There are three basic trends for conventions. First, the TV networks have been cutting back on their coverage of conventions for years. Now they are just covering about four hours over three nights.
Second, the Republican convention’s audience dropped about 30 percent over the audience from four years ago. Experts suspect there will be a similar drop next year.
Finally, the convention bounce has almost completely disappeared. Just 20 years ago, Bill Clinton got a 23.9% bounce out of the convention as the challenging party’s candidate. That fell to 8.5% for Bob Dole, 4.3% for George Bush in 2000, .8% for Kerry in 2004 and 1.8% for Obama in 2008.
Network executives has decided that, absent spontaneity or even real fights, conventions are simply week-long infomercials – overly-scripted commercials by the parties.
While I am not a big fan of conventions and watch surprisingly little of them, I do think the networks are missing the boat – after all, what is wrong with an infomercial format? Why should the political parties not get to put their best foot forward, and present their opening statements to the public?
After all, that is what the convention is – the opening of the argument. The debates, stump speeches, commercials and talking heads are the trial. And then, on election day, the voters weigh in on the verdict.
The truth is that the networks have long been irrelevant in this process. Since the advent of CNN, CSPAN, and later Fox News and MSNBC, the twenty-four hour news channels have taken over the platform, at least for the hardcore political audience. But the networks still filled in the gap for the mass audience – the majority of the population that is not glued to their TVs watching every second of the conventions.
What we see in election coverage is a microcosm of what we see in the news business globally – the old traditional way is dying, traditional media has become like the dinosaur, and like the dinosaur, those who cannot adapt will perish.
As traditional media dies, into the gap will fly the social media. It is difficult to believe that social media was a non-factor at the conventions just four years ago.
I have had Facebook since 2006, but, looking back, it is quite clear that only in the last four years has its use exploded. I still remember sitting in the media room of the Assembly Chamber and watching John Myers of KQED, who at least in California political coverage became an icon as he tweeted updates of the 2009 budget impasse and showed us all how powerful using the Twitter platform could be.
Whether he truly led the way or was just copying others, that format has exploded. And now with smartphones that can instantly upload videos and picture and tweets, everyone is a reporter.
It is a new world. Traditional media are probably not going to be the ones that break the news. The old passive and sterile format is dying everywhere.
It is not that interactive is king, and it is not that there is not a place for sound analysis and investigation.
Both parties have complained about the nature of biased reporting – the Republicans only being the more recent party to do so and the one doing so the most loudly. But Democrats believe it too. Just as Republican activists believe that the reporters are all a bunch of lefties, Democrats believe that the mainstream media is controlled by a few very rich and powerful corporate interests that are inherently conservative.
There is a large and growing split as to where liberals and conservatives get their news, and that figures to grow larger, hastened but not caused by the hasty retreat of the networks who would rather bring you their summer re-runs than party conventions.
Nature abhors the vacuum, and so filling that vacuum will be more and more democratic reporting – democratic as in small “d” democracy, by the masses, in waves of citizens journalists who bring the news in small chunky 144 character streams of information.
The Vanguard has only been around for six years, but even in that time, we have seen a tremendous change in the way people get their news and want their news.
There are some who lament these changes. They see these are a sign of the demise of newspapers, network news, and of objective and professional journalistic standards.
I don’t hold that fear. Going back to Plato’s Republic, there has been a steady belief that the next generation will mark the decline in civilization. And, indeed, if we look at history since then – civilizations did fall and rise.
At the time, change has fundamentally paved the way for progress. We live longer than ever before. With small blips, our standard of living has increased.
Change is marked with new convention and new reform.
Do we believe that our system of governance was really better fifty years ago with a few men picking who the party nominee would be, behind closed doors? When we knew little of what went on in those smoke-filled rooms?
Do we believe that we are not better off with transparency? Primary elections? Anti-smoke ordinances, sunshine ordinances, news people who compete to try to find out the truth?
