the United States is the ability to speak a second language. It would be nice if more of us spoke Spanish or French. It would be best if we spoke Farsi or Chinese! We have a long way to go and Karen Hughes has barely scratched the surface. The great thing about Public Diplomacy is it is best accomplished by "publics" as the name suggests. So perhaps we should look to ourselves as the responsible party for allowing misinformation, conspiracy theories and propaganda to run rampant amongst our global neighbors?
Benjamin Cook
http://arenablog.blogspot.com/
Friday, November 16, 2007
Hughes criticism is unfair
In recent weeks I have read article after article about departing Under-Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy Karen Hughes' job performance or lack there of. These articles range between false interpretations of good data to ignorant partisan blather to accurate reporting of the facts without political interpretation. What most have in common is that they recognize the monumental job U/S Hughes had as the person tasked with improving America's image abroad.
Often read are references to putting Lipstick-on-a-Pig or Polishing-a-Turd. These "thoughtful" literary devices were used to exemplify the writer's idea of the hopelessly difficult task of selling US policies that are seen in many places as colonial or empire driven. Luckily Karen Hughes didn't shy away from the task and did the first real work public diplomacy has seen since the days of Edward R. Murrow.
Quickly, public diplomacy simply is any exchange between people, cultures or countries that is not Government-to-Government -which would be traditional diplomacy. A blog by an Iraqi in Mosul read by an American in Charleston is public diplomacy. Starbucks coffee in China is an exchange that can be considered public diplomacy. Sadly, MTV's Sweet Sixteen program airing in Ireland is also an unfortunate exchange and is public-to-public diplomacy.
U/S Hughes and the State Department as a whole only really work in the Government-to-Public realm. Under Hughes the State Dept. increased its sad little budget ,opened regional Public Diplomacy Hubs in London, Brussels and in Dubai, and Rapid Reaction teams were formed to counter misinformation, conspiracy theories and needless hysteria often seen in online forums, chat rooms and weblogs throughout the Islamic world. These moves by Hughes constitute a wholesale change in direction and performance by the State Department. Both Clinton and Bush "43" had Public Diplomacy officers that worried only about "branding" rather than any kind of exchange. It was a one way communication effort -much like advertising. The problem is that these actions are actually reactions and are meant to limit damage rather than be a true dialogue or exchange of information. Now, Hughes and Co. have posted a State Department blog (http://www.blogs.state.gov/) where any interested party from all over the world can exchange views with the various State officials that post. This constitutes a proactive exchange and I believe the first of its kind for State public diplomacy.
Efforts like this constitute the State Departments first foray, or should I say unintended consequence, into Public-to-Public diplomacy. By allowing the conversations to be public and open for engagement by anyone Hughes and State have taken an important step towards a global dialogue. Ideas are not presented and then forgotten as was the old "branding" way. Conversations are now taking place, albeit on a small scale.
There is much more to be done in terms of policy and grassroots efforts here at home to be full participants in all forms of public diplomacy. Chief among these is teaching the concept of public diplomacy at a much earlier age. Next is providing the tools necessary to engage effectively in public diplomacy. The number one tool missing in the United States is the ability to speak a second language. It would be nice if more of us spoke Spanish or French. It would be best if we spoke Farsi or Chinese! We have a long way to go and Karen Hughes has barely scratched the surface. The great thing about Public Diplomacy is it is best accomplished by "publics" as the name suggests. So perhaps we should look to ourselves as the responsible party for allowing misinformation, conspiracy theories and propaganda to run rampant amongst our global neighbors?
Benjamin Cook
Director, the Organization for Public Diplomacy
arenablog.blogspot.com/
Often read are references to putting Lipstick-on-a-Pig or Polishing-a-Turd. These "thoughtful" literary devices were used to exemplify the writer's idea of the hopelessly difficult task of selling US policies that are seen in many places as colonial or empire driven. Luckily Karen Hughes didn't shy away from the task and did the first real work public diplomacy has seen since the days of Edward R. Murrow.
