8. Formitable opponent
by nutsco101
Stop Cornyn diary
on how Cornyn did not attend Lady Bird's funeral.
Reminds me of when that other idiot republican Clayton
Williams was running against Ann Richards. He thought he was
going to beat her. Then this happened.
“
In 1990, wealthy oil magnate Clayton Williams was the
Republican nominee in the election for Governor of Texas. His
opponent was State Treasurer Ann Richards, who had been dogged
during the Democratic primary by her own admissions of
alcoholism and unanswered questions about her marijuana use.
Fueled by the controversy, as well as bouyed by the millions
of dollars Williams had spent from his own personal fortune
on advertising, Williams enjoyed a significant lead over
Richards in the polls.
then came March. Some journalists were at Williams’ ranch to
watch a cattle roping exhibition that was taking place, but
Mother Nature had not cooperated. Gray skies and rain delayed
the event, and a restless Williams began joking with the
reporters about the weather– one of the few topics that a
politician can usually speak freely about. With cameras
rolling, a grinning Williams casually let this little beauty
slip:
bad weather is like rape: if it’s inevitable, you might as
well relax and enjoy it.”
I would like to build a house and live in the quietness of
the pause that must’ve followed that remark– that brief
second while everyone’s brain temporarily suspends all other
operations and devotes its full resources to verifying that
their ears had correctly heard and transmitted what was said.
The comment made national news that night, but despite the
furor that expectedly followed, unapologetic good old boy
Williams didn’t have the good sense to disclaim it. (If
anything, he reveled in his image as an immature playboy:
some months later, he fondly reminisced to journalists about
his trips as a young man crossing the border to pick up
Mexican prostitutes.) Williams may have been counting on the
short memory of voters, figuring that the outrage over his
joke would dissipate before the November election.
Unfortunately, the comment had a brief but stinging coda a
week before the election, when a convicted rapist repeated
Williams’ line in court during his sentencing.
Richards won the election by only 100,000 votes, having
received a record number of votes from women. Williams
returned to his corporate duties, never to darken the
political scene again.
We saw the writing on the wall > Call it poetic justice or
political Justice. Call it Lady Bird handing us another gift
apart
from her magnificant flowers.
My point is don’t ever ever insult our Texas Women.Don’t
disrepect them in any way.Don’t discount them and don’t
ignore them. There will be serious consequences.
Alert
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
Anton Haley (53 posts) 
Mon Jul-16-07 03:34 AM
Response to Reply #8
11. That is an excellent point....
# Voted NO on establishing a Guest Worker program. (May 2006)
# Voted NO on allowing illegal aliens to participate in Social Security. (May 2006)
# Voted NO on giving Guest Workers a path to citizenship. (May 2006)
Junior John is a yes man for big oil, big business and outsourcing offshore.
* Voted NO on repealing tax subsidy for companies which move US jobs offshore. (Mar 2005)
* Voted YES on reforming bankruptcy to include means-testing & restrictions. (Mar 2005)
* Rated 100% by the US COC, indicating a pro-business voting record. (Dec 2003)
* Drill in Alaska; oppose global warming treaties. (Jun 2002)
* Voted NO on disallowing an oil leasing program in Alaska's AMWR. (Nov 2005)
* Voted NO on $3.1B for emergency oil assistance for hurricane-hit areas. (Oct 2005)
* Voted NO on reducing oil usage by 40% by 2025 (instead of 5%). (Jun 2005)
* Voted NO on banning drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. (Mar 2005)
* Voted YES on Bush Administration Energy Policy. (Jul 2003)
* Voted NO on targeting 100,000 hydrogen-powered vehicles by 2010. (Jun 2003)
* Voted NO on removing consideration of drilling ANWR from budget bill. (Mar 2003)
Junior John on Abortion & Same Sex Marriage
* Voted NO on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives. (Mar 2005)
* Voted YES on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime. (Mar 2004)
* Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions except for maternal life. (Mar 2003)
* Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)
* Voted YES on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage. (Jun 2006)
Junior John on public education
* Competition would help improve our public schools. (Jun 2002)
* Voted NO on $52M for "21st century community learning centers". (Oct 2005)
* Voted NO on $5B for grants to local educational agencies. (Oct 2005)
* Voted NO on shifting $11B from corporate tax loopholes to education. (Mar 2005)
* Rated 27% by the NEA, indicating anti-public education votes. (Dec 2003)
Junior John on JOBS
* Voted YES on raising the minimum wage to $7.25 rather than $6.25. (Mar 2005)
* Rated 0% by the AFL-CIO, indicating an anti-union voting record. (Dec 2003)
Junior John on the WAR
* Voted NO on redeploying troops out of Iraq by July 2007. (Jun 2006)
* Voted NO on investigating contract awards in Iraq & Afghanistan. (Nov 2005)
* Voted NO on requiring on-budget funding for Iraq, not emergency funding. (Apr 2005)
* Voted YES on $86 billion for military operations in Iraq & Afghanistan. (Oct 2003)
....................................................................................................