While I lament the hyper-partisan nature of the current system and the inabilities of our leadership to get together to compromise, we have to note, at the same time, that this was made possible by intentional design, that it is difficult to make major changes – by strict design by the founders of this system.
And so, as we wrap up another long week next week of the party conventions, remember that these are just the opening statements; we have not gotten to the meat on the menu just yet. Wait until after the debates to despair.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
[i]”And so, as we wrap up another long week next week of the party conventions, remember that these are just the opening statements; we have not gotten to the meat on the menu just yet. Wait until after the debates to despair.”[/i]
I’m sure that is a fair statement for those of us in a solidly blue state. But I sense that the red meat of this election will be the advertising war in the 9 states which Nate Silver calls “the tipping points.”
[img]http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-FixbGZswZbI/UEJEOckCwpI/AAAAAAAAApI/KLOPt97xkGY/s1600/tipping+points.JPG[/img]
We and others in the 41 other states plus DC will get to vote and we may be influenced by a speech here or there or a debate performance. But chances are that this election will be decided in those 9 states, and in those states much will depend on money: money for advertising, especially unregulated big money from “independent expenditures”; and money used to get out the vote.
In my opinion, the best solution to the extreme focus on the handful of undecided voters in those few states which count is “the national popular vote ([url]http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/explanation.php[/url]).” But until that happens, our votes won’t matter and our eyes won’t see and our ears won’t hear the ads which will try to suppress the other guy’s turn-out and increase “your” candidate’s turn-out.
A final thought: Republicans have made a big push to require voter IDs in many states. On its face, that seems reasonable to me (and to most people) ([url]http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/april_2012/73_think_photo_id_requirement_before_voting_does_not_discriminate[/url]). But no doubt the impetus for this reform is to suppress marginal Democratic turn-out. So it will be worth seeing if any states are very close and the difference might be attributed to legal vote suppression.
David wrote:
> While I am not a big fan of conventions and watch
> surprisingly little of them, I do think the networks
> are missing the boat – after all, what is wrong with
> an infomercial format?
There is nothing wrong with an “infomercial” format if the political parties buy the airtime on the networks and the “shows/conventions” are advertised as paid programming. We should also let third parties such as the Greens and Libertarians buy airtime to run their own “infomercials”.
> Both parties have complained about the nature of
> biased reporting
All “reporting” is (and always will be) biased…
> The Republicans only being the more recent party to
> do so and the one doing so the most loudly.
That is because most “reporters” for major print, television and radio in the US are Democrats.
> But Democrats believe it too. Just as Republican activists
> believe that the reporters are all a bunch of lefties,
> Democrats believe that the mainstream media is controlled by
> a few very rich and powerful corporate interests that are
> inherently conservative.
While most reporters are “Democrats” (and support mainstream Democrats) very few are very left of center and ever talk about making any big changes to the status quo. When was the last time you heard a reporter on a major network (or a major Democratic candidate) talk about closing most of the military bases we have spread all over the world in close to 200 countries. When I was in Japan years ago visiting a friend (who is a Naval Officer) it blew my mind that we had close to one hundred (100) US military bases in Japan! Not just bases the US even has its own luxury hotels in Japan that it runs for the military (and friends of the military) allowing me to stay in a nice hotel in central Tokyo for less per night than a Motel 6 in Elk Grove. Reporters (on the left and right) want to keep their jobs and a good way to do that is to not rock the boat and talk about making any real changes (like cutting the massive amount jobs and profits to defense companies that will result if we close bases)…
[i]”When was the last time you heard a reporter on a major network (or a major Democratic candidate) talk about closing most of the military bases we have spread all over the world [b]in close to 200 countries[/b].”[/i]
This 2010 op-ed from the LA Times ([url]http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jun/14/opinion/la-oe-0614-preble-militarycuts-20100614[/url]) largely calls for that. Yes, it’s not a TV network; and the authors are not reporters. But I don’t see any suppression of the view that we spend too much on the military. I suspect in the years ahead, this will become a more widely held position. FWIW, it’s my view–that we need to greatly scale back or defense spending, esp. what we spend on redundant hardware.