Quickly, public diplomacy simply is any exchange between people, cultures or countries that is not Government-to-Government -which would be traditional diplomacy. A blog by an Iraqi in Mosul read by an American in Charleston is public diplomacy. Starbucks coffee in China is an exchange that can be considered public diplomacy. Sadly, MTV's Sweet Sixteen program airing in Ireland is also an unfortunate exchange and is public-to-public diplomacy.
U/S Hughes and the State Department as a whole only really work in the Government-to-Public realm. Under Hughes the State Dept. increased its sad little budget ,opened regional Public Diplomacy Hubs in London, Brussels and in Dubai, and Rapid Reaction teams were formed to counter misinformation, conspiracy theories and needless hysteria often seen in online forums, chat rooms and weblogs throughout the Islamic world. These moves by Hughes constitute a wholesale change in direction and performance by the State Department. Both Clinton and Bush "43" had Public Diplomacy officers that worried only about "branding" rather than any kind of exchange. It was a one way communication effort -much like advertising. The problem is that these actions are actually reactions and are meant to limit damage rather than be a true dialogue or exchange of information. Now, Hughes and Co. have posted a State Department blog (http://www.blogs.state.gov/) where any interested party from all over the world can exchange views with the various State officials that post. This constitutes a proactive exchange and I believe the first of its kind for State public diplomacy.
Efforts like this constitute the State Departments first foray, or should I say unintended consequence, into Public-to-Public diplomacy. By allowing the conversations to be public and open for engagement by anyone Hughes and State have taken an important step towards a global dialogue. Ideas are not presented and then forgotten as was the old "branding" way. Conversations are now taking place, albeit on a small scale.
There is much more to be done in terms of policy and grassroots efforts here at home to be full participants in all forms of public diplomacy. Chief among these is teaching the concept of public diplomacy at a much earlier age. Next is providing the tools necessary to engage effectively in public diplomacy. The number one tool missing in the United States is the ability to speak a second language. It would be nice if more of us spoke Spanish or French. It would be best if we spoke Farsi or Chinese! We have a long way to go and Karen Hughes has barely scratched the surface. The great thing about Public Diplomacy is it is best accomplished by "publics" as the name suggests. So perhaps we should look to ourselves as the responsible party for allowing misinformation, conspiracy theories and propaganda to run rampant amongst our global neighbors?
Benjamin Cook
Director, the Organization for Public Diplomacy
arenablog.blogspot.com/
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
New media puts spotlight on Burma
That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation.
-Thomas Jefferson, 1813
Even back in 1813 Thomas Jefferson understood the power of the exchange of information. He understood that no one owns information. Oh, many try to, but time usually tells the tale. He also recognized that by trading information we grow exponentially. We are “expansible over all space” and that by sharing we are “incapable of confinement”. Such is the case in Burma (Myanmar). The military government of that country or Junta have just tried to quell peaceful unrest in their country by physical violence and by turning off the internet to it citizens. For over a week bloggers (new media) acting as citizen journalists made sure that reports and photos flowed to the old legacy media. Now that information has been squelched to almost nothing. Still, reports of death and harassment are leaking out.
This leak by the new media in Burma constitutes what is known as Public Diplomacy. Public Diplomacy is the public conversation between two or more nation’s non-governmental interested parties, which has some measurable effect on a government(s) policy. In this case the effect was more attention paid to Burma. A specific example would be President Bush enacting tougher sanctions on the Junta and calling for action at the UN last week. As well, the military government’s crack down on the flow of information via the internet would qualify because it is a reaction to citizen journalists communicating with other non-governmental entities all over the world.
Beyond the exchange of information being Public Diplomacy it is also what is called Soft Power. According to the father of Soft Power Joseph Nye Jr. Soft Power is “the ability to get what you want by attracting and persuading others to adopt your goals…” by attraction rather than coercion. These Burmese blogs do not threaten us or hold us hostage in order to get their message across rather they tell a compelling story that stands on its own merit.
