E-Portfolio Blog Post

Over this past year, I have received an education on many fronts. Obviously, beginning my journey to receive an undergraduate degree in History at The Pennsylvania State University is something that has been both exciting and satisfying for me both personally and academically. Learning to interact with people with vastly different backgrounds and interests has been challenging but worthwhile. Classes such as LA 101H(Blogging) and Political Science(Contributing to a course Wiki) have exacting because of the emphasis on utilizing technology to make the educational experience more interactive and engaging. The difference between my high school and college experience has been remarkable.

 Previous to attending college, I was a member of the U.S. Air Force for 4 1/2 years, with much of the last year being deployed to Afghanistan. I guess it can be said that was an education in and of itself. As an airman who's primary occupation was to be a liaison for the U.S. Army in order to integrate air assets with ground forces, I was forced to utilize what I had previously been trained in a dynamic and complex situation, as well as make on-the-fly adjustments to the realities of a constantly changing environment (Trying to communicate effectively with the Army, U.S. and foreign air forces, and effectively engaging with ordinary Afghans is not something that is gone over in Basic or Advanced training!).

With this background in mind, I believe the content of my portfolio offers a unique perspective on a variety of issues that are currently being debated in our society. While much of the material contained in this portfolio discusses military matters (the war in Afghanistan, suicide in the U.S. military), I also give my thoughts on the 2012 election as well as underlying themes that are present in American society. 


Link: Matt Brandon's E-Portfolio

I Wish My Teams Won Championships!!!

As a sports fan, I love watching the intense competition that each game brings. Of course I have my preferences and like to watch some sports more than others, but I think the fact that I can watch any sport means that I like watching two teams or individuals competing more than the sports themselves. This tends to work best when the teams you like-- in my case, the Redskins, Nationals, Captials, and Wizards, who are all D.C. sports teams-- do well. Unfortunately for me, all of the teams I like haven't been good in years, or always seem to choke when they make the playoffs. It kills me when I see a city like Boston, who has had multiple championship winners in multiple sports, do so much better for such a long time, while my teams are constantly in the cellar of the standings perennially.

Exhibit #1: The Washington Redskins. Its a shame how such a proud franchise has been ruined by the worst owner ever to own a professional sports team. I remember watching Super Bowl XXVI in 1991 when the Redskins beat the Buffalo Bills to win their 3rd Super Bowl in a decade. Since that moment, they have been the sports team that I will always follow. Since then it has been all downhill. They have been to the playoffs three times in the past 20 years, and have won a grand total of two playoff games in that time span. On top of that, the owner likes to do nice things like sue season ticket holders who couldnt pay their bill during the recession and ban signs that are critical of both the team and the owner.

The Nationals are considered to be a team to watch this year, but during a three year stretch of 2007-2009 they lost 300 games. They were the laughing stock of baseball, and even had the word "Nationals" on their jersey's misspelled "Natinals". Oy.

The Wizards...well what can one say about the Wizards. They are terrible and have been ever since Gilbert Arenas and Javaris Crittendon brought guns into the locker room. Since then they have drafted John Wall, who hopefully will not have his development as a player retarded because of the lack of support that is around him.

The Capitals are the lone team the past few years that have been contenders in their respective sport. They won the President's trophy for being the best team during the regular season in hockey the past few years, but they can never seem to go the distance and win the Stanley Cup.

Maybe some day my teams will be as good as the one's in Boston. Until then I will be watching the regular season and then watching someone else win during the playoffs. Such as life being a Washington, D.C. sports fan. 

Ozzie Guillen

This week's post comes from the world of sports. Last week, Ozzie Guillen, the manager of the Miami Marlins, told Time magazine that he "loved" and "respected" Fidel Castro, who was the leader of Cuba from 1959 to 2011. These comments caused an uproar in the Cuban-American community of South Florida, even resulting in protests outside of the new Marlins stadium, which is located in the "Little Havana" section of Miami. Coinciding with the opening of the new stadium is a big push to attract new fans for a franchise that has traditionally had little support for the local community. On Tuesday, Guillen was suspended by the Marlins for 5 games because of the "seriousness of the comments attributed to Guillen." Major League Baseball supported the Marlins decision, with commissioner Bud Selig calling the remarks "offensive" and saying that "they have no place in our game."

Jeez, so much for that little thing called free speech. Now I am not saying that the Marlins or Major League Baseball should be unable to suspend Guillen. They are the one's who write the checks, so it's their decision on how to handle an employee that made questionable comments. Nor am I questioning the rights of Cuban-American's in the Miami area to speak out and protest comments that they find offensive. But since when did anybody care about the comments of the Marlin's manager? I understand that he is Latino, but this uproar over his "insensitive" comments strikes me as a bit overblown. I don't remember nearly this much controversy when Guillen was managing the White Sox and called Jay Mariotti(who really is a true asshole) a "fag."

Even more than this, do we really want to live in a society where nobody says anything offensive? A place where no one says anything that may hurt someone else's "feelings"? That place sounds incredibly boring and I don't think I would want to live there. I'm not saying that you should turn to the person next to you and scream profanities in their face because you can, but speech that goes against the grain and challenges the status quo is a healthy part of any democracy.

Sources:
-ESPN story
-CSM story

The Internet

In my opinion, the internet was and is the really big innovation of this generation. It has revolutionized the way we communicate, view media, and retrieve information. I remember the first time my family got an internet connection was in the late 1990's/early 2000's. It was a dial-up connection that, by today's standards, is slow as hell. Websites a decade ago were pretty primitive, mostly just reading and a few pictures, nothing like the interactive sites that we see nowadays. 

I consider my generation to be the first one to really understand and utilize the internet. In the last 10 years we have seen the rise of Google, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and Wikipedia. A search engine like Google completely revolutionized how we find information. Need a quick answer to a question you don't know? Google it. Facebook, Twitter and other social networking sites have completely changed the way we communicate with each other, letting us both share and view the day to day lives of our friends, acquaintances, and family members. YouTube gave everyone the ability to watch professional videos and post video's of things they are interested in or of just stuff that is going on in their personal lives. Wikipedia, the de facto source of information for most college and high school students, markedly changed the way we informally learn by combining formal news sources with the personal input of Wikipedia users. I think that the internet can largely be considered a democratizing movement, where traditional mediums that were long restricted to certain professionals were suddenly opened to give everyone a voice (i.e. blogging).

The rise of laptops, tablets, and smartphones is the next step in the internet revolution. Instead of having to go to a computer lab, or your home computer, you can literally take the internet and all of your information with you wherever you want to go. Most smartphones and tablet's are basically micro-computers that have all of the capabilities of laptops and desktops, but have the distinct advantage of super-portability. 

Trayvon Martin and The Media

Some of you may have heard this week of the tragic shooting of a teenager, Trayvon Martin, by a neighborhood watchman named George Zimmerman. Zimmerman claims that he witnessed suspicious behavior and that he had a physical altercation that warranted the use of deadly force. Zimmerman was not arrested because Florida has a "Stand Your Ground" law, stating that a person is authorized to use deadly force in self defense when there is a reasonable belief of a threat. As of today, Zimmerman remains a free man. Some politicians and commentators in the media have suggested that the police may have not conducted itself appropriately and that there is a particular racial aspect to the case.

Whether or not Zimmerman will be charged or is guilty of murder or manslaughter is not for me to decide. My focus in this blog post is on the out of control media. Even if everything that comes out in any news story covering this case turns out to be true in the end, I can't stand to see is how the media jumps to conclusions and declares a person guilty in the court of public opinion. Time and time again, we see cases where many in the media act less like journalists and more like an editorial board hiding behind the cover of a "news" banner. And then comes the inevitable stream of "new" information that is released-- oohhh! the plot thickens! To everyone that reads this blog at this school, this should be more than familiar: The Sandusky Scandal. The rush to judgement cost Joe Paterno his job(he should have been placed on administrative leave, pending the investigation), and the school's reputation has been heavily damaged. I am not trying to say that Sandusky is innocent of all charges-- the evidence in the grand jury report is damning. But for us to function as a society, I think we have to let our constitutionally guaranteed right to due process run it's course. It may be an ugly truth, but Jerry Sandusky is as much entitled to his rights as you or I am. Hopefully I am never placed in one of these situations where I do have to let the judicial system decide my fate, but if I was I would certainly want what I am constitutionally entitled to.

If the people concerned about Trayvon Martin really want justice, they should want the verdict carried out the right way-- In the court room, not the news room.

Sources:

ABC News timeline of events
CS Monitor why George Zimmerman hasn't been arrested.