Did you mean 200 bases or [b]200 countries?[/b] I am not sure that there are even 200 countries.
Wikipedia says ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_military_bases#Joint_overseas[/url]) we have:
[b]*Army bases/facilities in 8 foreign countries:[/b] Bulgaria, Germany, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kosovo, Kuwait and South Korea.
[b]*Marine Corps bases/facilities in 3 foreign countries:[/b] Afghanistan, Germany and Japan.
[b]*Navy bases/facilities in 13 foreign countries:[/b] Bahrain, British Indian Ocean Territory, Brazil, Cuba, Djibouti, Greece, Guam, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kuwait, South Korea and United Arab Emirates.
[b]*Air Force bases in 21 foreign countries:[/b] Afghanistan, Bahrain, Bulgaria, Germany, Greenland, Guam, Italy, Japan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Netherlands, Oman, Portugal, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, South Korea, Spain, Turkey, United Arab Emirates and United Kingdom.
If you take off those in US territories and the repeats, it adds up to 28 unique foreign countries (per my count). And note that a few of these are not full bases. For example, Israel fits under Army because we have 120 soldiers there manning a radar facility.
For those of you that want to reduce US military spending (that has steadily declined as a percent of our total spending and as a percent of our GDP since WWII), what will we do when the Chicoms, at the point they start having riots as their economic growth stalls due to a resurgant US economy and sanctions from their ongoing espionage and unfair trade practices, divert attentoin by attacking Taiwan and islands claimed by Japan and South Korea?
Those that want to see American drop out of the role of global peace-keeper and despot eliminator are foolish in my view.. because there is no other country worthy of replacing us, and without it we will see global hostility escalate.
Jeff
[quote]we will see global hostility escalate.[/quote]
I believe that we have seen global hostility escalate despite the fact that we have played the role of “global peace-keeper and despot eliminator”. The attached reference is a listing of conflicts that have occurred since
WWII or during the time of US military dominance :
Encyclopedia of Conflicts Since World War II, Second Edition
It is far too long to list here. I would like to see your evidence that there would be still more conflicts if we were not maintaining such a military dominance.
We could easily reduce our military spending and still retain complete military dominance of the world. Once we no longer have 90,000+ troops in Afghanistan, for example, we should be able to cut our total standing manpower without loss of readiness or ability to respond to situations. We’d still have a million+ standing army and a like number of reservists.
I’m not sure why you choose to give the China-attacks-Taiwan example. Do you think we could respond to such an incident now?
The sequestration that would occur if the bipartisan deficit plan takes effect in January involves $500 billion in cuts over a decade from defense; $50 billion a year reduction. Annual defense spending in 2012 is $707.5 billion. You think a 7% cut would make us unable to defend Taiwan (assuming we decided it was worth it)?
I’m always surprised when the party that touts business-oriented fiscal management of government refuses to consider any cuts for the defense budget.
I have always watched political conventions, and I think they’re an important part of our electoral process even as they’ve become slicker and less substantive. My father and I would watch them together when I was a kid, and they were certainly more important then. You actually had unscripted moments (Vice President Nelson Rockefeller flipping off a heckler!). And there was sometimes even the possibility of an unexpected outcome. Back then, they actually mattered. Now they are all image. But still that is a useful role. I think they show us what each party wants us to think they are. The big advantage of the modern era is the ability to fact-check them.
Rich wrote:
> Did you mean 200 bases or 200 countries?
> I am not sure that there are even 200 countries.
The Wikipedia lists 206 “sovereign states” and we have a military presence in almost all of them (even small embassies typically have a mini base with a fair number of people to staff it 24/7).
