I feel like I should document this because I feel it is kind of striking, especially for those who get confused about many things regarding Iraq.

From http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/19204.pdf, this is a report for congress about post war Iraq regarding regime change, updated March 17, 2003.

On a section called "Post War Issues", the author writes,

"Some critics believe that U.S. occupation plans could face difficulties in Iraq. Some believe that Iraq’s Kurds are likely to come into conflict with any Turkish troops that might enter northern Iraq to secure Turkish interests. Others believe that U.S. occupation forces might face protracted guerrilla from remnants of the Iraqi military, possibly fighting alongside Iraqi civilians against U.S. forces. Others say U.S. forces might become caught in the crossfire among ethnic and political factions that might fight each other for power in post-war Iraq. Some experts fear that a postwar Iraq will inevitably fall under control of SCIRI and other Shiite Islamist forces who are the best organized opponents of the Iraqi regime. Shiites constitute about 60% of Iraq’s population, but have traditionally been under-represented in Iraq’s Sunni Muslim-dominated government." 

To those who think that the U.S. did not know about the possibility of there being an insurgency are pretty much wrong.

Tags: iraq, politics

I don't write about "political" issues much. I probably should write more about political issues, as they would be slightly more interesting than me complaining about my own life. That, and you would hardly know I'm interested in a whole range of issues from what I put on this blog.

I came home from getting my ass kicked in tennis and flipped through some channels and came across a CSPAN/BookTV show on The Age of Abundance by Brink Lindsey. It was essentially similar to some conferences and presentations I've been to last semester. Lectures are wonderfully engaging to listen to when I'm not surrounded by a computer, multiple fans, a hot but nice day outside, and sweaty from just losing in tennis, but I caught a few different interesting tidbits of this lecture/Q&A episode.

The one thing I want to mention doesn't really have too much about the book, but, to give you some background, the book/conference was sponsored by the Cato Institute. You could call them a libertarian think tank if such a thing exists. (I did not plagiarize libertarian think tank from wiki, I thought of it first!)

The premise of the book and talked seemed to be about how after the World War II era, America's abundance of ideas, capital, etc. was a driving force behind our presence as a world superpower. The idea of culture wars as they relate to then and now were brought up. And one of main issues I got was the idea that current-day politics are still stuck in that era of abundance. The right wants to be governing as we are still in the 60's and 70's culture-wise, and the left wants to be governing in an economic era of the 80's. This is my loose synopsis, I'm pretty sure a key main idea of the book and talk, but I wasn't paying too much attention. The full podcast is here if you want to discover for yourself.

The point of the program I want to highlight, is when David Brooks, a columnist for the New York Times and one of my favorite parts of the News Hour with Jim Lehrer when I do watch, comes to comment on the book and speech by Lindsey. Brooks was pretty harsh on Lindsey, which was surprising. He had a few different disagreements with his opinions, but the thing that struck me the most was this part of his comment segment.

It starts at about 32:00 on the podcast version of the talk, but gets really good around 34:00. He is talking about American social and cultural issues as well as the issue of social mobility. Summarizing and transcribing....

"(32:10) Our fundamental problems are not economic, they are cultural...  We have lots of people who do not pay attention to economic incentives ... [So true!] There is no greater incentive than getting a HS degree, yet 30% of kids drop out... Greenspan - Maybe the success of capitalism depends on cultural dispositions. ... Can government do anything to change culture?

"(33:25) Brooks - yes. Biggest way to do so - social mobility. Living standards are going up and middle class americans are doing reasonbly well. But social mobility no higher here than Europe or is decreasing. Seem to be seeing lower social mobility. Odds of getting through college is worse as family income is lower. Problem for the capitalist economy is that the family you happen to be born into is the primary determinant of how you do in life. That's because the family shapes merit.

"(34:40) (4 year olds and delayed gratification experiment) - Kids that could delay gratification do better later in life - have higher college completion rates and higher incomes, those that cannot have higher incarceration rates and higher rates of drug and alcohol abuse. Because some kids grow up in organized homes where they have developed strategies for resisting their impulses, and some kids have not, even by age 4. If you have been born in that home - you can do school. If you haven't, you can't. That's the sort of cultural predisposition that you need for healthy capitalism. Govt can do some things to help those not born in fortunate homes - preschool for kids in disorganized homes, state funded preschool, kid-save bank accounts, education reform for those kind of kids, and national service." - Brooks

And then David Brooks answered a question strongly relating to the last paragraph about preschools and cultural programs.

"(42:15) Preschool program studies - Quality preschool programs have lasting and longterm affects on child achievements. Headstart however is a complex program and has very little longterm effects. Cultural change never happens quickly, but if you look at governments that invest in education at relatively high levels. Cultural change also doesn't happen obviously"

- Brooks

It's been awhile since I've been lectured to or heard something amazingly simple and intelligent, but this kind of hit me and made me think for a bit.

Later on Brooks mentioned looking back and seeing in your own life what resources allowed you to grow to be in essence a well-adjusted adult. And it made me of course, think about my past and why I am who I am.

I know I've written about this before, but if you knew the past and the problems of my mom and (real) dad, it'd be tough to see the connection between me and them. My dad had bipolar and had some kind of mental retardation going on, and my mom while very capable of doing things that are intuitive (she's better with a computer than my step-dad), she has some serious writing/grammar/spelling learning disability. I know I've picked up many of their neurotic tendencies (see: my past), and I'm still a very anxious person.

But I'm, to put it modestly, much more intelligent and different from them in many areas (delayed gratification, religious views). How did that come to be? Did the stupid genes skip a generation? I was in a church preschool program, yes. I wasn't a gifted child or anything, my elementary report cards were never filled with outstanding marks, but were usually satisfactory. I remember hanging out with the kids that stayed back in first grade. I know I was read to a lot by my dad as a very little child, and I also read a fair amount around 4th or 5th grade, but I also had issues with my multiplication tables in 6th grade, as I remember staying before and after school to work on them. I remember the only reason I knew my nines table was that the two numbers in each answer would add up to nine. Eights, sevens, and sixes were always bad (and still are).

Maybe this isn't unusual, but what if I never got helped by a teacher's aide with my times tables? That is one of those things that I can imagine not happening if I get unlucky and teachers don't notice I'm having trouble with it, or no one cares enough to help. Math is my strongest subject and the reason why I'm where I am now. Imagine if someone didn't take the time out to help me?  

Tags: me, parents, politics