This is WATT you get from Junior John.
Junior John Had His Chance,..... He Screwed Up!
Now all he can do is "relax and enjoy it"."For the Lord will not forsake his people; he will not abandon his heritage; for justice will return to the righteous, and all the upright in heart will follow it."
Sunday, July 15, 2007
Junior John's most formidable opponents will be Texas Women
Friday, July 13, 2007
........all these awesome people that are doing awesome things in the community .......
New nonprofit raises $170K to help sick kids
By Heather Ann White (Contact)
Saturday, July 7, 2007
Heather Ann White/Caller-Times The Ready or Not Foundation: Jackie Black's Search to End Brain Cancer billboard displayed on Interstate 37 pictures Jackie, who has brain cancer.
Heather Ann White/Caller-Times
The Ready or Not Foundation: Jackie Black's Search to End Brain Cancer billboard displayed on Interstate 37 pictures Jackie, who has brain cancer.
Canales created the organization in her daughter's name.
CORPUS CHRISTI — Just like her daughter, Barbara Canales has covered a lot of ground in little time.
Canales, inspired by her 8-year-old daughter Jackie Black, started a pediatric brain cancer organization in May -- the Ready or Not Foundation: Jackie Black's Search to End Brain Cancer. The charity has collected $170,000 in two months by raising money in Corpus Christi, Houston and the Rio Grande Valley.
"It has been an amazing two months," Canales said.
The organization has pledged to raise $500,000 in its first three years. If the group meets its goal, the Texas Children's Cancer Center in Houston will match the funds.
The organization gives all of its donations to the Texas Children's Cancer Center, one of the largest pediatric cancer centers in the U.S., for research on high-grade pediatric brain cancers and immunotherapy.
Jackie was diagnosed with a Grade III anaplastic astrocytoma, a star-shaped malignant tumor in the brain tissue, when she was 6. The Incarnate Word Academy student, who had shown no symptoms, was taken to the hospital after playing hide-and-seek with friends and bumping her head on a tree. Doctors found the tumor during an MRI. She later went through radiation, chemotherapy and two craniectomies -- a procedure in which part of the cranium or skull is removed. Ninety-nine percent of the tumor was removed.
This month, she will have her quarterly MRI to check for returning cancer. She also will have another operation to correct double vision that she has incurred as a side effect of previous surgeries. Despite those obstacles, Jackie's the playful, outgoing girl she always has been.
"Jackie's doing great," her mother said. "Her favorite game is still hide and seek. She's my littlest warrior. She's amazing."
Brain cancer is the most common cancer among children, recently outpacing leukemia, according to the American Cancer Society. About 3,200 central nervous system tumors are diagnosed a year in children younger than 20 in the U.S., and 50 percent of patients with childhood brain tumors survive longer than five years following treatment.
"You know, Jackie's brother asked with Jackie in earshot, 'Do we have to keep going to the doctor in Houston? Can cancer come back?' And I was too afraid to lie," Canales said. "Yes, it can come back. It has a high chance of coming back, and she heard that. She hasn't cried in a long time, but she did when she heard that. That's what our family lives with. But we're not in this just to get Jackie better. We're in this to help other children who haven't been as fortunate as Jackie."
The group, which includes about 50 members and volunteers, also has raised an additional $50,000 to underwrite administrative costs, Canales said.
"This is really unique in the charity world," she said. "The cost of business always cuts into donations. I wanted to promise everybody that 100 percent of their donation would go to pediatric research."
The organization has collected funds through fashion shows, dinners, luncheons and the mail.
Canales also has solicited the help of a California-based jewelry maker who has designed earrings for the organization. They can be found at Corpus Christi's Goosefeathers boutique on Alameda Street.
"They're gorgeous," Canales said. "They're our colors -- green and white -- and we receive 25 percent of the proceeds."