I looked up US military bases in Japan on the Wikipedia and they list close to 100 (but I didn’t see any of the military hotels) not including the ~50 joint US Japanese bases and the close to 300 former US bases.
Back to my original point, the mainstream media (both right and left leaning) will mention “we need to cut defense spending” but will never hammer home a point like “we are spending more on just on our bases in Japan than all but a few countries spend on their total defense budget”.
Don & medwoman: I think US military strength is a deterrent for global conflict just like the police are a deterrent for domestic crime. Without the strength of the US military, I think China would have attacked Taiwan long ago. What would the Mid East look like today without the US responding to Iraq invading Kuwait? What would happen to Israel?
[quote]We could easily reduce our military spending and still retain complete military dominance of the world. Once we no longer have 90,000+ troops in Afghanistan, for example, we should be able to cut our total standing manpower without loss of readiness or ability to respond to situations. We’d still have a million+ standing army and a like number of reservists. [/quote]
If we were to suddenly reduce defense spending, our economy would go into a tail spin…
[quote]Don & medwoman: I think US military strength is a deterrent for global conflict just like the police are a deterrent for domestic crime. Without the strength of the US military, I think China would have attacked Taiwan long ago. What would the Mid East look like today without the US responding to Iraq invading Kuwait? What would happen to Israel?[/quote]
Well said!
I could give a long, detailed analysis of that question about Iraq, Jeff, but it wouldn’t address the question I asked you earlier. So I’ll rephrase it. We couldn’t act as a sufficient global deterrent with a defense budget that is 7% less than [b]$707,500,000,000[/b] a year? Our defense budget in 1990, when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, was [b]$409,700,000,000[/b]. Defense budget in 2009, the last Bush budget, was $494,300,000,000, but that didn’t include the Iraq and Afghanistan wars because they were off-budget until Obama took office.
[i]If we were to suddenly reduce defense spending, our economy would go into a tail spin…[/i]
Yes, [i]sudden[/i] reductions in public employment and public spending, including defense spending, would stall the recovery. That goes for any public employment — teachers, police officers and other safety employees, municipal employees, and others. And that goes for spending on infrastructure, federal dollars to local governments, and all the other ways public money is fed into the economy. This is just another way in which the goals of job retention/creation and the goal of deficit reduction are somewhat at odds with each other.
Imposing extreme austerity abruptly could be very harmful to the recovery, as Ireland and the UK are discovering and as Bernanke alluded in his comments a couple of days ago. Fortunately, reductions in personnel in the military are easy to implement since people are on fixed service periods. And with the drawdown from Afghanistan we have an opportunity to gradually reduce our standing army back to a reasonable level necessary for deterrence.
Don, I think there are ways the US military can become more efficient and strategic. But I am not in favor of just cutting defense spending.
We are spending much less per total spending and much less per GDP on defense than we have historically. And I would argue that there are many many reasons why we should be spending more on defense today.
[i]”I think US military strength is a deterrent for global conflict just like the police are a deterrent for domestic crime.”
[/i]
True. We have, according to one source, 58 police officers in Davis. Do we need 100? We’d probably deter more crime.
[quote]Fortunately, reductions in personnel in the military are easy to implement since people are on fixed service periods. And with the drawdown from Afghanistan we have an opportunity to gradually reduce our standing army back to a reasonable level necessary for deterrence.[/quote]
And where will these military folks find jobs if we reduce the military as you suggest?
“If we were to suddenly reduce defense spending, our economy would go into a tail spin…”
1) I do not believe that the well being of our economy should take precedence over the lives of other people.
2) whether or not we are a “policeman” in the world and a force for good, or a murderous bully is subjective depending on which country one happens to have been born into.
3) We certainly have enough projects here at home that need doing. Instead of having our soldiers fight foreign wars, let’s put them to work here
Building infrastructure, teaching our kids, learning peacetime skills. We have no lack of need right here, we just need the will to change.
“I think US military strength is a deterrent to global conflict just like the police are a deterrent to domestic crime”.
