AppId is over the quota
Not long ago, I watched an interesting video on the CFR YouTube channel and it was an interview with the famous Senator Barney Franks who was talking about downsizing the military. He was explaining both sides of the argument from his view - his talking points, and what he believed to be the other side to have as theirs - thus, he was stating the opposition's case, and then defeating that argument. Never mind the fact with all the mixed metaphors and blizzard of hypocrisy they were opposition points that few in the real world would consider legitimate.
Basically, it was a debate by himself and of course he was winning. CFR (The Council on Foreign Relations) was careful to treat him with respect and let him give his talk. Still, this Don Quixote approach to foreign affairs, US military strength, and Federal Budget issues had me thinking that such a high-ranking Senator in all the right committees should have been on the top of his game if he is to serve at that level. This isn't the first time I've seen this with CFR, and I suspect far from the last.
For instance, there have been interesting debates in Foreign Affairs, with the same basic motif. Still in my view, it might make sense to actually find someone who really believes in the alternate point of view and can back up facts rather debating against false-arguments. That just makes things look cheesy. The media does this far too often, why emulate what doesn't work, it resembles more of an angry political think tank rogue blogger who couldn't make the grade and now feels all left out so they drive chaos and controversy to no avail. CFR should take the high-road or it will have little effect except being able to claim that it has friends in high-places.
Recently, I've begun calling CFR "The Council on Foreign Appeasement" and often that title is deserved, although sometimes I just use it for humor, so it's something everyone there should be thinking about. There are some principles that it's just not okay to relinquish in order to maintain the ears of folks who are just waiting for you to turn your back - so the appeasement factor, may look like temporary progress, but even if you have a secondary chess move, CFR just ends up with egg on their face.
So, standing on principles is good, agree to disagree more, not to the point of making Tsunami waves, creating animosity, or worse enemies, that serves no purpose, but standing firm on at least certain ideals that all "humans on the planet" are concerned about and for the principles of the United States; freedom and liberty. I see a lot of excuse making going on as to why it was the best policy to appease; to say this, that, or the other thing with CFR members and those they invite to speak. Nevertheless; accountability is important, excuses not so much.
Finally, I think that when CFR has folks sit in discussion sessions and puts those on YouTube, especially bureaucrats, CFR needs to consider that all this buzz-word jargon, and big word games which go on for minutes on end, aren't fooling anyone. The director of Homeland Security is notorious for this, but so too are other bureaucrats running huge Federal Agencies. It's rather obvious that a good chunk of folks are way in over their heads and are unfit to lead, and all they have going for them is the "nice speech" syndrome.
There is a difference between BS and knowing what one is doing. I really don't see CFR as uplifting its own status by allowing the political rhetoric to stand without challenging them, anyone can make things sound good, there's just too much talk, too many bureaucrat meetings, and far too much incompetence, yes, they are only humans, but this is the US and we are better than that.
CFR should hold everyone accountable and challenge them more, it gets somewhat pathetic to listen to everyone agree all the time, and merely re-identify all the problems that everyone already knows, and then for these folks to make excuses about why things are "Complicated" and therefore they can't fix it - leaves viewers shaking their heads more often than not. Who knows maybe CFR just wants to uplift their credibility by getting political celebrities to talk, but too often, everyone looks stupid.
Indeed, I hope you've enjoyed this case study, as there may be 100s more in the future just like this one.
Lance Winslow has launched a new provocative series of eBooks on 2012 US Politics. Lance Winslow is a retired Founder of a Nationwide Franchise Chain, and now runs the Online Think Tank; http://www.worldthinktank.net/
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar