First, Pressure the president to let the woman travel. Tell him He is the one giving Pakistan a bad image, not her.A recent San Francisco Chronicle article says:
"I am very happy. I feel that justice will be mine," she told The Chronicle later as she relaxed at a women's refuge in Islamabad. "I feel like going outside and running in circles."Again, this is the SFC--hardly a bastion of conservatism. While the Bush administration doesn't consider it their duty to babysit Pakistan, it's not like they're being completely oblivious. In this particular case, the Bush administration has already done what you suggested and it appears (again, in this case) to be making some significant ground. I do think that we ought to be encouraging Pakistan to make more sweeping changes; they certainly have problems that need to be addressed. Overall, though, I see hope for this democracy that has made, and continues to make significant steps toward becoming a responsible and contributing member of the world community. If I were the president of the U.S., I think I'd rather focus on working with them rather than telling them how to run things. This argument applies to starting schools over there, too. Working to stabilize the region politically and building the Trans-Afghan pipeline will help Pakistan to focus on improving their own position. This doesn't really compare to Iraq, where no amount of help that we could give would have benefited the people there without removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power.
The ruling was a crucial victory in a three-year legal saga that highlighted abuses against women in rural Pakistani society, stirred outrage around the world and, more recently, led the Bush administration to chastise President Pervez Musharraf, a key ally in the war on terror, for trying to muzzle Mukhtaran and prevent her from traveling to the United States.
...
The outrage finally reached the White House. Bush administration officials often turn a blind eye to human rights abuses in Pakistan, a key ally in the hunt for Osama bin Laden, but this time Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice telephoned Pakistani Foreign Minister Khurshid Kasuri to complain about a situation her spokesman described as outrageous. The travel ban was lifted, though Mukhtaran's movements are still restricted by the heavy security that surrounds her everywhere she goes.
Another comment from Mary:
And Honestly, Bush himself wouldn't even need to do this, but rather encourage the public to do so.I think you're right, that this is the way to go about things. Allow and encourage American individuals and companies to make voluntary contributions, rather than spending tax money, which is forced out of people, to help other nations. Our nation's government gets criticized now and then for not contributing to relief organizations and such in an amount proportionate to the nation's wealth. What people don't realize, though, is that part of the reason for our nation's wealth is that we don't tax our citizens and businesses to death, which allows them to make contributions out of their own pocket, which they do in sizeable amounts. Somehow I doubt that Bush's simple encouragement would get the amount of media attention that you suggest, unless more liberal elements sieze it as a reason to criticize Bush for not being willing to put his (i.e. the nation's) money where his mouth is.
Another "brilliant Idea":
During the 3 months of school that teachers have off, have the US govt. pay their plane ticket to some country, where they then teach during their off time.Smart, but there's only so much a person can do in 3 months; you'd barely get started on something before you have to leave. This is probably why LDS missionaries are called to serve for 1.5-2 years. So instead, why not have a program where well-educated, civic-minded people can go for a couple of years and teach people and help them to build bridges and other things that will help to better their community for the long term? Oh, yeah, it's called the Peace Corps. But then, what will those poor, civic-minded schoolteachers do all summer? How about serving the community at home, like the USA Freedom Corps suggests. You may remember, Bush announced the creation of the Freedom Corps in his State-of-the-Union address in 2002. Funny thing is, I never heard about it in the media after that speech. Perhaps if we paid really close attention to everything Bush said and did, we'd get a different picture than when we just listen to headline news.
Conclusion:
I don't see bush as promoting almost any programs that are this self-less.Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it's not there.
8 comments:
I only have a few minutes... I got into work late this morning.
Travel Ban lifted. Accurate, but I don't exactly see her booking a flight to the US. Why? Do you think it might have something to do with the Pakistani Thugs they have "guarding her"? What do you think the real reason they are there? to protect her? No to prevent her from going anywhere. Sure, she can travel, but where can she go? That's one woman. That we happen to know about.
It's not anybodys duty to babysit anyone else, but this conversation was started because if Bush is going to promote the death of American Soldiers in order to give liberty to people... Why don't we give liberty to ALL people, or do we just discriminate against those that don't own oil?
I agree that it is better and easier to work with the government to try to improve their system, rather than just telling them what to do. But I don't see anyone going over there to help assist in a change. And I don't even see the president being really all that willing to change, yet. I hope to see that in the future, but I haven't seen it yet.
My rule of thumb, is that what ever a person talks the most about, is what is most important to them. So if a person only mentions something once, and never brings it up again... I kind of wonder just how important it really is to them. I feel like they are saying it because they feel obligated to say it, not because they believe it. That's kind of how I feel about Bush and various humanitarian efforts. Sure he mentioned the Freedom Corps, but if he's not willing to put a little effort behind it... kind of makes you wonder just how important he really feels it is.