And I think this analogy is flawed in at least two ways:
1) on what principle do we base our right to “police” other sovereign nations ? To me this is a ” might makes right argument”.
2) Domestic police are directly answerable to the communities they protect. To whom is the United States answerable when the choice is made
to use force ?
JB: [i]”Without the strength of the US military, I think China would have attacked Taiwan long ago.”[/i]
Long ago. But not now. The economies of China and Taiwan are intertwiened and growing more so all the time. The annual value of trade between the two is worth $110 billion and growing ([url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19204608[/url]). They both have too much to lose by making war.
That said, I am in favor of our naval presence in the Straits region to keep things calm.
MW: [i]”I do not believe that the well being of our economy should take precedence over the lives of other people.”[/i]
The lives of people depend on the well-being of our econmy.
Elaine is right to suggest there is a danger of a sudden cutback in defense spending–not just to our economy (where the risk is actually quite small), but much more to global security.
But over the long run, in a world where our economy is a smaller and smaller share, our ability to finance our levels of defense spending cannot be sustained. We need to reduce our commitments and focus much more on areas of strategic importance. Also, a great amount of the money we spend on “defense” is corrupt. It is, like the way Mariko Yamada blows California money to reward her contributors, a giveaway to the defense contractors and suppliers who donate to key members of Congress.
[i]”And where will these military folks find jobs if we reduce the military as you suggest?”
[/i]
While the unemployment rate for returning vets is somewhat higher than the general population (largely due to their age), unemployment among veterans in general is lower than the general population. The military is one of the best job-training institutions around. The GI Bill is incredibly generous (my daughter’s undergraduate education isn’t costing me a penny), and there are job outreach programs by the VA and the US Chamber of Commerce.
And I’d ask your same question about the tens of thousands of public-sector employees who are losing their jobs: where will they find jobs as local and state governments cut back?
I was disappointed by the lack of public support for current servicemembers and veterans in the speeches at the RNC convention. Other than Clint Eastwood’s comment, you wouldn’t even have known we are at war.
Rifs
[quote]The lives of people depend on the well-being of our econmy. [/quote]
True for those we support and defend.
Not true for those we kill.
ERM
[quote]And where will these military folks find jobs if we reduce the military as you suggest?[/quote]
I say we as a people employ them. We are willing to pay for all of their training, gear and expenses if we call them soldiers. Why not pay each of them the same salary they are making now to go to school with the understanding that they will serve at a reduced salary for a set number of years and then having fulfilled their pay back obligation, be free as I was to go out and work in the private sector if they like. For those who don’t want to go to school, let’s put them to work doing the work of re building the infrastructure of the country, teaching in our schools in underserved areas, medics could be employed providing health care for underserved communities.
Some of you are going to call this communism. You don’t call it communism when we call them soldiers, and yet it is still our tax money supporting them. Jeff didn’t call it communism when I told him that my career started with the non arms bearing branch of our military called the Public Health Service. So let’s call it the Public Service branch of the military and put them to work here. There is more than enough to be done.
MW: [i]”I do not believe that the well being of our economy should take precedence over the lives of other people.” [/i]
RR: [i]”The lives of people depend on the well-being of our economy.”[/i]
MW: [i]”Not true for those we kill.”[/i]
You are really going out on a limb there, Meds. You think people we kill do not [i]depend on the well-being of our economy[/i]?
And I thought it was obvious I was talking about living Americans whose well-being depends on our having a robust economy; that save the extraordinarily wealthy, who do fine even in down times, all the rest of us have better opportunities in life when the US economy is thriving.
Yet your response regards some theoretical dead foreigner whose fate, you seem to think, rests on how much the US spends on the DoD budget?
Related to medwoman’s point that the military is government-run enterprise, and others’ opinion that we can scale back the size and scope of our defense mission, I have a few points.
