a letter to undecided voters (from my roommates)
on
Pre-Election Discussion
·
· Score: 1, Informative
Hey all,
My roommates here at Harvard spent hours and hours this weekend doing research and writing a letter to undecided voters (especially in swing states). Since they spent so much time on this letter, I thought I'd pass it along to slashdot and see what all of you thought of it (and of course, please do pass it along to anyone you think would benefit from reading it). Hope all of you have a good week, and go vote!
-Sheel
What follows is a letter to undecided voters, expressing our belief that there are certain important members of the Bush administration whose critiques need to be heard. These people have made important statements that cannot be missed by anyone that wants to get the whole picture about this election.
Please send this to any undecided voters you know. The election is approaching fast, and we appreciate any help you can provide.
We're writing this letter to any person who is still undecided about this election and anyone who is willing to reflect upon the issues that will decide their vote. There are all kinds of partisan voices out there that are trying to convince you to vote their way. We're just as sick of this stuff as you are, but in the course of reading about the major issues of this campaign we've come upon a number of voices that have convinced us precisely because their arguments have nothing to do with partisanship. Their statements present verifiable fact, grounded in expertise. These authorities have informed our decision to vote against George W. Bush. However, we're not here to convince you that our decision is the right one. We want to encourage you to be aware of what these people have said, whatever effect it has on your vote. We believe it is a great responsibility for every voter to be well-informed before casting his or her vote.
The experts we cite, like Richard Clarke, General Eric Shinseki, and Greg Thielmann, are authorities on national security. They all worked in the Bush administration, and many have since left government service. All have made statements that contradict Bush policies in a fundamental way. We haven't included just anyone who quit the administration and who dislikes Bush's policies - there are such people in any administration. The people we've included are the experts on their respective issues, and they all served successfully under other presidents. We encourage you not to take us at our word, but to go to Google News and type in their names for yourself.
Perhaps the most important decision of the Bush administration was to invade Iraq. We're not arguing as to whether or not we should be there - this is not the issue, and we respect whatever position you have on this. The issue is the fundamentally flawed way in which they justified and carried out the war, and not whether democratizing Iraq is worth the cost or whether deposing Saddam Hussein has made us safer.
In the time leading up to the decision to invade, Greg Thielmann was acting director of the Office of Strategic Proliferation and Military Affairs, which was responsible for analyzing the Iraqi weapons threat for Colin Powell and the State Department. Thielmann served for 25 years in the State Department's Foreign Service.
In a PBS interview, Thielmann said, "As reluctant as I am to try to understand the motives of people using the intelligence, my bottom line on this subject is that while the intelligence community did not do a good job, in my view, in being very careful to be precise for both decision makers and for the American public, the primary blame is in the way that senior officials of the administration made statements -- which I can only describe as dishonest statements -- about the nature of what the intelligence was saying." He also stated, "[A]ll things considered, it's very hard for me to think of any example of systematic, across-the-board exaggeration and misleading statements about an important war and peace subject. Nothing quite matches what I've seen in the Iraqi WMD area in the last coup
I don't think that the percentage of students who eventually earn a PhD is a very accurate or fair characterization of said schools. It certainly speaks well of liberal arts schools, which I completely respect, but I'm at Harvard, and I'd like to think that the energy that I put into what I do (mathematics) will make me happy/successful with my life (and yes, I fully plan to go for the PhD). "Surpassing" can't be measured by who gets a PhD. Also note that PhD's are often dictated by fields of choice, and your list includes many technical schools (and Harvey Mudd, which has all of six majors) and liberal arts schools. Just because Caltech students get so many PhD's doesn't make it a "better school" or make it's students more competitive or anything of the sort--it's simply a function of the fact that many students there do science.