So when I said that He would need to suggest it to the public, you are right, he would need to put a little bit of effort behind it, by plugging it in a few speeches, and maybe by holding A meeting with some people/entities on the subject, but he could get it done. He chooses not to.
You see, the media will focus on whatever he talks about. If he only mentions it once, you're right, the media will forget about it, and nothing will be done. If Bush (or staff) mentioned it, the idea, maybe everyother time they had a speech or press release, for about 2 weeks, I guarantee that something would be done.
You are underestimating the power of people. There is actually quite a lot you can do in 3 months! I'm not sure if you knew this, but Dave worked for the Church the summer before we got married. He was in Central America setting up employment centers, teaching people how to get jobs. How long was he there? why ... 3 months! How much of a difference did he make... quite a bit, and I only know of the 3-6 people that he still keeps in contact with. He wasn't paid. He even paid for his flight down, room and board, and everything else. It was completely for free. He loved it. He would do it again in a heartbeat. To make a difference you have to at least try. I don't think Bush is trying. I know you think that it probably is happening, and I'm just not seeing it, but I disagree. If Bush was doing something generally humanitarian, his publicity people would be ALL over it! They would film every second of it so that they could later use that footage to appeal to "the other side." Granted, he doesn't have to get re-elected, so it's more of a moot point, but not completely. He could have done this his first 4 years. He didn't then either.
okay 30 minutes later, I'm still not working, there are more points I want to bring up.. but really don't have the time.
This is interesting though, It's not often we talk, discuss politics.
By the way, there are a few articles in the NY times you might want to glance at: one of them about how Ireland has the 2nd highest GDP in the EU, second only to luxemburg, and the other about a Nuclear Fission Plant being installed in France. Their articles are only free for 7 days online, so I'd look sooner rather than later.
I think your rule of thumb is only valid under certain circumstances, and that this is not one of them. For instance, as much as I've enjoyed chatting about Bush and these other political issues, they are far from being the most important things to me. I'm going to be giving two years of my life to the Lord soon; I don't think anybody that's familiar with me would claim that politics is the most important thing to me. And yet, if you look over this blog, you'll find that I talk quite a lot about political issues. I might put in an hour or a half-hour to get myself informed and make statements about the state of the world, but the rest of my day is spent helping my family, working for money, working on programming projects and home improvement projects, playing with my little brothers, and even playing computer games.
So why do I talk so much about this issue? For one thing, it's something that just about anybody who reads this blog can relate to. The people who really care about the time I spend with my family all spend enough time with me that they don't need to check my blog to see what's going on in my life. Secondly, my life is largely pretty boring. Like most people, I spend the vast majority of my time doing stuff that I've done many times before. Nobody needs to hear me say "I went to work again today," and frankly, I don't see any reason that I'd want to say it in the first place. But the media provides us with juicy information from all over the world, and most of it is NEW. In fact, we get annoyed when they focus on stuff that isn't new (or, at least I do). So politics is an obvious topic of conversation that will interest my audience and myself. I spend a lot of time talking about it, but it isn't all that important to me.
Likewise, it is unfair to say of someone you don't know that they don't care about something very much, based on the fact that they don't spend a lot of time talking about it. Now, neither of us have spent much time studying how Bush spends his day, and I don't really have the desire to waste my time on such a study. I can tell you, though, that he doesn't spend his whole day micromanaging the war like some people seem to think, and he doesn't spend his whole life on vacation like Michael Moore would have us believe. He does a lot of things each day that most people never hear about. You can bet that the white house photographers are there recording each moment, and it's pretty likely that there are PR people there doing the same. But it's not the sort of thing you'll see on the news.
Bush has many priorities besides winning the war on terror. And, while winning that war may or may not be at the top of his priorities, it is by far the most newsworthy thing that affects the American people. Just like I spend a lot of time writing about politics on this blog, Bush spends a lot of time talking about Iraq. You have challenged my viewpoints, and I have responded by spending time explaining them. Bush's opponents have challenged his policies and actions (using inflammatory phrases like "promoting the death of American solders"), and he has responded in much the same way. It doesn't mean it's all he cares about.
You say that I underestimate the power of people. Perhaps I do. It sounds like Dave was able to do a great deal of good in only three months. Further, a program that pays for people to travel to foreign countries for the summer months would probably attract a lot more people than the Peace Corps does.
On the other hand, you seem to be taking a simplistic viewpoint on some of these topics. Like, if we're willing to go into Afghanistan and Iraq to liberate people and bring them democracy, then we ought to apply the same policy to everyone. Or, if we won't use the same policy EVERYWHERE, then we shouldn't use that policy ANYWHERE. I respond with two points: (1) Different countries have different situations, and (2) you have to start somewhere. Surely you've already heard the criticism that our forces are spread thin? That we don't have enough soldiers? So of course, you know it'd be ridiculous to try to invade every nation that's on the bad-guy list. So instead we've focused on the ones where (Bush thinks) there's the most potential to do the most good. He's not ignoring the presence of oil in Iraq: it's one of the reasons that the U.S., with its limited resources, is likely to be able to accomplish the mission of making democracy work in Iraq. But I still maintain that oil is not the purpose for our presence there.
