dayman

Sorry if you already saw this stuff in my other thread and chose not to respond I'm not trying to push it more but I just think it's a bad idea to just have one thread where I post the stories that interest me...probably better to just keep the number I post down but give the ones that make the cut their own thread. Below is basically pasted from the other thread so that's why it may not make sense as an OP but it is what it is. This is the link to the interview that prompted this topic. The video is in the link watch it and skip the majority of my post below which is summary (summary in italics). http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/04/how-to-keep-america-competitive/ On another topic. There was an interesting study discussed at the end of GPS today done by Michael Porter (a Harvard management guy) and 71% of Harvard grads in high level decision-making positions now think American competitiveness is slipping badly. He defines competiveness in 2 ways: 1) American companies competing in international markets but 2) WHILE having an increase in American's standard of living. If our companies are competing internationally by cutting wages domestically, to Porter that is a sign that we actually are NOT competitive. Ultimately he sees the path to prosperity being measured by increased productivity that justifies a high wage. And in this aspect, he proposes that we've dropped the ball. The study/survey shows that not only will factories be shifted over seas continually but R&D as well (I've seen Clinton say multiple times in recent speaking engagements posted online that manufacturers increasingly want their R&D near their plants). R&D being shifted in addition to manufacturing is particularly troubling...not having workers here sucks but not having the innovation here? That is a new level of "oh ****" for us IMO. Some reasons the majority surveyed cited for moving abroad were: -number 1 reason was that our workers were not productive enough to justify higher wages; so moving over seas turned out to be a good deal on cost/benefit analysis -about 30% surveyed said they COULD NOT find the skills they needed in America His survey also asked what companies really wanted...the most common answer? Improve the quality of the domestic work force. Not taxes, not anything like that. That is particularly interesting. He went on to say that a budding trend recently has been a bit of a turn-around in some business starting to move toward investing in domestic workforce a bit more and in some sectors bringing business activity back to teh US...a sign of businesses recognizing the tangible economic benefit from investing in what he calls "the commons." ----------- Anyway...interesting last segment there and my damn DVR actually cut the last end of the interview off. But there was both exposure to hard truths and troubling facts in his survey but some hope buried in there as well. I think it goes without saying that if we really want to get ourselves going long-term, we are going to have to fix our education problems in this country and it is going to take some real leadership from (IMO) the Federal Government on this issue. I would like to think the States could start improving themselves (and I'm not suggesting they aren't still primarily responsible) but the kind of comprehensive reform we need to improve the productivity of our future work force is going to take some sort of stronger effort from Washington (despite the questionable success of past programs that came from the Hill). That's my take anyway, I wouldn't be so quick to vilify efforts of the federal government to become MORE involved in our education. Another random article I saw recently (can cannot seem to find searching now nor can I recall the exact details) had to do with an unbelievably low percentage of American teachers having been top 20% in their class when they were educated and it compared that to Japan where an unbelievably high percentage of their teachers were top 10% when they were in school (other Asian nations follow the same trend). It cited pay, private sector forces, and the status teachers have in society over there as contributing factors. It's obvious that we should all be disgusted by the way our public education system is performing worse and costing more and the teachers we DO HAVE are a part of the problem...but we should consider the TEACHERS we WANT TO HAVE when discussion things like the Wisconsin troubles IMO. We need to get our fiscal house in order but it will all be for nothing if we fall too far behind in worker productivity. ...a loosely related video concerning education (typical interview with Doc Neil who I love...)...all these things (space, education, etc) take heavy investment the way I see it there is no other way...smart investment but investment in ourselves nonetheless...and the "cross-pollination" effect makes it a great investment! It really should be our top priority for long term prosperity in this country and not just on theory to "stay ahead" but to combat a very real problem we have RIGHT NOW. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=JTTWSE4Qhx0

They finally put up the interview I was talking about in the post above here's a link if anyone wants to talk about it. Can't be bothered to figure out how to link the video directly but the video is there in the link. http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/04/how-to-keep-america-competitive/

I'm not up on this thread and don't mean to be attacked or attack by posting this but I just think this picture is classic: http://m.static.newsvine.com/servista/imagesizer?file=laura-conawayEB278780-024C-6550-DF76-0E03ADABC8FA.jpg&width=600

Haha I'm not really buddies with anyone here and I don't have the best grasp of who the liberals even are we're usually interested in different issues and rarely supporting each other in actual discussion. I do know MDP was open to my one topic encouraging people to watch Fareed Zakaria's GPS and I shamelessly admit I just love that show and think highly of Fareed (not to say I'm here to defend anything a youtube search can bring up on him) so I do remember potentially being a "buddy to him" in taht sense b/c he was willing to be swayed to give it a shot.