The earrings, at $168, are made by Stephanie Wells, who has designed earrings for Oprah Winfrey, Canales said.
Canales is hoping to start a national movement with the organization, she said, and get celebrities involved. She is attending a meeting in Hollywood this month to share her ideas.
"Right now there is no national movement -- no force to be reckoned with like (the breast cancer awareness program) Go Pink," she said. "There are all these awesome people that are doing awesome things in the community but I want to spark something that can run across all 50 states."
Canales has started a merchandise line that includes high-quality clothing. The apparel and other items are available at fundraising events and soon will be offered online at the organization's Web site, which should be operational in two weeks, Canales said. The Web site, which has only an e-mail address, has received hundreds of hits. As a result, Canales has received hundreds of e-mails, letters and donations channeled through the site. The support mainly comes from families who are going through similar situations.
"It's people reaching out. They've had a son, daughter, brother, sister, mother, father who have had cancer -- a brain tumor," she said. "Our job is to remind everybody this is about children. Tag, you're it. There is a child out there hearing a terrible prognosis and you're the one who can help."
Contact Heather Ann White at 886-3794 or whiteh@caller.com
Ready or Not Foundation: Jackie Blacks Search to End Brain Cancer
What: Ready or Not Foundation Luncheon, 100 Reasons to Give: 100 Women Ready To Make A Difference
When: 11:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. Aug. 24
Where: V Boutique Hotel, 701 N. Water St. on the second floor
Information: www.readyornotfoundation.org; Matt Stevens 779-0338 or e-mail mstevens1@stx.rr.com
View latest stories with comments »
By Heather Ann White (Contact)
Saturday, July 7, 2007
Heather Ann White/Caller-Times The Ready or Not Foundation: Jackie Black's Search to End Brain Cancer billboard displayed on Interstate 37 pictures Jackie, who has brain cancer.
Heather Ann White/Caller-Times
The Ready or Not Foundation: Jackie Black's Search to End Brain Cancer billboard displayed on Interstate 37 pictures Jackie, who has brain cancer.
Canales created the organization in her daughter's name.
CORPUS CHRISTI — Just like her daughter, Barbara Canales has covered a lot of ground in little time.
Canales, inspired by her 8-year-old daughter Jackie Black, started a pediatric brain cancer organization in May -- the Ready or Not Foundation: Jackie Black's Search to End Brain Cancer. The charity has collected $170,000 in two months by raising money in Corpus Christi, Houston and the Rio Grande Valley.
"It has been an amazing two months," Canales said.
The organization has pledged to raise $500,000 in its first three years. If the group meets its goal, the Texas Children's Cancer Center in Houston will match the funds.
The organization gives all of its donations to the Texas Children's Cancer Center, one of the largest pediatric cancer centers in the U.S., for research on high-grade pediatric brain cancers and immunotherapy.
Jackie was diagnosed with a Grade III anaplastic astrocytoma, a star-shaped malignant tumor in the brain tissue, when she was 6. The Incarnate Word Academy student, who had shown no symptoms, was taken to the hospital after playing hide-and-seek with friends and bumping her head on a tree. Doctors found the tumor during an MRI. She later went through radiation, chemotherapy and two craniectomies -- a procedure in which part of the cranium or skull is removed. Ninety-nine percent of the tumor was removed.
This month, she will have her quarterly MRI to check for returning cancer. She also will have another operation to correct double vision that she has incurred as a side effect of previous surgeries. Despite those obstacles, Jackie's the playful, outgoing girl she always has been.
"Jackie's doing great," her mother said. "Her favorite game is still hide and seek. She's my littlest warrior. She's amazing."
Brain cancer is the most common cancer among children, recently outpacing leukemia, according to the American Cancer Society. About 3,200 central nervous system tumors are diagnosed a year in children younger than 20 in the U.S., and 50 percent of patients with childhood brain tumors survive longer than five years following treatment.
"You know, Jackie's brother asked with Jackie in earshot, 'Do we have to keep going to the doctor in Houston? Can cancer come back?' And I was too afraid to lie," Canales said. "Yes, it can come back. It has a high chance of coming back, and she heard that. She hasn't cried in a long time, but she did when she heard that. That's what our family lives with. But we're not in this just to get Jackie better. We're in this to help other children who haven't been as fortunate as Jackie."
The group, which includes about 50 members and volunteers, also has raised an additional $50,000 to underwrite administrative costs, Canales said.
"This is really unique in the charity world," she said. "The cost of business always cuts into donations. I wanted to promise everybody that 100 percent of their donation would go to pediatric research."
The organization has collected funds through fashion shows, dinners, luncheons and the mail.
Canales also has solicited the help of a California-based jewelry maker who has designed earrings for the organization. They can be found at Corpus Christi's Goosefeathers boutique on Alameda Street.
"They're gorgeous," Canales said. "They're our colors -- green and white -- and we receive 25 percent of the proceeds."
The earrings, at $168, are made by Stephanie Wells, who has designed earrings for Oprah Winfrey, Canales said.
Canales is hoping to start a national movement with the organization, she said, and get celebrities involved. She is attending a meeting in Hollywood this month to share her ideas.
"Right now there is no national movement -- no force to be reckoned with like (the breast cancer awareness program) Go Pink," she said. "There are all these awesome people that are doing awesome things in the community but I want to spark something that can run across all 50 states."
Canales has started a merchandise line that includes high-quality clothing. The apparel and other items are available at fundraising events and soon will be offered online at the organization's Web site, which should be operational in two weeks, Canales said. The Web site, which has only an e-mail address, has received hundreds of hits. As a result, Canales has received hundreds of e-mails, letters and donations channeled through the site. The support mainly comes from families who are going through similar situations.
"It's people reaching out. They've had a son, daughter, brother, sister, mother, father who have had cancer -- a brain tumor," she said. "Our job is to remind everybody this is about children. Tag, you're it. There is a child out there hearing a terrible prognosis and you're the one who can help."
Contact Heather Ann White at 886-3794 or whiteh@caller.com
Ready or Not Foundation: Jackie Blacks Search to End Brain Cancer
What: Ready or Not Foundation Luncheon, 100 Reasons to Give: 100 Women Ready To Make A Difference
When: 11:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. Aug. 24
Where: V Boutique Hotel, 701 N. Water St. on the second floor
Information: www.readyornotfoundation.org; Matt Stevens 779-0338 or e-mail mstevens1@stx.rr.com
View latest stories with comments »
Friday, January 05, 2007
Barbara Ann Radnofsky ...............
December 29, 2006
A decorated World War II Navy veteran, President Gerald Ford led a rich life with love of family and service to his country. His pardon of Richard Nixon was a thoughtful exercise in healing and moving on. It was controversial at the time, but allowed the country to rapidly move forward. He weighed the advantages and disadvantage of the pardon of President Nixon. Richard Nixon, for all his scandalous political behavior, was also a leader who weighed risk and benefit. In foreign policy, he moved us forward. He weighed advantage and disadvantage and risk, including risk of reaching out to China, risk of implementing "Vietnamization", which would decrease U.S. trooop involvement in Vietnam, and the risk of cutting U.S. troop levels, as he did in 1972. Before President Nixon, President Johnson's administration had great difficulty prioritizing risk, in part due to disorganization, according to his defense secretary in his retrospective analysis. But the Johnson Administration weighed relative risk and decided that thwarting the perceived great risk of Communism spread was worth the cost of the escalating Vietnam War.
In December 1967, with over 485,000 U.S. troops in Vietnam, and 15,979 killed in action, CIA reports indicated bombing in the North would not force North Vietnam to stop, given U.S. inability to turn back the enemy in South Vietnam.
Former Defense Secretary McNamara conceded (pg. 320-321, In Retrospect) three prior occasions where the SVN inability to defend itself, even with U.S. training and support, justified withdrawal. Instead, the administration insisted on increasing troops. Over the next five years, more than 40,000 additional U.S. troops were killed in action. In the conclusion to his 1995 "In Retrospect" McNamara speaks of the Johnson Administration's judgments: "...hindsight proves us wrong. We both overestimated the effect of South Vietnam's loss on the security of the West and failed to adhere to the fundamental principle that, in the final analysis, if the South Vietnamese were to be saved, they had to win the war themselves. Straying from this central truth, we built a progressively more massive effort on an inherently unstable foundation. External military force cannot substitute for the political order and stability that must be forged by a people for themselves."
Can the U.S. withdraw from Iraq now? Yes. Let the decision makers save face. Let's just say we won, and leave.
In the absence of a perfect world and perfect solutions, decision makers must weigh relative risk of staying or leaving.