The Rhetoric of "Real Time"

Whenever I get the chance, I like to watch "Real Time With Bill Maher" on HBO. The concept of the show isn't all that original-- Bill Maher and his panel of 3 or 4 guests discussing the biggest news stories of the week-- but the show always features a robust conversation with differing viewpoints. For those who have never seen the show, the main portion features Bill Maher, the host, and a panel of guests, usually a liberal, an independent, and a conservative commentator. While the panel may be "fair and balanced", Maher himself is unabashedly liberal.

What makes Maher's show different from a program like "Hannity", which would probably be the conservative equivalent to "Real Time", is that the people on the show have their opinons respected. A few weeks ago, one of Maher's guests was Grover Norquist, who is the president for "Americans for Tax Reform", which is a very conservative political lobbying group. While Maher completely disagreed with virtually everything Norquist said, he always gave him the opportunity to speak his mind and never interrupted or cut him off from speaking. Compare this with Sean Hannity, who claims that Barack Obama used to be affiliated with known terrorists and probably has never had a non-conservative view on his show.

Granted, I sometimes feel that Maher can take it too far. Last season he did a show where he said that those who go to college and are getting a degree in something other than computer science or engineering are doing "bullshit." I got his point about how some college degrees don't necessarily prepare students for work in the 21st century, but his argument rang totally false when I found out that he got a degree in English from Cornell.  Despite this one complaint, the show is informative, intelligent, and immensely entertaining.

Sources:

-Bill Maher and Grover Norquist
-Bill Maher on College

Vote "Kony" For President!!!

I first heard of Joseph Kony, and the Lord's Resistance Army(LRA), in October 2011, when I read in the Washington Post that President Obama had authorized the deployment of 100 SOF operators to Uganda to kill or capture Kony and crush his army. Just this past week, the video "Kony 2012", produced by a non-profit group called "Invisible Children Inc.", went viral and was the talk on the news and in social media. The purpose of the film is to inform people around the world about Joseph Kony and the atrocities he has committed (Such as the use of child soldiers). While the intentions of the film are certainly noble, it oversimplifies the serious problems taking place in the region and routinely glosses over relevant facts.

Most notably, Joseph Kony has not been in Uganda for 6 years. Both him and his army retreated from Uganda after a number of military offenses by the Ugandan Army in 2006 and are most likely located in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, south Sudan, and parts of the Central African Republic. This is only mentioned in passing in the film. Also, saying that he has over 30,000 child soldiers at his disposal is also disingenuous: the current LRA numbers most likely in the hundreds, not the thousands. Additionally, the Ugandan Army has also been accused of some of the same types of atrocities that Kony and his army are most notorious. The Ugandan government can also hardly be called "democratic"when its legislature is currently considering a bill that makes homosexuality punishable by life in prison (originally it was to be a capital offense punishable by death).

All of this brings us to the question of "Why did this video go viral?" I think it's because people want to feel that they are connected to a cause bigger than themselves. Devoting oneself to a cause to help those less fortunate around the world is extremely noble. But I think that in this day and age, people feel that making a difference is only one click away. That by reposting or retweeting this link, they have helped to capture a war criminal. This satisfaction is false. Changing the world--really making a difference--is extremely hard. If it wasn't, everyone would be able to do it and it would lose its importance. 

It's too bad that it only takes slick production values and Facebook to make a video popular. If people turned on the news once in a while, they would know that atrocities are already taking place in Syria as we speak.

Sources:

-Foreign Policy Magazine Blog
-Huffington Post Article focusing on criticism of "Kony 2012"
-BBC article about Anti-Homosexual bill in Uganda

The Rhetoric of Sportscenter

Sportscenter on ESPN is the show I wake up to every morning. I have been doing that since I was in 4th or 5th grade. A lot has changed on the show since then--The sets, the anchors, the commercials-- but the quality of the show and the depth of the information that is presented has not changed. 

For me, the best part about Sportscenter is that the show takes the best segment of the nightly news--sports-- and turns it into a program that airs on ESPN more than half the day. Growing up in the Washington, D.C. area, the best sports anchor was George Michael on the local NBC affiliate, Channel 4. Watching Michael(Who died in 2009) was the segment that I was always waiting for when my parents were watching the 6 PM news. He also hosted a show nationally called "The George Michael Sports Machine", which heavily influenced the production and appearance of Sportscenter. Unlike the rest of the anchors that I saw on TV, Michael always appeared genuine. I got the feeling that the way he appeared on TV was similar to the way he appeared in real life, whereas many of the anchors on the local and national news appear to be cardboard cutouts of themselves. 

