>> Robert Munn wrote: >> What qualifies this guy as a serious source for analysis?
>What qualifies anyone? How do you become a foreign policy expert? >Historical knowledge doesn't make you an expert. Look at Dougals >Feith, the architect of the Iraq post-war strategy: General Franks >called him "the stupidest f'ing guy on the planet" and rightly so. How do you become an expert in anything? You get an education, that's how. Then you get professional experience. You work in the State Department, you work at one of the top international relations schools in the country, you work at a think-tank. Like with any other profession, there is an established career path for people interested in foreign policy. The State Department recruits people for the Foreign Service principally out of Tufts University's Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Georgetown's School of Foreign Service, and the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. People who go into the Foreign Service, for instance, don't just know history. They speak multiple languages, they know culture, religion, sociology, politics, law. I know this because I considered going into the Foreign Service. I have an undergraduate degree in Classics and Spanish Literature from Tufts. I worked in Washington, DC in the energy industry taking politicians, heads of companies, and other people from the former Soviet states on tours of US energy companies in the early 90's. I considered working for the Ministry of Energy in Ukraine, which I would have followed up by going to the Fletcher School. I speak Spanish, some Russian, and I could easily pick up any other language I need to learn. I say all this to demonstrate the high quality of people that choose to go into this profession, because everyone that goes into the Foreign Service has similar credentials. Douglas Feith, I would point out, is a political appointee, not a professional DoD or DoS guy. You never know what you get with a political appointee. >The reason celebraties get news coverage is because they've done >something that's made them successful and, therefore, role models. >Since they've been able to captivate us (or some of us) we want to >know what they think about the issues of the day. Sure, he's a role model for the lowest common denominator in our society, but I'm not teaching my daughter to emulate people like Eminem. >For the majority of 20th century, for example, scientists were looked >upon for advice on foreign affairs, philosopy, and religion. That >disappeared in the 80s and we started asking CEOs those questions. In >the 90s we added entertainers. Science isn't cool anymore - at least >not to Mr. Bush and his supporters which seem to be 50% of the >country. > >I'd vote for going back to asking scientists - Let's ask Stephen >Hawking or Brian Greene what they think about Mr. Bush and the issues >of the day and cover that as hard news. I agree that science is out of vogue for some people. I wouldn't look to scientists for guidance on politics, but I would certainly give a scientist, or any highly educated person, more credence than other people. I think you are over-simplifying to say that 50% of the country, Bush's supporters, think science isn't cool. It only looks like 50% because of our two-party system. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Purchase from House of Fusion, a Macromedia Authorized Affiliate and support the CF community. http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=38 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:132457 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