But we have an extraordinary situation where the vice president has been publicly and repeatedly quoted as refusing to prioritize risk of terroristic attack. He maintains a huge mental barrier against assigning relative levels to risk and prioritizing by various criteria, including severity of consequences. And the President seeks advice from only those who will agree with a course of increasing, not decreasing troops. He is not a risk-assessor.
This is not a case of stubbornness any more than it is some manly resolve or honest political/military assessment. This is a psychological problem of immense proportion. It's a me-centered child's view mediators often see in negotiations involving powerful people who are accustomed to limitless resources. "Our resources are infinite and we will throw our efforts at each and every risk or problem." No limits, no priorities. Thus, a fraction of one percent risk receives the resources that a clear and present 95 or even 100 percent risk deserves. The greater risk, (in probability and in severity) was not noticed before the smaller risk. In the child's mind, the first problem deserves all attention, all resources at hand, with the hopeful child-like optimism that more resources will always be available. This is a perfect world, Pollyanna view of infinite resources. Perhaps, as children, the decision makers received everything they ever wanted with little struggle or resource allocation.
Reassessing risk is just as important. When new or rising risk is ignored, receiving a zero rating (impending hurricane, terror rise in Somalia) and the dreadful event then comes about, leaders who cannot make initial risk assessments are reluctant to reassess. Child like, they always see reassessment as acknowledging a mistake. They don't wish to admit fallibility. They find it difficult to say I was wrong, failing to understand that changed conditions warrant changed assessments, regardless of blame or mistake.
The solution:
1. Get the attention of the actors who make decisions. They won't change their thinking, ingrained from childhood.
Since they won't assess relative risk of actual conditions and debate the assignment of priorities, use attention getting devices. In the current political world, the attention getting devices are polls, media and contributions. These dovetail nicely with our democracy. Political activism, responding to polls, voting and letting the media know opinions are not the fruitless endeavors so many people envision. Teach our children activism while teaching them that resources are limited. Public financing of campaigns would diminish the effect of those who buy favorable risk assessment.
2. Let them save face.
Once a decision is affected, guarantee the decision maker his ability to save face. Declare that the reassessment of risk is due to changed conditions, not mistake. If an actor doesn't wish to ever admit mistakes, don't make him. Just let him entertain the notion that conditions have changed, so the risk must be assessed. Or, allow him the declaration of condition that allows the decision change. Historians in the future can take care of the accuracy of those declarations.
So, let's just say we won and withdraw from Iraq. Declare there are no WMD. Declare that successful democratic elections were held. Declare that the deposed leader has been convicted and sentenced.
And as we leave, watch as the tensions and differences emerge between forces, kept at bay before we invaded. Use our withdrawal to bring together the potentially powerful coalition and partners who've been calling for withdrawal.
3. Teach our children and grandchildren how to assess risk.
How can every citizen push to elect leaders who are willing to assess, and reassess risk? For our children and their children, we recognize the world is forever changed by millions of people whose lives have now been affected by the U.S. invasion and presence in Iraq. And the risk must be continuously reassessed. How will we raise a crop of new leaders who understand risk assessment? Let's teach our children and grandchildren that resources are limited. The rest will follow: a generation of ethical decision makers who can make rational, risk based decisions.
Barbara Ann Radnofsky
email: katie.floyd@radnofsky.com
phone: 713-858-9391
web: http://www.radnofsky.com
A decorated World War II Navy veteran, President Gerald Ford led a rich life with love of family and service to his country. His pardon of Richard Nixon was a thoughtful exercise in healing and moving on. It was controversial at the time, but allowed the country to rapidly move forward. He weighed the advantages and disadvantage of the pardon of President Nixon. Richard Nixon, for all his scandalous political behavior, was also a leader who weighed risk and benefit. In foreign policy, he moved us forward. He weighed advantage and disadvantage and risk, including risk of reaching out to China, risk of implementing "Vietnamization", which would decrease U.S. trooop involvement in Vietnam, and the risk of cutting U.S. troop levels, as he did in 1972. Before President Nixon, President Johnson's administration had great difficulty prioritizing risk, in part due to disorganization, according to his defense secretary in his retrospective analysis. But the Johnson Administration weighed relative risk and decided that thwarting the perceived great risk of Communism spread was worth the cost of the escalating Vietnam War.
In December 1967, with over 485,000 U.S. troops in Vietnam, and 15,979 killed in action, CIA reports indicated bombing in the North would not force North Vietnam to stop, given U.S. inability to turn back the enemy in South Vietnam.