When I watch Sportscenter, I always get the same feeling as I did when I watched George Michael. The anchors that appear on the show are always charismatic, witty, and polished. The production and style of the show is always very impressive. The fact that they are able to edit footage from an entire game--often in real time-- shows the amount of work and attention that is required to keep the show stylish and fast paced.

Maybe it is because I am a sports fan, but I always get the feeling that the anchors are people that really enjoy what they are doing. This is probably due to the fact that being a sportscaster would be my dream job, just below being a professional athlete. 

The Rhetoric of Lying

Does prosecuting a person for lying about being awarded the Medal of Honor violate the First Amendment? That's what is about to be decided by the Supreme Court in United States v. Alvarez.

I had heard about the Stolen Valor Act back when I was in the Air Force(The Stolen Valor Act makes it a crime to falsely appear that one has been awarded a U.S. military medal or decoration). Naturally, I felt that anyone who falsely claimed that they were awarded a high ranking medal that they did not earn was a piece of shit. However, being a piece of shit is not a crime, nor should it be.

An editorial in the Monday edition of the New York Times, called "Is There A Right To Lie?" by William Bennett Turner, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley, first brought this specific case to my attention. Alvarez was being prosecuted because "while introducing himself at a meeting of a California water board, he said that he was a retired Marine who had been awarded the Medal of Honor (both lies)." Punishment for this could be up to one year of imprisonment.

While it certainly is difficult for me to say that a lie as audacious and disgusting as this is constitutionally protected, I have to admit that it is. If the Westboro Baptist Church can legally spew their incredibly hateful speech, then this man should be able to lie about receiving the nation's highest military award. The editorial gives a good prescription for punishing these frauds--more speech. The author recommends creating an "online database of medal awardees," and that the "government could even shame known liars by publishing their names." Putting these people's names in the newspaper or a website would be the most effective way to get people to think twice about falsely claiming military awards. Being entered into this proposed database should also be required to show up on a background check when the person is applying for a job. Seeing that happen would be much more satisfying than seeing this scumbag sit in jail for a year.

Sources:

-New York Times Article
-Chicago Tribune Article on the Stolen Valor Act

The Rhetoric of the Washington Redskins

The Washington Redskins are near and dear to my heart. They always have been, and always will be. That's why one of the worst forms of rhetoric in sports is the hype concerning this team every year. Like clockwork, the most exciting and best part of every season is...the off-season. While teams like the Baltimore Ravens, New England Patriots, and, most grudgingly, the New York Giants are all winning Division, Conference, and Super Bowl championships, my team's season always ends on or around New Year's Day. To be honest, the most exciting day on my football calendar is the NFL Draft in April, when for one day I don't have to worry about my team blowing millions of dollars on washed-up stars. Instead I get to see them pick a players who may or may not work out to be everyday starters. At the very least it makes me happy to think that my team is doing a little bit of what all those other, vastly more successful franchises have been doing and perfecting for years.

A little bit of hype around every team is to be expected. Even the 2008 Detroit Lions had commercials promoting them. But the unjustified hype around the Redskins, year after year, is just downright depressing. If they were telling fans that they could compete, then dismantling the roster and getting younger, I would at least know that they were only doing this for marketing reasons and were really going in the right direction. I don't mind it when teams give a wink and a nod they are going to suck. The Washington Nationals did that from 2006-2010. Granted, they still tried to sell seats. It's a business. I get it. Everyone knew they were not going to win titles for a while. Their roster consisted of Ryan Zimmerman and a bunch of dudes who should have been playing Single-A ball. But no, the Redskins roster decisions seem to revolve around their latest marketing campaign(See McNabb, Donovan "R You In?"). Sadly, the trend continues, with the talk of the Washington sports media being all about whether or not the Redskins can and will sign Peyton Manning, a great but aging quarterback who was injured for the entire 2011 season.

I blame the state of the Redskins on mismanagement at the top, although Dan Snyder, the owner of the team, seems to be staying out of things since Mike Shanahan took over the head coaching job. But the decade of mismanagement, compounded with Snyder's need for an instant Super Bowl contender, flat out ruined one of the most proud, storied, and traditional franchises in sports.