While I would NEVER sit here and say that they haven't made mistakes...I do believe that is the job. Killing them for tactical errors isn't something I'm for either, but criticizing them when things go wrong is something I can't discount based on the views I have about their job. I mean, I know the President is a lot of things...but first and foremost to me he is the Commander in Chief. And when I say that I don't mean to suggest he's a military general btw. But he's the civilian leader of our civilian controlled military and it's his responsibility.

Well to cut to the chase the bottom line with me personally is I'm just not interested in the case. So I don't mean to suggest that I roll my eyes only at the thread here...and also I make a lot of assumption about what is in the thread I don't click on it. Well I really don't but then again I'm only leaning left in the current political climate despite my reputation. I have literally never watched Sharpton and honestly (embarrassingly so but I'll admit it) don't know who you are referring to w/ "jj." Some think it's a cop-out of pretentious to self-identify as a "centrist" but over time I generally think that's the best description. I admit though I'm certainly "the left" relative to this board and probably clearly left-leaning in 2012. But that doesn't mean I'm Al's boy or a Bush hater in unfair ways or against having money or anything like that...

Well I said the coverage was out of control and I mean it. I do believe that so I don't really disagree there. That said the story certainly had light shed on it either way....

Well I'm generally sympathetic to issues some presidents dealt with including Carter and Bush (so we're actually similar there) but it isn't unfair to criticize the the man in charge when things go wrong and it's my personal view point as I said earlier that he should be (and in fact it is his job/responsibility to be) more hands at least when compared to more hands off...if you lean towards the more hands off approach I can see how that may reasonably change the analysis.

I don't mind the Obama comment it was a tragedy and he's sympathetic as a leader. I'm sure a number of people will disagree. As for the DOJ...investigations are investigations they aren't inherently bad and they happen a lot with matter of large public concern where injustice may or may not be present. The bottom line, as I see it...is that he should have been arrested and the case should go to trial as it has. Ultimately that's what happened and now whatever the verdict is we accept. I just don't see the issue as political but it is just my opinion. Now it does shed light to stand your ground and that is political if the people of Florida decide the law is ambiguous or otherwise not good policy...but that's a separate discussion. What happened or is happening in that thread is probably everything I despise about this case from both view points but once again I haven't read it. As a side not I'll just add that it is my personal opinion that he should have been arrested (not convicted) soon after and the media attention while out of control on both sides brought the issue to light...something the media is traditionally supposed to do.

lol you are a troll of epic proportions sir I tip my hat

It is too much to read and I'll take you at your word. As far as I known from general society the initial outrage was over the no arrest for so long and right or wrong that is at least credible IMO but as for the case itself it's in court now and that's that.

lol well IDK know anything about that or the Trayvon thread...to honest the law is the law and politicizing this issue is a distraction but that's just my opinion and I recognize both sides have credible arguments of why it's a big deal one way or the other etc...not surprising of all topics that would be one that would have craziness

LOL let us be real probably not. Thing is if you are a civil liberal engaging in civil discussion w/ a civil conservative you'll still be getting snipped at/cheap shots from other conservatives here bashing you and before long you'll be on the defensive against all including the one you originally were civil with.

So the answer is mostly yes even from staunch anti-Obama folk...except in the case of Tom who writes the POTUS a blank check and gives no credit but also no blame for any actions taken in good faith.

mamma says a lot of things...mamma sometimes full of ****

LOL fair enough. But c'mon man...anything that sheds a positive light on his leadership shouldn't be seen as a lie no matter what party you identify with. And in any event, the huge difference between "adding value" and drawing the plan...I mean yes unilaterally doing everything wouldn't be a good idea (although he could do that and then order it to be done) but that just is never the case no president is that idiotic. Point being they should be as involved as they need to be to approve of it..whatever that level of involvement is. The posted article highlights one instance where he was more involved than previous posts thought he should be and it was good. If it was bad and he said only take 2 helicopters and original plan called for 4...that would be bad. But it was good. It's his call. President is the President. Bleh...still don't see how anyone can say this.