Former Defense Secretary McNamara conceded (pg. 320-321, In Retrospect) three prior occasions where the SVN inability to defend itself, even with U.S. training and support, justified withdrawal. Instead, the administration insisted on increasing troops. Over the next five years, more than 40,000 additional U.S. troops were killed in action. In the conclusion to his 1995 "In Retrospect" McNamara speaks of the Johnson Administration's judgments: "...hindsight proves us wrong. We both overestimated the effect of South Vietnam's loss on the security of the West and failed to adhere to the fundamental principle that, in the final analysis, if the South Vietnamese were to be saved, they had to win the war themselves. Straying from this central truth, we built a progressively more massive effort on an inherently unstable foundation. External military force cannot substitute for the political order and stability that must be forged by a people for themselves."
Can the U.S. withdraw from Iraq now? Yes. Let the decision makers save face. Let's just say we won, and leave.
In the absence of a perfect world and perfect solutions, decision makers must weigh relative risk of staying or leaving.
But we have an extraordinary situation where the vice president has been publicly and repeatedly quoted as refusing to prioritize risk of terroristic attack. He maintains a huge mental barrier against assigning relative levels to risk and prioritizing by various criteria, including severity of consequences. And the President seeks advice from only those who will agree with a course of increasing, not decreasing troops. He is not a risk-assessor.
This is not a case of stubbornness any more than it is some manly resolve or honest political/military assessment. This is a psychological problem of immense proportion. It's a me-centered child's view mediators often see in negotiations involving powerful people who are accustomed to limitless resources. "Our resources are infinite and we will throw our efforts at each and every risk or problem." No limits, no priorities. Thus, a fraction of one percent risk receives the resources that a clear and present 95 or even 100 percent risk deserves. The greater risk, (in probability and in severity) was not noticed before the smaller risk. In the child's mind, the first problem deserves all attention, all resources at hand, with the hopeful child-like optimism that more resources will always be available. This is a perfect world, Pollyanna view of infinite resources. Perhaps, as children, the decision makers received everything they ever wanted with little struggle or resource allocation.
Reassessing risk is just as important. When new or rising risk is ignored, receiving a zero rating (impending hurricane, terror rise in Somalia) and the dreadful event then comes about, leaders who cannot make initial risk assessments are reluctant to reassess. Child like, they always see reassessment as acknowledging a mistake. They don't wish to admit fallibility. They find it difficult to say I was wrong, failing to understand that changed conditions warrant changed assessments, regardless of blame or mistake.
The solution:
1. Get the attention of the actors who make decisions. They won't change their thinking, ingrained from childhood.
Since they won't assess relative risk of actual conditions and debate the assignment of priorities, use attention getting devices. In the current political world, the attention getting devices are polls, media and contributions. These dovetail nicely with our democracy. Political activism, responding to polls, voting and letting the media know opinions are not the fruitless endeavors so many people envision. Teach our children activism while teaching them that resources are limited. Public financing of campaigns would diminish the effect of those who buy favorable risk assessment.
2. Let them save face.
Once a decision is affected, guarantee the decision maker his ability to save face. Declare that the reassessment of risk is due to changed conditions, not mistake. If an actor doesn't wish to ever admit mistakes, don't make him. Just let him entertain the notion that conditions have changed, so the risk must be assessed. Or, allow him the declaration of condition that allows the decision change. Historians in the future can take care of the accuracy of those declarations.
So, let's just say we won and withdraw from Iraq. Declare there are no WMD. Declare that successful democratic elections were held. Declare that the deposed leader has been convicted and sentenced.
And as we leave, watch as the tensions and differences emerge between forces, kept at bay before we invaded. Use our withdrawal to bring together the potentially powerful coalition and partners who've been calling for withdrawal.
3. Teach our children and grandchildren how to assess risk.
How can every citizen push to elect leaders who are willing to assess, and reassess risk? For our children and their children, we recognize the world is forever changed by millions of people whose lives have now been affected by the U.S. invasion and presence in Iraq. And the risk must be continuously reassessed. How will we raise a crop of new leaders who understand risk assessment? Let's teach our children and grandchildren that resources are limited. The rest will follow: a generation of ethical decision makers who can make rational, risk based decisions.
Barbara Ann Radnofsky
email: katie.floyd@radnofsky.com
phone: 713-858-9391
web: http://www.radnofsky.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)