- Donovan McNabb FAIL
- Donovan McNabb FAIL pt. 2

The Rhetoric of Newspapers

One form of rhetoric that I tend to check multiple times a day are newspaper's. The Washington Post, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and The Economist are a few that I read if not every day, then at least a few times a week. All of the above listed newspapers have first rate reporting, intelligent columnists, and an opinionated editorial section. While most of the reporting is generally similar, all differ significantly when it comes to the opinion pages. By reading a diverse set of viewpoints, I feel that I am best informed to take an intelligent stance concerning the issues. 

The Washington Post generally specializes in covering national news and (since it is in Washington, D.C.) the federal government. The weekly columnists represent a diverse set of views. Liberals like E.J. Dionne and Eugene Robinson, as well as Conservatives such as Charles Krauthammer and George Will, are both given press time. The editorial stance of the newspaper can best be described as "moderate." The Post supported the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and has been an advocate for free trade agreements such as CAFTA and the KORUS FTA. At the same time, Barack Obama was endorsed for the 2008 Presidential Election and generally supporting gay rights and abortion rights. 

The New York Times is perhaps the largest and most well known newspaper in the world. It covers a broad area of topics, ranging from national and international news, to comprehensive style and business sections. The weekly columnists tend to be liberal to centrist. The editorial section solidly supports liberal causes, clearly supporting gay marriage, abortion rights, and persistently opposing virtually all policies of the Bush Administration in its war in Iraq. 

Judging from its name alone, it's not hard to guess that The Wall Street Journal specializes in reporting financial news. By and large, it is the best in the newspaper business at this type of reporting. Compared with its crosstown rival The New York Times, the editorial and opinion pages shift decisively to the right. The Journal features conservative columnists like Peggy Noonan and features guest columns from Conservatives such as Karl Rove. The Journal's editorial page primarily focuses on economic issues, such as tax reform and reducing federal government spending, usually taking a conservative stance.

Lastly, The Economist is a weekly news magazine that is published in the UK. It tends to comment on the large political issue of the week, as well as focusing on issues around the world that go relatively unnoticed. Being a foreign newspaper, the magazine takes a moderate, but oftentimes unique, stance on politics around the world. Fiscally, it can be considered conservative. It favors free trade around the world and tax reform for the United States. At the same time, the paper tends to be liberal/libertarian on social issues. 

TIB Podcast

The wayyyyyy more confusing than it had to be "This I Believe" podcast.

Charlie Rose

The show "Charlie Rose", an interview show that airs on PBS and Bloomberg, is the best show on television. It stands in marked contrast to other interview shows such as "Larry King Live" or "Piers Morgan" in the depth and quality of the questioning. Whereas "Larry King" consisted of King tossing softball questions to some of the most interesting and famous people in the world, "Charlie" consists of having both famous and distinguished guests across a wide spectrum of interests being asked poignant, timely questions.

The sets of "Charlie" and either of the CNN productions set the tone for how different each program is. "Charlie" consists of Charlie Rose, the interviewer, and the interviewee. The only props are a coffee table, a drink for Charlie and one of the guests, and a completely black background. Compare this with "Piers Morgan", which has an elaborate set design, with lots of colorful lights and screens with the name "Piers Morgan" rolling across, just incase you forgot which show you were watching. In my opinion, all of this takes away from the content of the interview, making it no more than mere small talk between a Brit and some famous or supposedly "important" person. "Charlie Rose" cuts directly to serious questioning after a brief introduction, not letting any of his guests get off the set by dodging the question or giving a non-answer.

Additionally, the guests that appear on "Charlie Rose" are not just the latest flavor of the week that the media has decided to concentrate on. Sure, he interviews distinguished guests such as Barack Obama and Angelina Jolie, but he has also interviewed lesser known names as the commentator David Brooks and the former dean of the Harvard Business School, Kim Clark. This keeps the regular viewer well informed concerning not only the top news stories of the day, but also stories and perspectives that wouldn't make it on the air any other way.