1. The military is one of few government services definitively demanded by the Constitution.
2. There is social value beyond keeping us safe and helping to ensure global peace and prosperity. Reform our crappy education system and then let’s talk about how we might not need that social value. The military does a lot to reform and save a lot of young men and women that would otherwise be lost.
3. I would be in favor of extending the mission of our US military and actually increasing the size and scope. My idea would be to absorb a peace-corps type enhancement to the general defense mission.
4. We simply cannot rely on any other country. Looking back at UN participation in global conflict it is clear that other countries’ self-serving national interests will trump global interests every time. The US is unique is this respect. We are leaders. We know we are leaders. We do not shink from the requirements of leadership. Self-preservation is a long-term pursuit… and we offer our help for the rest of the free world wanting the same.
5. Islamic extremists are still striving to murder as many as possible and keep the world in a terrorized chaotic state. Did we not learn our lesson on this on September 11, 2001?
“Did we not learn our lesson on this on September 11, 2001?”
I would chime in that I don’t believe there was some sort of uniform lesson of 9/11/01
Let’s try this one more time, Jeff. We couldn’t act as a sufficient global deterrent with a defense budget that is 7% less than $707,500,000,000 a year? Now you’ve added terrorism to your previous argument of deterrence. So you think that we can’t prevent terrorism with a budget in excess of seven hundred billion dollars? It isn’t even the defense department that does most of the anti-terrorism work anyway. And we seem to be doing an excellent job under this administration of suppressing Islamic extremists.
We can, [i]of course[/i], rely on other countries. We have had consistent support from various allies in our military actions. We can rely on the members of NATO, among others. NATO has largely replaced the military functions that once were expected of the UN. In Serbia, in Libya, in other military ‘police’ actions — it is NATO that does it. Every president seeks international support. We don’t act unilaterally. We supported the French and English when they wanted to take action in Libya; they took the primary role. They and others have supported us in our endeavors. The UN still has a reasonable function as peacekeeper once NATO had provided stability.
Apparently now to conservatives, the military is a jobs program and an educational program, absolutely sacrosanct, which can’t be cut. I don’t think, somehow, that employment and education is the primary purpose. Nor do I think it is what the constitutional founders you cite had in mind.
Jeff
[quote]The military does a lot to reform and save a lot of young men and women that would otherwise be lost. [/quote]
Except of course the ones that die or come home disabled.
So again, why not have a military like program that focuses on other needs within our country. I would say that the constitution with its declaration of a role in providing for the “pursuit of happiness” provided for a fairly wide interpretation of what constitutes a legitimate function of the government as you and I have agreed previously. I promise I wouldn’t object if you wanted to fold it into the term “non arms bearing ” military which is what it was called when I served.
[quote]medwoman: 3) We certainly have enough projects here at home that need doing. Instead of having our soldiers fight foreign wars, let’s put them to work here Building infrastructure, teaching our kids, learning peacetime skills. We have no lack of need right here, we just need the will to change.[/quote]
So do you think we should have done anything about 9-11? Or just have “taken on the chin” without a response?
[quote]Rich Rifkin: But over the long run, in a world where our economy is a smaller and smaller share, our ability to finance our levels of defense spending cannot be sustained. We need to reduce our commitments and focus much more on areas of strategic importance.[/quote]
I probably would agree with this in general…
[quote]Don Shor: While the unemployment rate for returning vets is somewhat higher than the general population (largely due to their age), unemployment among veterans in general is lower than the general population. [/quote]
I doubt that will be true if suddenly the military is cut back as is being suggested. Secondly, the military is a good employment option for some – some that would probably be out of work and wandering the streets causing trouble if they were not in the military…
[quote]Rich Rifkin: The lives of people depend on the well-being of our econmy.
Medwoman: True for those we support and defend. Not true for those we kill.[/quote]
Like Al Quiada you mean? Why should we support and defend Al Quiada, who are trying to kill us?