We are not to a point where New Media can drive a story on its own and ensure action. Rather, it still requires the old media to take the baton from the New and then pass it own to our traditional hard powers like the US and China. In any event the role of the New Media in this conflict is unmistakable.
If you want to participate in this public diplomacy and increase the soft power of the Burmese citizens I suggest you log-on and connect with these people via their blogs. You can find a dearth of information on the Burmese blogosphere at globalvoicesonline.com or more specifically: www.globalvoicesonline.org/-/world/east-asia/
Benjamin Cook,
columnist
-Thomas Jefferson, 1813
Even back in 1813 Thomas Jefferson understood the power of the exchange of information. He understood that no one owns information. Oh, many try to, but time usually tells the tale. He also recognized that by trading information we grow exponentially. We are “expansible over all space” and that by sharing we are “incapable of confinement”. Such is the case in Burma (Myanmar). The military government of that country or Junta have just tried to quell peaceful unrest in their country by physical violence and by turning off the internet to it citizens. For over a week bloggers (new media) acting as citizen journalists made sure that reports and photos flowed to the old legacy media. Now that information has been squelched to almost nothing. Still, reports of death and harassment are leaking out.
This leak by the new media in Burma constitutes what is known as Public Diplomacy. Public Diplomacy is the public conversation between two or more nation’s non-governmental interested parties, which has some measurable effect on a government(s) policy. In this case the effect was more attention paid to Burma. A specific example would be President Bush enacting tougher sanctions on the Junta and calling for action at the UN last week. As well, the military government’s crack down on the flow of information via the internet would qualify because it is a reaction to citizen journalists communicating with other non-governmental entities all over the world.
Beyond the exchange of information being Public Diplomacy it is also what is called Soft Power. According to the father of Soft Power Joseph Nye Jr. Soft Power is “the ability to get what you want by attracting and persuading others to adopt your goals…” by attraction rather than coercion. These Burmese blogs do not threaten us or hold us hostage in order to get their message across rather they tell a compelling story that stands on its own merit.
We are not to a point where New Media can drive a story on its own and ensure action. Rather, it still requires the old media to take the baton from the New and then pass it own to our traditional hard powers like the US and China. In any event the role of the New Media in this conflict is unmistakable.
If you want to participate in this public diplomacy and increase the soft power of the Burmese citizens I suggest you log-on and connect with these people via their blogs. You can find a dearth of information on the Burmese blogosphere at globalvoicesonline.com or more specifically: www.globalvoicesonline.org/-/world/east-asia/
Benjamin Cook,
columnist
Monday, September 10, 2007
Redacted’s timing shows bad taste, judgement
The left knows no shame. Director Brian De Palma in his new movie “Redacted” is trying to convince the American people that our soldiers aren’t good enough to make good sound decisions when the pressure mounts and when things are tough and mistakes are made our troops might resort to raping little girls and murdering families. Well, Mr. De Palma, I agree ... to a point.
WHAT?!
That is right. I have a news flash for all of us. Soldiers, Marines, Airmen and Sailors are men and women just like me and you. And if we can have 30 plus kids killed on the campus of Virginia Tech or 180 plus killed in Oklahoma or an 11 year old girl kidnapped raped killed and buried under a porch in Florida or two people cruising up and down Maryland and Virginia interstates shooting citizens at random then we can certainly expect that out of the over 1.4 million people serving in our armed forces some of them could be capable of the horrors that happened in Mahmudiya, Iraq.
In case you don’t know, a group of five US soldiers raped a young girl and murdered her family. They confessed and have been sentenced. “Redacted” is about this incident. Between this and Abu Grab American service personnel have made the job of securing Iraq infinitely harder. And, by doing such have put more lives in danger. The people who committed this war crime deserve death. Instead they got lengthy prison sentences.
So how can I say that our service men and women might commit atrocities and war crimes? Well, because it’s true. While our service folks might be brave heroes as a whole, and often individually, they are also just like you and I — susceptible to the same dysfunctions, neurosis and abnormalities that all of us are apt to suffer from time to time. There is no reason to assume that the armed services can weed out every person prone to “crazy”.