In Search of "Truthiness"

In my view, one of the best instances of rhetoric in any medium is "The Colbert Report", hosted by a character named "Stephen Colbert" and played by an actor/comedian named Stephen Colbert. For those that haven't seen it, the show is a tongue-in-cheek mockery of a conservative opinion show like "The O'Reilly Factor" or "Hannity". What makes his show and in particular his character so unique is his ability to use satire to make probing points concerning political culture. Perhaps Colbert's most famous example of satire occurred at the annual White House Correspondent's Association Dinner in 2006, where he openly mocked President Bush's foreign policy( "I believe the government that governs best is the government that governs least. And by these standards, we have set up a fabulous government in Iraq.") and the media ("Over the last five years, you people were so good-- over tax cuts, WMD intelligence, the effect of global warming. We Americans didn't want to know, and you had the courtesy not to try to find out"). This drew a strong rebuke from not only conservative commentators, but also many in the media who disliked being made fun of for doing their jobs poorly. Colbert's simple use of ironic praise was in turn much more damning of the Bush administration's policies and the current political and media cultures than any direct criticism of either the administration or the media. 

More recently, Colbert has brought satire to a new level by running to be "The President of the United States of South Carolina" and forming his own "Super PAC" called "The Definitely Not Coordinating With Stephen Colbert Super PAC" to mock our entire electoral process. The name of his "Super PAC" makes fun of the ability of "Super PACs" to raise an unlimited amount of money in support of a candidate or his particular positions, while at the same time the candidate and the "Super PAC" are legally barred from coordinating in any way, implicitly suggesting that this law is ridiculous in principal. 

Some in the Media have called Colbert's message "disrespectful". This is probably because unlike most comedians, Colbert doesn't just take aim at particular politicians. His most cutting satire is reserved for political institutions who's ultimate concern is protecting themselves. 

-Link To The Colbert "Super PAC" Website

-Link to video of Stephen Colbert at the White House Correspondents Association Dinner

Engaging The Taliban

I admit, writing about a specific topic we discussed in class is lame an unimaginative, but having been to Afghanistan recently, I thought the topic that Prof. Henderson brought up concerning the Taliban opening a political office in Qatar is one that I am both interested and informed on.

I believe that engaging with our adversaries can in many ways be a productive endeavor. The trouble is, which one? There is a gross misperception in the American public that the Taliban are a single group insurgency. Rather, to me the term "Taliban" is more of an umbrella term the media uses for a multitude of different factions. The Afghan Taliban, the Haqqani Network, Hezbi-Islami (HIG), and small factions of Al-Qaeda and the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan all share the similar goals of defeating the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), overthrowing the Karzai-led Afghan government, and establishing a traditional Islamic emirate in Afghanistan, similar to the one that was forced from power in 2001 by the coalition. All the news I have read seems to indicate only that the Afghan Taliban is showing the willingness to engage. Will other extremist groups be willing to talk as well?

Which brings up the second problem: The Taliban seem willing to only negotiate with the U.S. The statement that was released by the group made the glaring omission of leaving out the Afghan government from peace talks. How can any talks be initiated when one of the preconditions for the U.S. is the Taliban's acceptance of the Afghan Constitution-- even though the Taliban views the government of Afghanistan as a "puppet" of the U.S. Is it realistic to assume that the Taliban will come full circle and reintegrate into Afghan society? Why not wait until 2014, when the bulk of coalition troops leave the country, and make a push for more influence in Afghanistan.

The third, and clearly the largest problem for the U.S. is Pakistan. Since the accidental killing of 24 Pakistani soldiers in an air strike in late November, Pakistan has cut off virtually all communication with the U.S. They refused to attend the meeting in Germany in December to discuss the future of Afghanistan and have forced Americans based at a covert drone base to leave the country. Not to mention that the Pakistani version of the CIA (The Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate, ISI) has been playing a double game for years by supporting various factions of the insurgency to bleed the coalition while still receiving substantial aid. How can we reasonably assume that we can force an endgame in Afghanistan when the most critical part of the equation refuses to even talk to us?

The real losers in the whole situation are the ones who have been the losers since the Afghan Civil War broke out in 1978: Afghan Civilians. The Taliban continue to indiscriminately kill civilians, even though the Taliban's leader, Mullah Omar, has issued directives to avoid civilian casualties.

In my view, there are no "moderate" Taliban. The Taliban's brutality and acceptance of global extremist groups like Al-Qaeda is notorious. Joe Biden recently asserted in Newsweek that "The Taliban per se is not our enemy." While I have great respect for the Vice President, I strongly disagree with that statement. This is the same group that harbored Al-Qaeda while they were planning the attacks of September 11. The same group that continues to kill and attempt to kill coalition forces. This is the same group that prohibited education and healthcare for girls and women. This link was published in August 2010, almost 9 years after the invasion. I don't think the Taliban have changed very much in that time.