New 'Unknowns' in the White House
November 9th 2006 06:37
Donald Rumsfeld is famous for saying the following:
There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know.
While this quote (which is a paraphrasing of another) indicates a commendable penchant for curiosity and a sound philosophical grounding, Donald Rumsfeld's decisions on Iraq have been limited in their visionary nature. Is Bob Gates the best that Bush could have done at this time? He's perceived to be a non-ideological, pragmatic character and likely to be more receptive to advice from others than his predecessor.
While the replacement is a sign of Bush's reluctant willingness to engage with his new Democrat-infused office, this rate of change only reminds me of what could be if more progressive people were in charge of the future of the country.
Champions of the avant-garde have already had to deal with about 2190 daily slaps in the face since 2000, when US and world history took a dramatic turn for the conservative, extremist and hard-line. I console myself only by anticipating a revolution when Bush's term comes to a close.
Bob Gates' appointment has prompted many major news networks to report on the 'uncertainty' that currently surrounds creating a new strategy for the Iraq handover, and this is a welcome reminder that uncertainty should be a welcome component in any arena. We've suffered too long at the hands of people who seek to suppress its healing powers and relevance.
I hope this change of rhetoric remains present through the next two years, as dealing with uncertainty is the only way to move forward.
What do you think the recent changes in the US government mean for people seeking an end to absolutist agendas in government? Can we expect the leadership to be more tolerant towards 'unknowns', or are any changes bound to be insubstantial and superficial? Do you think a revolution is coming circa 2008?
There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know.
While this quote (which is a paraphrasing of another) indicates a commendable penchant for curiosity and a sound philosophical grounding, Donald Rumsfeld's decisions on Iraq have been limited in their visionary nature. Is Bob Gates the best that Bush could have done at this time? He's perceived to be a non-ideological, pragmatic character and likely to be more receptive to advice from others than his predecessor.
Sculpting The Future?
While the replacement is a sign of Bush's reluctant willingness to engage with his new Democrat-infused office, this rate of change only reminds me of what could be if more progressive people were in charge of the future of the country.
Champions of the avant-garde have already had to deal with about 2190 daily slaps in the face since 2000, when US and world history took a dramatic turn for the conservative, extremist and hard-line. I console myself only by anticipating a revolution when Bush's term comes to a close.
Bob Gates' appointment has prompted many major news networks to report on the 'uncertainty' that currently surrounds creating a new strategy for the Iraq handover, and this is a welcome reminder that uncertainty should be a welcome component in any arena. We've suffered too long at the hands of people who seek to suppress its healing powers and relevance.
What do you think the recent changes in the US government mean for people seeking an end to absolutist agendas in government? Can we expect the leadership to be more tolerant towards 'unknowns', or are any changes bound to be insubstantial and superficial? Do you think a revolution is coming circa 2008?
| 49 |
| Vote |
Subscribe to this blog