Where Mr. De Palma and I differ is that I don’t think a dramatization of these events helps in the least. I don’t think showing a movie about the worst our country has to offer is fair. I don’t think it is timely. I don’t think it is necessary. I don’t think it helps one bit. Mr. De Palma is quoted as saying “The movie is an attempt to bring the reality of what is happening in Iraq to the American people.” This movie is not an accurate portrayal of what goes on in Iraq. I have not seen the movie. Yet I can still with confidence say that a 90 minute or 5 hour movie can not do justice to “what is happening in Iraq.” The shear arrogance of this man infuriates me. I have studied Iraq now for over three years and I can only just begin to grasp the intricacies of this conflict. To boil it down into a movie and suggest that it is in any way representative of our troop’s efforts over there is foolish.
This left wing idiot is doing grave damage to his country. The worst part is that the very troops he demonizes are the ones fighting to protect his right to make this hit piece on America. His arrogance is a product of his being removed from the actual fight. If Islamic extremists were imposing Sharia law in his pretty neighborhood, how long do you think it would take Brian De Palma to change his tune? Mr. De Palma the very reason this is news, the very reason this was in the spot light, the very reason that you might make two cents off the blood of Iraqis and Americans is that behavior like that of these murderous soldiers is rare. The vast majority of our service men and women are professional and effective.
What is “happening in Iraq” is not murder and war crimes it is the work of quiet professionals giving their lives so that you have a safe environment to create counter productive “art.”
By Benjamin Cook,
columnist
Friday, July 27, 2007
You can’t support the troops and not support the mission
It makes me sick to my stomach to listen to the sheer politicization of the WAR ON TERROR (all caps for John Edwards). It happens on both sides of the aisle. Republicans spin the war into something it’s not (strictly against al-Qaeda, saying its not about the oil) and Democrats deny the existence of an enemy (no such thing as a War on Terror and that radical Jihadists will not follow us home from Iraq). So it is difficult to get a clear picture as to what is going on. It is even more difficult when you have a President that is “plain spoken” and is trying and failing to explain a very difficult and complex situation, that situation being the very real, very present Global War on Terror.
So let me see if I can pick up where the Prez left off ...
1. It is about oil. Oil is quite literally the second air you and I breath. Imagine what life would be like without it. How do you receive almost every item you have in your possession? At one time or another it was transported by oil. Either by car, truck or ship. How do you get to work? Oil. How did the newspaper you are reading get to you? Oil. How do your children get to school? Oil. How did I get the computer I am typing this on? Oil. We can manage about 50 percent of our oil here in the U.S., the rest must come from somewhere else. Again, oil is the life blood of our economy and as such it is very much a national security issue.
2. Since oil is a national security issue and we are not in a realistic position to cut significantly and appreciably our dependence we must do business with the Middle East and other unsavory characters like Hugo Chavez.
3. Like Hugo Chavez, Vadimir Putin and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Osama Bin Laden and other Radical Jihadists have worked to exploit our dependence. Not all for the exact same reasons. Al-Qaeda and Co. have exploited every ugly thing we have ever done in the Middle East in the name of oil/national security. Every dictator propped up, every secret back room arm twisting, every dollar sent to Israel has been twisted into a propaganda campaign against the West and the United States. The welfare states of the Middle East are all too easy a target. Victim-hood has been ingrained into the collective consciousness. Leaders of all kinds that have failed their people time and again are all too happy to blame the West and the US for local ills. So when Bin Laden and Co. come along with their message of hate disguised as a religious jihadi obligation (ie. a collective language the entire Arab and Muslim community can understand) this welfare victim society is primed and ready to listen and to act.