Well it's not really fair to attack his statement with that b/c he clearly was not talking about state action. The better argument is just to point out that what he's really opposed to is the 13th amendment which requires no state action and bans not only slavery/involuntary servitude but "badges and incidents" thereof (like racial discrimination in housing)....and then of course Commerce Clause does destroy things further for any argument on behalf of that idea. The "state being able to discriminate" is not more interesting lol that's cut and dry...the private right to discriminate is the more interesting argument although it's a clear cut loser as well.

LOL I think I went into the facebook thread a bit. GAy marriage and Trayvon threads? If you go in there you deserve whatever you get/read. The Trayvon thing is so stupid on both sides and Gay Marriage is just the most retarded issue of our time. If you discuss the very issues MEANT to distract and divide people don't be surprised when retarded discussion comes out of it.

I have had fairly "normal" discussions with some people here about things we disagree on. Rob's House w/ insurance most recently but a few other things in the past as well.

Believe it or not if does happen here from time to time.

B/c of the far right obviously :)

I'm no implying the President should sit down and plan every little thing but the "world of difference" is an overstatement IMO... look it's being involved. You are the Commander in Chief, you're the Chief Executive, you are the head boss mofo in charge. You get involved to the point that you need to in order to have the plan be something you are ready to go forward with (whatever that point may be).

In re: "knowing what you are doing" ... if you don't know what you are doing you shouldn't be interfering and if you don't know what you don't know you shouldn't be POTUS. That said for what it is worth (I'm sure most people here already know/have seen this and it's probably in this thread somewhere anyway): http://swampland.time.com/2011/05/03/obama-pushed-for-fight-your-way-out-option-in-bin-laden-raid/#ixzz1LKNgqtJu A senior U.S. military official Monday credited President Obama for having a prominent role in pushing and shaping the plan to get Osama bin Laden. “In the final weeks and really months of this, his personal interest and direction and attention pushed the case to a new level that enabled real action,” the official told reporters. “And I think that role is quite important.” On Tuesday, White House officials began to offer more details on exactly how Obama had shaped the final assault plan. In particular, the President, they said, urged the Pentagon to revisit the number of helicopters it planned to bring into Pakistani airspace on the mission. One of those extra helicopters later played a role in the mission. The president made his concerns known in a briefing about 10 days before the assault on the bin Laden compound. According to senior aides, Obama felt that the special operations COA, or course of action, was too risky. Under the COA at that time, only two helicopters would enter Pakistani airspace, leaving little backup if something went wrong. “I don’t want you to plan for an option that doesn’t allow you to fight your way out,” the President told operational planners at the meeting, according to the notes of one participant. So the plan was revised. Ultimately, four helicopters flew into Pakistani airspace, including two refueling helicopters that carried additional personnel. In the end, the extra forces didn’t need to fight their way out of the compound, but a backup helicopter did play a key role in the operation. One of the two primary assault helicopters, an HH-60 Pave Hawk lost its lift, landed hard and had to be destroyed. The backup landed to lift its passengers to safety. “The President created the ‘fight your way out’ option,” explained an administration official. Long story short this was important, he directly supervised it, and in the end he added value not only by making sure there was accountability but even by overseeing the revision of the COA and directly adding value to the logistics of the operation.

When it comes to the big stuff and certainly when it comes to missions like the one that actually did get Osama where we send people on foot into places we shouldn't be...IMO the President should exercise direct personal oversight. And generally speaking the further removed a lot of these "modern war on terror" decisions are from that office the worse off we are as a people. This isn't traditional war I mean in a full scale invasion against another army and stuff...that isn't what I'm talking about or what we will likely deal with anytime soon (hopefully). To just say "get Osama wherever he is I delegate it" or "shoot drone missiles at terrorists wherever they are I delegate it to you military man"....it has to be more than that and it has to be significantly more than that. He has to know and he should know every time where/who/how IMO. It ultimately comes down to accountability.

Pakistan is a country divided ... it's a difficult question the degree to which the anti-America sentiment is fostered by this compared to the degree to which it actually helps the pro-US forces within the government argue "see...we don't want to end up like the Taliban or Iran (w/ economic sanctions) etc" ... either way there is no doubt that the portions of internal power in Pakistan and certainly their military are friendly to the forces we are at war with ... while drone strikes may be used to foster anti-US propaganda among the common people and cause collateral damage to them occasionally I can't say that those things outweigh the benefits we get in killing terrorists and bolstering the pro-US forces within the government by showing our strength and commitment to to destroying the bad guys...I have to say if we just left and said **** it the more reasonable forces in the Pakistan would be ousted long before the unreasonable.