Another idea that seems overly simplistic is to think that the news media will magically focus on whatever Bush talks about. Or the idea that Bush must've only mentioned the Freedom Corps once and abandoned it, since we haven't heard about it in the news. Or that somehow the Freedom Corps just grew on its own without Bush putting any effort into it.
I gotta go now. Keep up the correspondence, if possible. I know we're both busy.
One, you completely proved my point. You talked about how politics is such a small part of your day, and how the majority of your time/effort is spent work/family etc. That's excatly right! perhaps I was not accurate or precise in my writing, when I referred to what Bush "Talks" about, when I say "talk" I mean, acts on, behaves, etc. Not just the actual words he speaks.
Now, I agree he does more than the war, and having never seen a movie by michael moore, I can't really comment on that, and that there are many things that his PR people don't send out to the press, and even if they do, the press might ignore it. But I stand by the general concept of what I said before (perhaps my words were not as precise as they ought to have been, so I won't defend the words per-se). Bush doesn't do enough for Americorp or any other humanitarian project!
My being simplistic, is more to demonstrate the point. I understand what you are saying. and I agree. We should do what we can, and it does have to start somehwere, but (I haven't looked, so I don't know the answer to this question) has bush proposed or suggested liberation-type assistance to Sudan? It doesn't have to be military. If he hasn't proposed it, my point still stands. If he has, Great! I hope he sticks to his word! (I don't think he would, and would probably always find a way to get out of it... but I fully admit that I am very cynical when it comes to Bush)
As far as not having enough military... do you know why?? Having a brother who is a Major in the Air Force, I can tell you, there are a number of reasons why. 1) they treat them like crap, even the officers. For example: My brothers "contract" comes up within the next 8-10 months. At any point between now and then, they can call him up for active Duty (Currently he teaches Air force men how to fly planes..), and he could be deployed for up to 3 years. So basically they can extend his contract 2-3 years beyond what they orignally agreed too, and there isn't much he can do about it. And it scares him. It scares him because he has 4 kids. in 3 years, his kids will change alot, 2 of them will turn 8, which means, he'd miss their baptisms. But the military really doesn't care. so why isn't there enough military: 1) they treat them like crap. 2) we have military bases all across the world, and Many (not all) are unnecessary: For example, my Brother in Law is an attorney with the Air Force JAG, and he is Stationed in Guam. Guam isn't really under threat of attack, doesn't have resources to protect... so why is there such a large base for such a small island? I really have no idea. Some might say, with a military presence there it is to prevent a military attack, and it is a strateic location. I don't think anyone will attempt to take Guam. and second, we have so many bases, that I don't think that particular one gives us an "edge" for strategic location. and my last reason why there isn't enough military: People are afraid to sign up! and why are people afraid to sign up? Because Bush doesn't do enough to reassure the public that he is doing Everything in his power to protect the military and avoid war (when I say protect the military, I don't mean better armored Humvees...). If the public felt that Bush truely went to war as a last resort, and that he would always choose it as a last resort, I don't think they'd have so many reservations about the war. So Iraq does more than simply use up our troops from their being available elsewhere, it seriously hinders others from enlisting compounding the problem.
I disagree that Bush chose Iraq because "there's the most potential to do the most good" But that is difference of opinion, and I don't think either of us could really convince the other.
I don't understand what you are trying to communicate in your last paragraph. You list conflicting messages, and I'm not sure what you're getting at.
Anyway.
I'm off to Phoenix tomorrow, so I may or may not be able to check in for a few days, (Maybe not even till next week!) Have a great week.
And you know that this weekend is the Jazz Festival, and there are going to be some AWESOME bands, I know Barbara Morrison is coming back, and a few others too!
BTW: did you ever read those articles I recommended from the NY times?
To clarify, in my last paragraph I was trying to point out that you made statements implying that all Bush ever did for something like Freedom Corps was to mention it in one speech, and then forget about it, which I really don't think could be true because it is a real organization now and such things don't happen on account of a single speech. Likewise for the two other points I made; what you said seemed to imply that you believed something to be true which didn't fit my perception of reality.