4. So why Iraq? Easy, it was ripe for regime change. It was the lowest fruit in the Middle East. Nobody liked Saddam. No one thought he was good for Iraq or the region (expect maybe the French). Weapons of Mass Distraction ... excuse me, Destruction were merely a political spin move by the Bush Administration to get as many people as possible on board. Bush Co. and the world intelligence apparatus sincerely thought Saddam had some kind of program and in the strictest sense he did. But the world was warned of “mushroom clouds” not bare bones programs barely hanging on after years of sanctions and U.N. inspections. A good analogy would be if we invaded Iraq to keep them from having an NFL team and come to find out they had only had PeeWee football. Football none the less but not NFL.
What many can’t or won’t understand is that a lack of WMD does not lesson the need to go into Iraq (the Middle East) or the real reason, oil. Even without WMD the West and the US still need oil. And securing that region from tyrants and terrorists is the only way to protect our current and future way off life for the foreseeable future. Alternative fuels and conservation measures are not going to be here quick enough. For the short term, 10-20 years, we will need oil and lots of it.
5. Why stay in Iraq? Because we owe the people of Iraq our sincere and best effort at a democratic country. The people of Iraq also owe it to themselves. I am very disheartened by the lack of urgency shown by Iraqi leaders and by the complete upper class evacuation of Iraq. Most doctors, engineers, lawyers and everyone with enough skills and disposable income have bugged-out of Iraq. It would be hard not to. You want to protect your family. But you must also do the hard and dangerous work of building your country. What would have happened to the US if we ran from the British or the Japanese? Eventually you stand and fight.
We also must continue the hard work of trying to secure that region. Iraq will become a worse destabilizing force than it was with Saddam if we leave. It will make the Arab - Israeli situation look like a cake walk if we leave. Imagine a Gaza strip the size of California!
6. Every bit we help the Palestinians and the Lebanese helps us in Iraq and every bit we marginalize Syria and Iran helps us in Iraq. We need to put Israel on a short leash. Every stride we take in a democratic and working Palestine is a stab in the eye of al-Qaeda. Every stride we take in a democratic and working Lebanon is a stab in the eye of Iran and Syria. The plan for secure oil is comprehensive. It is not success in Iraq only. In fact, we won’t see success in Iraq if we do not address the needs of Lebanon and Palestine.
So what can you do? Well, number one you can stop voting for Democrats. How anyone can listen to what Harry Reid, Barbara Boxer, John Murtha and Nancy Pelosi say on the floors of Congress and vote in that direction is beyond me. What kind of bias are you having to confirm in order to justify that move? I can see protecting your own pocket book by voting Dem in local elections but on the national front the stakes are too high! Hold on Republicans ... you’re not off the hook either. Just because the President has done a horrible job of explaining the war, the stakes and the need for oil that doesn’t mean Repubs of all shapes and sizes get a pass. This is a national security issue and as the “Security” party it is our job to shape the debate in a way that is honest and understandable even if the President is not.
Finally, we owe it to the Troops and the families of those who serve. We owe them our support to finish the job started. We owe them ever ounce of support for our and their mission in Iraq. You CAN NOT support the troops and NOT support the mission, you must do both. If you don’t believe me ask a Soldier or Marine or any service person “down range.”
Benjamin Cook is a recent graduate of Dublin City University in Ireland where he received his masters in International Security and Conflict Studies. He is a graduate of Central High.
So let me see if I can pick up where the Prez left off ...
1. It is about oil. Oil is quite literally the second air you and I breath. Imagine what life would be like without it. How do you receive almost every item you have in your possession? At one time or another it was transported by oil. Either by car, truck or ship. How do you get to work? Oil. How did the newspaper you are reading get to you? Oil. How do your children get to school? Oil. How did I get the computer I am typing this on? Oil. We can manage about 50 percent of our oil here in the U.S., the rest must come from somewhere else. Again, oil is the life blood of our economy and as such it is very much a national security issue.
2. Since oil is a national security issue and we are not in a realistic position to cut significantly and appreciably our dependence we must do business with the Middle East and other unsavory characters like Hugo Chavez.
