New Zealand actually has an appalling high school completion rate, especially among boys, so I’m in no place to criticize. It is improving all the time, and has been improving quite quickly recently, but it’s still one of the worst in the OECD. However, our education also works a bit differently. For example, the last year of high school is the international education equivalent of the first year of university.

Also, we have a system called NCEA (National Certificate of Educational Achievement) levels I, II, and III, which are done in the last three years of high school. You can’t advance to to the next level until you’ve passed the previous level, so a student can be doing level I for the third time in their last year of high school in one subject, but be onto level II or III in another subject. Subjects that are taught at polytechs and other institutes like hairdressing, mechanics, electronics etc also fit into the NCEA programme. They’re all assessed at a national level to make sure that the quality is the same all over the country, even though many are internally assessed.

That’s a good point – educated vs trained. Educated vs intelligent is another one. Carson is undoubtedly intelligent, but that doesn’t mean he knows stuff, or knows how to think, and knowing how to think is one of the most important things you get from a good humanities education (as you point out). He’s also proof that intelligent doesn’t automatically come with good judgment either.

The best bit is an event that’s gone pretty much unremarked because of the attention on Mosul – a few days ago Dabiq was taken back from DAESH. DAESH name their on-line magazine Dabiq because that’s where the predicted final battle between Islam and the enemy takes place (the Muslim equivalent of Armageddon). I guess Allah really doesn’t think DAESH are worthy of being the ones to stand up for him in the End Times!

I make a distinction between “educated” and “trained”. Ben Carson is a very talented well trained pediatric neurosurgeon, but I hardly think of him as educated. He has poor critical thinking skills and is not well versed in the Humanities. My generation (boomer) rebelled against all those “irrelevant” courses in college, which ultimately was translated into teaching mostly that which will enhance one’s career and pursuit of wealth – at the expense of appreciating the human condition and the need to have empathy for our fellow human beings. And the critical thinking skills to recognize the wisdom of improving the overall human condition instead of clawing one’s way to financial success.
So while we do have excellent training academies (some of which do have good courses of study in the Humanities but they must be looked for), it is not common to receive a thorough, well-rounded “education” in the model of what a University initially was. Just my opinion.

‘Drone and missiles’, kinda effective against a group like ISIL (DAESH), a group that has more prowess in Internet propaganda than on the battlefield. What is more humiliating for a proud would-be jihadist than to be taken out by a drone? And a drone possibly guided by -Allah forbid- a woman? I think Obama’s handling of ISIL is quite smart. Personally I would have given more support to the Kurds, but who am I?
It is indeed ironical that he’s about the only POTUS that has been at war during his full time in power. He definitely is your ‘reluctant warrior’. Note, most of it is not of his own making: Afghanistan and Iraq were inherited from W, Lybia was a UN humanitarian mission to prevent a genocide (wonder how he would have been blasted if he had let Ghadaffi carry out his threats. We justly blame Bill for not intervening in Rwanda in 94). And we do not know how much the US is actually involved in Yemen.
One thing is obvious, when Islam is involved in a conflict with the ‘West’, we have a high probability of a lose-lose situation.

Sure, if by “unsatisfying stalemate” you mean unremitting misery; if by “careful” you mean naive and feckless; and if by “peaceful outcome” you mean groveling appeasement.

Obama will be the first commander in chief ever to have waged war every day for two full terms, and he will be doing it in more places on his last day in office than his first. His preferred instruments of war are the drone and the missile. Talk about “quick fixes”.

This line of thought reminds us of what is undoubtedly a big cause of Trumps appeal to low information voters. The risk and instability he promises is appealing to those who lack patience with political and diplomatic processes, which are necessarily slow, tedious, and frustrating. These folks are looking for the quick fix after watching events in the real world resolve to unsatisfying stalemates of temporary setbacks. Obama’s foreign policy for example is careful and seeks to preserve a peaceful outcome to disputes. Some simply do not understand that diplomacy takes time and may result in the best outcome possible. The Trump supporter doesn’t understand that quick, decisive conclusions such as seen in TV and in the movies is a high risk approach that could lead to catastrophe and a world of pain for everyone. The strength to keep America out of wars would not be Trump’s strong suit.

I don’t recall any of his jokes being self-deprecating, and he even got some electioneering into his speech, which is also pretty crass. I personally don’t know if the being booed was a first, but the commentators on CNN couldn’t remember any occasion where that had happened before, and some of them went back a very long way.

The NATO thing worries me more than anything about him being president, and it’s why Putin wants him in the job. He thinks his stance shows strength, but it actually shows weakness. Trump has this thing about keeping his enemies off guard, but the problem is, the way he carries on means his allies and friends don’t know how he’s going to react either. With him in charge, the US is no longer reliable. You wouldn’t even be able to rely on him to react in a logical way. Even Iran are logical actors on the world stage. There are very few who aren’t, and the only one who is a problem at the moment is North Korea.

The article in the New Yorker ‘President Trump’s First Term‘ is very long but worth the effort and covers why he would be so dangerous in relation to foreign relations etc.

Indeed, the Third Debate showed again that he has no stamina, no willpower, beyond half an hour; no self control, can’t help himself, hence exquisitely and imminently unsuited for the position he’s aspiring to.

A point that generally gets little attention too is that he’s hinting at dismantling, or at least disabeling, NATO. How much smaller (less ‘Great’ indeed) would the US be without a functional NATO? How much worse would we all be? Personally I find that one of the worst of Trumps inanities (to use a mild term).

Very good post, but that should nearly go without saying by now.