And I'm not sure whether saying a college "produced" a great student out of an average student means much either. Sometimes students just become more motivated in college, and that's great, certainly. And sure, the college has a part in motivating the student. But many students who come to good schools begin motivated, and if they come out motivated, I still think it speaks for the school--it takes a lot to maintain one's motivation.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey all,
My roommates here at Harvard spent hours and hours this weekend doing research and writing a letter to undecided voters (especially in swing states). Since they spent so much time on this letter, I thought I'd pass it along to slashdot and see what all of you thought of it (and of course, please do pass it along to anyone you think would benefit from reading it). Hope all of you have a good week, and go vote!
-Sheel
What follows is a letter to undecided voters, expressing our belief that there are certain important members of the Bush administration whose critiques need to be heard. These people have made important statements that cannot be missed by anyone that wants to get the whole picture about this election.
Please send this to any undecided voters you know. The election is approaching fast, and we appreciate any help you can provide.
We're writing this letter to any person who is still undecided about this election and anyone who is willing to reflect upon the issues that will decide their vote. There are all kinds of partisan voices out there that are trying to convince you to vote their way. We're just as sick of this stuff as you are, but in the course of reading about the major issues of this campaign we've come upon a number of voices that have convinced us precisely because their arguments have nothing to do with partisanship. Their statements present verifiable fact, grounded in expertise. These authorities have informed our decision to vote against George W. Bush. However, we're not here to convince you that our decision is the right one. We want to encourage you to be aware of what these people have said, whatever effect it has on your vote. We believe it is a great responsibility for every voter to be well-informed before casting his or her vote.
The experts we cite, like Richard Clarke, General Eric Shinseki, and Greg Thielmann, are authorities on national security. They all worked in the Bush administration, and many have since left government service. All have made statements that contradict Bush policies in a fundamental way. We haven't included just anyone who quit the administration and who dislikes Bush's policies - there are such people in any administration. The people we've included are the experts on their respective issues, and they all served successfully under other presidents. We encourage you not to take us at our word, but to go to Google News and type in their names for yourself.
Perhaps the most important decision of the Bush administration was to invade Iraq. We're not arguing as to whether or not we should be there - this is not the issue, and we respect whatever position you have on this. The issue is the fundamentally flawed way in which they justified and carried out the war, and not whether democratizing Iraq is worth the cost or whether deposing Saddam Hussein has made us safer.
In the time leading up to the decision to invade, Greg Thielmann was acting director of the Office of Strategic Proliferation and Military Affairs, which was responsible for analyzing the Iraqi weapons threat for Colin Powell and the State Department. Thielmann served for 25 years in the State Department's Foreign Service.
In a PBS interview, Thielmann said, "As reluctant as I am to try to understand the motives of people using the intelligence, my bottom line on this subject is that while the intelligence community did not do a good job, in my view, in being very careful to be precise for both decision makers and for the American public, the primary blame is in the way that senior officials of the administration made statements -- which I can only describe as dishonest statements -- about the nature of what the intelligence was saying." He also stated, "[A]ll things considered, it's very hard for me to think of any example of systematic, across-the-board exaggeration and misleading statements about an important war and peace subject. Nothing quite matches what I've seen in the Iraqi WMD area in the last coup
I don't think that the percentage of students who eventually earn a PhD is a very accurate or fair characterization of said schools. It certainly speaks well of liberal arts schools, which I completely respect, but I'm at Harvard, and I'd like to think that the energy that I put into what I do (mathematics) will make me happy/successful with my life (and yes, I fully plan to go for the PhD). "Surpassing" can't be measured by who gets a PhD. Also note that PhD's are often dictated by fields of choice, and your list includes many technical schools (and Harvey Mudd, which has all of six majors) and liberal arts schools. Just because Caltech students get so many PhD's doesn't make it a "better school" or make it's students more competitive or anything of the sort--it's simply a function of the fact that many students there do science.
And I'm not sure whether saying a college "produced" a great student out of an average student means much either. Sometimes students just become more motivated in college, and that's great, certainly. And sure, the college has a part in motivating the student. But many students who come to good schools begin motivated, and if they come out motivated, I still think it speaks for the school--it takes a lot to maintain one's motivation.