3. Like Hugo Chavez, Vadimir Putin and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Osama Bin Laden and other Radical Jihadists have worked to exploit our dependence. Not all for the exact same reasons. Al-Qaeda and Co. have exploited every ugly thing we have ever done in the Middle East in the name of oil/national security. Every dictator propped up, every secret back room arm twisting, every dollar sent to Israel has been twisted into a propaganda campaign against the West and the United States. The welfare states of the Middle East are all too easy a target. Victim-hood has been ingrained into the collective consciousness. Leaders of all kinds that have failed their people time and again are all too happy to blame the West and the US for local ills. So when Bin Laden and Co. come along with their message of hate disguised as a religious jihadi obligation (ie. a collective language the entire Arab and Muslim community can understand) this welfare victim society is primed and ready to listen and to act.
4. So why Iraq? Easy, it was ripe for regime change. It was the lowest fruit in the Middle East. Nobody liked Saddam. No one thought he was good for Iraq or the region (expect maybe the French). Weapons of Mass Distraction ... excuse me, Destruction were merely a political spin move by the Bush Administration to get as many people as possible on board. Bush Co. and the world intelligence apparatus sincerely thought Saddam had some kind of program and in the strictest sense he did. But the world was warned of “mushroom clouds” not bare bones programs barely hanging on after years of sanctions and U.N. inspections. A good analogy would be if we invaded Iraq to keep them from having an NFL team and come to find out they had only had PeeWee football. Football none the less but not NFL.
What many can’t or won’t understand is that a lack of WMD does not lesson the need to go into Iraq (the Middle East) or the real reason, oil. Even without WMD the West and the US still need oil. And securing that region from tyrants and terrorists is the only way to protect our current and future way off life for the foreseeable future. Alternative fuels and conservation measures are not going to be here quick enough. For the short term, 10-20 years, we will need oil and lots of it.
5. Why stay in Iraq? Because we owe the people of Iraq our sincere and best effort at a democratic country. The people of Iraq also owe it to themselves. I am very disheartened by the lack of urgency shown by Iraqi leaders and by the complete upper class evacuation of Iraq. Most doctors, engineers, lawyers and everyone with enough skills and disposable income have bugged-out of Iraq. It would be hard not to. You want to protect your family. But you must also do the hard and dangerous work of building your country. What would have happened to the US if we ran from the British or the Japanese? Eventually you stand and fight.
We also must continue the hard work of trying to secure that region. Iraq will become a worse destabilizing force than it was with Saddam if we leave. It will make the Arab - Israeli situation look like a cake walk if we leave. Imagine a Gaza strip the size of California!
6. Every bit we help the Palestinians and the Lebanese helps us in Iraq and every bit we marginalize Syria and Iran helps us in Iraq. We need to put Israel on a short leash. Every stride we take in a democratic and working Palestine is a stab in the eye of al-Qaeda. Every stride we take in a democratic and working Lebanon is a stab in the eye of Iran and Syria. The plan for secure oil is comprehensive. It is not success in Iraq only. In fact, we won’t see success in Iraq if we do not address the needs of Lebanon and Palestine.
So what can you do? Well, number one you can stop voting for Democrats. How anyone can listen to what Harry Reid, Barbara Boxer, John Murtha and Nancy Pelosi say on the floors of Congress and vote in that direction is beyond me. What kind of bias are you having to confirm in order to justify that move? I can see protecting your own pocket book by voting Dem in local elections but on the national front the stakes are too high! Hold on Republicans ... you’re not off the hook either. Just because the President has done a horrible job of explaining the war, the stakes and the need for oil that doesn’t mean Repubs of all shapes and sizes get a pass. This is a national security issue and as the “Security” party it is our job to shape the debate in a way that is honest and understandable even if the President is not.
Finally, we owe it to the Troops and the families of those who serve. We owe them our support to finish the job started. We owe them ever ounce of support for our and their mission in Iraq. You CAN NOT support the troops and NOT support the mission, you must do both. If you don’t believe me ask a Soldier or Marine or any service person “down range.”
Benjamin Cook is a recent graduate of Dublin City University in Ireland where he received his masters in International Security and Conflict Studies. He is a graduate of Central High.