We have different impressions of how our military personnel are treated. I can't say I've ever heard someone who's in the military say they're treated "like crap;" at least not in the sense that you're talking about. My impression (albeit without firsthand experience) is that the United States "takes care of its own." I was looking to see if I could find any link between Bush's willingness to send our military into harm's way and the number of troops that have signed up for the U.S. military. Thus far, I haven't been able to find anything along these lines. If you find something convincing, please share. What I did learn, though, as I was researching, was that the U.S. military spends an enormous amount of money per soldier compared to any other country that even comes close to having a military the size of ours. I also learned that our military decreased significantly in size between 1985 and 2000. The argument that Bush's policies have caused us to have too little military just doesn't pass muster for me.
As for which bases are important, and which bases should be closed, I'm not about to pit my opinion against that of people who make a career out of deciding such things. I'll just hope, in my usual optimistic (possibly naive) way, that those people generally make good choices regarding such matters.
Of course, your point is probably that it's wrong to send somebody out to fight in another country where there are some hostile people that aren't currently attacking us on our own turf. That's a point that we could probably debate for hours and never get anywhere. As far as the government being able to move the military personnel around unceremoniously, that's just sort of the way militaries work. I don't intend any offense to those who are (justifiably) afraid of what will happen to them and their families in the future, and I don't mean to say that I'd be particularly happy about the situation if I were in it. When you sign up for military duty, you may EXPECT the best out of that duty, but the contract is pretty explicit about what may happen in the future (i.e. extending your time, etc.). If you read the find print, I'd bet that they aren't extending his time beyond "what they agreed to" at all.
Enjoy Phoenix! I may be going to a Jazz Festival event tomorrow; it sounds like my aunt is giving me tickets to something there as a kind of birthday present. And I meant to ask you for links to those articles that you mentioned, but I forgot. It'd be a lot easier if you could just paste in URLs, so I don't have to search through the NYT to find them.
Thanks,
James
You and I have different perceptions of reality when it comes to Bush and his efforts. That's what it boils down to.
to Clarify military "crap": They are paid fairly well, they are by and large given the supplies they need, and generally have good moral. However, I define (in this situation) "crap" as the military going against their own terms. To me, that's totally crap! It's not right, its not fair, it's not anything decent that the US military should stand for. Daily life with the military, is fine from what I hear from my brother.
In fact RE-enlistment is I think as high as it's ever been, but NEW enlistment is lower than ever. So the people that are in, are as likely to stay in, but the military is having a tough time recruiting!
The military should not be the ones allowed to make all the decisions about bases. The military as with any government entity, generally try to promote their own cause. Which is completely understandable, everybody likes to be self-sustaining, but they go beyond self-sustaining. But because of that self-interest, they should not be allowed to fully govern themselves as an entity. That's why our system was developed with checks and balances.
I have nothing against sending military when military is needed, even when we as a country haven't been attacked. However, I DO believe that Bush should have exhausted ALL other options prior to going to war, which, in my opinion he didn't. I don't remember if you remember a talk given in general conference about 2.5 years ago by Elder... Worthlin? I don't remember exactly who, but he said something to the extent of We need to try all our options before we go to war. He didn't say "No war" He did say, try all your other avenues first. I believe that is a very wise thing to follow. I don't think Bush did.
Contracts, (without having read it, this is my understanding of it) "We can call you up for active duty at any time, lasting up to three years." "Your agreement with us ends in Mo/Year" To me that means, that when the agreement ends, their ability to retain the military personnel ends as well. That is illegal, and there are troops suing the government for unlawful seizure, or something like that. It's not right and they shouldn't do it! I don't care if it is a "possibility" and that the person knew of that possibility when they signed on, that doesn't mean that the military should do it. It's not ethical. It's deceitful!
Uhh.. You shouldn't need tickets to the Jazz festival. It's free. I know that a few of the events are being held at Abravenal Hall (which is a first), and its possible that those you need tickets for... but the rest downtown in Washington Square, totally free, no tickets required.
articles
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/05/opinion/05kristof.html?ex=1120795200&en=b1e9fb1ad01d25bc&ei=5070
is a new one.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/01/opinion/01friedman.html
is the one on Ireland
but then here is a rebuttal
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/06/opinion/l06friedman.html
read immediately, because articles are only free for 7 days.
I don't remember off hand what the last article I told you to read was about... sorry. The first link I posted is an article about Bush, Africa, and Humanitarian Aid. It supports your perspective. I think you'll like it.
I read and enjoyed all three articles. Thanks for the links.
I finally remembered what the last article was about, but I'm pretty sure we are past the 7 days, but maybe if you search for the key terms you can find the key info.
It's about France installing a Nuclear FUSION plant. First one ever. They were competing pretty hard against some other Asian countries. Anyway, it was more about our conversation about nuclear plants. I haven't done a lot of research, but since you are going to france, and like nuclear power... it's fairly applicable to you. Hope you find it.
Actually, I read an article about that back when it was first announced, although I'm not sure if it was in the NYT or some other newspaper. Pretty interesting.
Post a Comment