Oh goodness!
I made a poor attempt at writing my policy paper tonight. Do you want to read what I've gotten so far? I think my main problem with writing is that I am pretty good at it, I have been validated in the past for my writing, and so I think there is little wrong with it. And usually, in general, there isn't...but some horrible, specific problems that I've discovered are these: I am terrible at accepting the validity of "no contractions" or other such rules. I think they are silly. Another huge, horrid, looming problem: I am apparently incapable of succinct writing in any way. I have an overly flowery, loquacious style, and I fill up pages with my preamble to my introduction of the topic at hand. I think everything needs an explanation or a backstory, because with me, it usually does. But when it comes to personal statements or statements of policy, is this really what is required? I don't know.
Point is: I am writing a super exciting policy paper, hopefully addressed in tone to the National Security Council, about the current policy in Iraq and towards global terrorism in general. I have my first paragraph done, and if you are up for some silly times, you've come to the right place!!!
The current administration has over the course of the past seven years taken numerous decisive and occasionally controversial policies to combat global terrorism. The design behind these policies has appeared fairly obvious, and even at times transparent-but it would not do to ignore the reasons and rationale that are beneath the surface. In regards to the administration’s current policy in Iraq and against terrorism in general, one could be tempted to make the argument that we must ‘learn from history, lest we repeat our mistakes’. Perhaps those who champion this strategy could pay it a little more notice, and in more depth; the lessons of the past are worth nothing if we do not learn them in depth, and learn the cultural and ideological backgrounds behind them. And indeed, the forward-thinking counterpart to this idea is also true: we must take care to look also towards the future and evaluate conditions based on present and ever-changing conditions, lest we spend too much time looking back at our past and subsequently find ourselves blundering into a future of all new problems. Both the critics of the current administration and the administration itself have been guilty of blindness in one chronological direction or another; both have made the egregious mistake of either misusing or forgetting completely the very recent lessons of US foreign policy post-WWII, and have also compounded this with the overlooking of key ideological lessons from this time period. By drawing poor comparisons, critics have influenced and validated the administration’s mistaken views of itself; through lack of attention to the broad historical picture behind current events, the administration has effectively blinded itself to the causes behind current events, and indeed the correct methods of dealing with them. In addition, the critical failure of most of the parties involved to recognize the importance of evaluating global terrorism as a new threat to be dealt with in new ways has caused grave setbacks.
Oh my goodness I am tired. I seriously thought it was Sunday when my alarm went off this morning. I was so convinced, and then I got all angry that the universe had lied to me about what day it was. It was in general a confusing morning.
Point is: I am writing a super exciting policy paper, hopefully addressed in tone to the National Security Council, about the current policy in Iraq and towards global terrorism in general. I have my first paragraph done, and if you are up for some silly times, you've come to the right place!!!
The current administration has over the course of the past seven years taken numerous decisive and occasionally controversial policies to combat global terrorism. The design behind these policies has appeared fairly obvious, and even at times transparent-but it would not do to ignore the reasons and rationale that are beneath the surface. In regards to the administration’s current policy in Iraq and against terrorism in general, one could be tempted to make the argument that we must ‘learn from history, lest we repeat our mistakes’. Perhaps those who champion this strategy could pay it a little more notice, and in more depth; the lessons of the past are worth nothing if we do not learn them in depth, and learn the cultural and ideological backgrounds behind them. And indeed, the forward-thinking counterpart to this idea is also true: we must take care to look also towards the future and evaluate conditions based on present and ever-changing conditions, lest we spend too much time looking back at our past and subsequently find ourselves blundering into a future of all new problems. Both the critics of the current administration and the administration itself have been guilty of blindness in one chronological direction or another; both have made the egregious mistake of either misusing or forgetting completely the very recent lessons of US foreign policy post-WWII, and have also compounded this with the overlooking of key ideological lessons from this time period. By drawing poor comparisons, critics have influenced and validated the administration’s mistaken views of itself; through lack of attention to the broad historical picture behind current events, the administration has effectively blinded itself to the causes behind current events, and indeed the correct methods of dealing with them. In addition, the critical failure of most of the parties involved to recognize the importance of evaluating global terrorism as a new threat to be dealt with in new ways has caused grave setbacks.
Oh my goodness I am tired. I seriously thought it was Sunday when my alarm went off this morning. I was so convinced, and then I got all angry that the universe had lied to me about what day it was. It was in general a confusing morning.