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Your right to know — the world is not coming to an end
I have always said that all of us has a responsibility to be informed. We have to seek out information that matters, find disparate views and weigh options. Watching TV news and reading the paper DOES NOT fulfill that responsibility. In fact, if that is all you do to be informed then you have probably taken a step backward rather than forward. That’s right, you are now dumber then when you started.
The media is biased.
I am not talking about a liberal bias or a right wing conspiracy. I am talking about a bias toward the sensational. A bias towards giving us what we want instead of the view we need. We want car chases, shootings, body counts and conflict. Or, at least we want to hear about it. We want the “dirty laundry” and the media gives it to us. Do we want to hear about the thousands of us that made it home safe at the end of the day? “Tonight at 11, 99.9999 percent of us make it home safe!” No we want “Tonight at 11, truck plunges off highway ...”
We want to hear about the truck that didn’t make it home. Hear this bad news enough and we think the world is going to Hell-in-a-handbasket. We start making false appraisals based on bad information, information void of context or perspective, and information seen through the lens of our own cognitive bias.
The media knows we crave this emotional “crack cocaine” and gives us our fix whenever we want it with the advent of the 24 Hour News Channel and web-based news, aka the endless news cycle. Now we can see the world in our living room complete with an emotional sound track in the background and some flashy graphics to tell us how to feel. What’s more, we can find out about a candidate for president in a 20 second sound bite, or learn about the situation in Palestine in a two minute expose. None of this is substantial enough to give the consumer the time, context and perspective to become truly informed.
Instead the reader, listener or viewer is given his or her sensational and truncated fix. Information is just information until it is sensationalized and summarized, then it becomes “the News.”
The only way to be truly informed and meet your obligation is to seek information. Rather than be just a consumer of what is given to you, like a pet, be an active seeker of information. Look for sources that challenge your bias or preconceived notions. Look for different and new sources of information. If you have a favorite columnist or news anchor it is probably because that person confirms your bias. By having your bias confirmed you are actually actively becoming dumber.
If you branch out regularly to other sources and allow other’s views to interact with your own you just might learn something. You just might become truly informed. You will be meeting your obligation to be informed. So read your paper and watch your evening news but also seek other sources of information.
Benjamin Cook is a recent graduate of Dublin City University in Ireland where he received his masters in International Security and Conflict Studies. He is a graduate of Central High.
The media is biased.
I am not talking about a liberal bias or a right wing conspiracy. I am talking about a bias toward the sensational. A bias towards giving us what we want instead of the view we need. We want car chases, shootings, body counts and conflict. Or, at least we want to hear about it. We want the “dirty laundry” and the media gives it to us. Do we want to hear about the thousands of us that made it home safe at the end of the day? “Tonight at 11, 99.9999 percent of us make it home safe!” No we want “Tonight at 11, truck plunges off highway ...”
We want to hear about the truck that didn’t make it home. Hear this bad news enough and we think the world is going to Hell-in-a-handbasket. We start making false appraisals based on bad information, information void of context or perspective, and information seen through the lens of our own cognitive bias.
The media knows we crave this emotional “crack cocaine” and gives us our fix whenever we want it with the advent of the 24 Hour News Channel and web-based news, aka the endless news cycle. Now we can see the world in our living room complete with an emotional sound track in the background and some flashy graphics to tell us how to feel. What’s more, we can find out about a candidate for president in a 20 second sound bite, or learn about the situation in Palestine in a two minute expose. None of this is substantial enough to give the consumer the time, context and perspective to become truly informed.
Instead the reader, listener or viewer is given his or her sensational and truncated fix. Information is just information until it is sensationalized and summarized, then it becomes “the News.”
The only way to be truly informed and meet your obligation is to seek information. Rather than be just a consumer of what is given to you, like a pet, be an active seeker of information. Look for sources that challenge your bias or preconceived notions. Look for different and new sources of information. If you have a favorite columnist or news anchor it is probably because that person confirms your bias. By having your bias confirmed you are actually actively becoming dumber.