[quote]erm: And where will these military folks find jobs if we reduce the military as you suggest?
medwoman: I say we as a people employ them. We are willing to pay for all of their training, gear and expenses if we call them soldiers. Why not pay each of them the same salary they are making now to go to school with the understanding that they will serve at a reduced salary for a set number of years and then having fulfilled their pay back obligation, be free as I was to go out and work in the private sector if they like.
[/quote]
What private sector jobs would those be? We cannot even employ those fresh out of college/high school looking for work, those who have lost their jobs…
[quote]Jeff Boone: 3. I would be in favor of extending the mission of our US military and actually increasing the size and scope. My idea would be to absorb a peace-corps type enhancement to the general defense mission.
[/quote]
Excellent idea!
We have a Peace Corps. Why would we attach it to the defense department?
“What private sector jobs would those be? We cannot even employ those fresh out of college/high school looking for work, those who have lost their jobs… “
Ex-military have much better job prospects than recent graduates with no work experience. Whatever they were trained at in the military, they can do in civilian life. As private employment continues to grow, there will be more jobs available for vets as they finish their enlistment terms.
[img]http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/privatejobs_aug10.jpg[/img]
MED: [i]”I would say that [b]the Constitution[/b] with its declaration of a role in providing for the ‘pursuit of happiness’ …”[/i]
For the record: The Constitutuion makes no mention of the ‘pursuit of happiness.’ That line comes from Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence (adopted 11 years before the Constitution), and Jefferson more-less borrowed it from John Locke.
Locke had earlier written that the government’s power was limited to preserving for a man his “[b]life, liberty,[/b] health, and indolency of body; and the possession of outward things.” In a related essay Locke wrote that “the highest perfection of intellectual nature lies in a careful and constant pursuit of true and solid [b]happiness[/b].”
Jefferson combined the two to come up with: [quote]… all men are … endowed by their creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are [b]Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness[/b].[/quote] JB: [i]”The military is one of few government services definitively demanded by the Constitution.”[/i] Not necessarily a US military that defends Afghanistan’s regime from religious militants and affiliated terrorists based in Pakistan.
Rich, I agree with you on that point.
I think the founders and Americans in general tended to be isolationist. 9-11 was the wake up that the freaks would not allow America to have its cake and eat it too in this reguard. American imperialism is unique… we never sought to conquer other nations… it has been a sort of a passive expansion of economic interests that our State Depatment and CIA then would try to protect, That protection would often go too far in my opinion as we would interfere with the politics of other nations.
But, we can’t help it that we have been so damn successful. Ouf founders could have never conceived what would become of the Great Experiment. After WWII, we could not shrink back to isolationist. We had to expand the scope of our military mission commensurate with the scope of our global interest and involvement.
In any case, Afghanistan was a UN-sanctioned war.
Rich, I agree with you on that point.
I think the founders and Americans in general tended to be isolationist. 9-11 was the wake up that the freaks would not allow America to have its cake and eat it too in this reguard. American imperialism is unique… we never sought to conquer other nations… it has been a sort of a passive expansion of economic interests that our State Depatment and CIA then would try to protect, That protection would often go too far in my opinion as we would interfere with the politics of other nations.
But, we can’t help it that we have been so damn successful. Ouf founders could have never conceived what would become of the Great Experiment. After WWII, we could not shrink back to isolationist. We had to expand the scope of our military mission commensurate with the scope of our global interest and involvement.
In any case, Afghanistan was a UN-sanctioned war.
[quote]Ex-military have much better job prospects than recent graduates with no work experience. Whatever they were trained at in the military, they can do in civilian life. As private employment continues to grow, there will be more jobs available for vets as they finish their enlistment terms. [/quote]
You are more optimistic than I am that there will be enough private sector jobs to accommodate the vets, let alone the fresh out of college kids, the former public sector employees, and those still looking for work…
Online shopping for fake watches ([url]http://www.cbawatch.org[/url]) from a great selection of luxury swiss watches.