If you branch out regularly to other sources and allow other’s views to interact with your own you just might learn something. You just might become truly informed. You will be meeting your obligation to be informed. So read your paper and watch your evening news but also seek other sources of information.
Benjamin Cook is a recent graduate of Dublin City University in Ireland where he received his masters in International Security and Conflict Studies. He is a graduate of Central High.
Monday, May 7, 2007
The Tao of Gore
I am actually all for going “Green.” There is no harm in it and it opens up new markets. But be warned. There are some “Greenys” that worship at the alter of Gore! Once Green becomes a “religion,” as it is want to do, it will establish mind guards and doctrine that are unassailable even by science.
Watching the environment movement embrace, yea invest, in an apocalyptic version of climate change is frightening. Former VP Al Gore has whipped the populace into quite a frenzy. He is just about to start handing out the Kool-aid.
It must be stated that am a believer in climate change at the hands of humans. Where I draw the line is the “end of days” scenarios that warn us of impending death to the planet. The human race with all of its might could do no more than bruise this planet. We are merely an after thought to mother earth that has been around for 4.5 billion years. Folks have only been around to see about 200,000 thousand of those years. Let’s spell this out.
4,500,000,000,000 years: Earth
200,000 years: Folks
In this time the earth has been ravaged by much worse than the internal combustion engine and the nuclear bomb. What we can not understand is that there is something larger than ourselves at work here. And that modern science can only struggle to make a best guess as to what is going on. We can’t predict tornados or hurricanes and barely have a grasp on when it rains. What self-important academic dares say with absolute certainty that we are the culprits in the “current” climate swing? What brazen arrogance. Instead what should be said is that we are affecting the current climate and to what degree is debatable.
Here is what is certain. The American people and the modern West fund both sides of the War on Terror every time we fill up our cars with petroleum. Therefore alternatives, conservation and stewardship are necessities. Not because the ocean will swallow Manhattan or Myrtle Beach. I have a prediction of my own. That before this debate is over everyone reading this will be dead and their grandchildren will be dead and their grand children’s grand children as well. Not from rising oceans or a man made ice age either, but rather the same things that have called us home to our just rewards over the past 200,000 years.
Benjamin Cook is a student at Dublin City University in Ireland where he is working toward a masters in International Security and Conflict Studies. He is a graduate of Central High.
Watching the environment movement embrace, yea invest, in an apocalyptic version of climate change is frightening. Former VP Al Gore has whipped the populace into quite a frenzy. He is just about to start handing out the Kool-aid.
It must be stated that am a believer in climate change at the hands of humans. Where I draw the line is the “end of days” scenarios that warn us of impending death to the planet. The human race with all of its might could do no more than bruise this planet. We are merely an after thought to mother earth that has been around for 4.5 billion years. Folks have only been around to see about 200,000 thousand of those years. Let’s spell this out.
4,500,000,000,000 years: Earth
200,000 years: Folks
In this time the earth has been ravaged by much worse than the internal combustion engine and the nuclear bomb. What we can not understand is that there is something larger than ourselves at work here. And that modern science can only struggle to make a best guess as to what is going on. We can’t predict tornados or hurricanes and barely have a grasp on when it rains. What self-important academic dares say with absolute certainty that we are the culprits in the “current” climate swing? What brazen arrogance. Instead what should be said is that we are affecting the current climate and to what degree is debatable.
Here is what is certain. The American people and the modern West fund both sides of the War on Terror every time we fill up our cars with petroleum. Therefore alternatives, conservation and stewardship are necessities. Not because the ocean will swallow Manhattan or Myrtle Beach. I have a prediction of my own. That before this debate is over everyone reading this will be dead and their grandchildren will be dead and their grand children’s grand children as well. Not from rising oceans or a man made ice age either, but rather the same things that have called us home to our just rewards over the past 200,000 years.
Benjamin Cook is a student at Dublin City University in Ireland where he is working toward a masters in International Security and Conflict Studies. He is a graduate of Central High.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)