The blame game is easy, because the one pointing the finger is always somehow innocent. I recently heard the "tax-and-spend" mantra of Republicans towards Democrats. This argument, at its most preposterous would seem to suggest that Republicans do not tax, nor spend. Obviously that's not true. The clearest argument is that Democrats "tax-and-spend" above and beyond a Republican "tax-and-spend" approach.
Oddly, that is hard to suggest also. As it turns out, taxes rise for lots of reasons. Sometimes the government needs more money to fuel more programs. Sometimes it's in response to economic loss. Such occasions do not ALWAYS exist for Democrats and NEVER exist for Republicans.
The other unfortunate reality is that nay administrations tax hikes/cuts are relatively insignificant per paycheck. Once the numbers rolled out about President Obama's tax cuts for the middle class, it seemed to yield about $20 or so dollars extra per check. Not a huge giveback by any means. But what if there were an equivalent tax hike... do the math: roughly $20 tax hike across say 10 million Americans. That is indeed a lot of money. Per check!
Tax cuts are tough because look at how much money the federal government risks loosing. Thus, folks that make more help the government recoup this losses. And the funny thing is... in no modern presidential era, this basic concept has never changed. Everyone supports "tax-and-spend". And it is even supported to a very similar degree. The bad news is that finger pointing distracts us from logic.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Conflicted argument...
A little thought...
Earlier today on NPR, I heard a counter-terrorism expert talking about the escalating war on terrorism in Middle Eastern countries. He was making a vary accurate point that while the nation itself is clearly in accord with us using weaponry, particularly drone fired weapons, they still publicly condemn the attacks. In part, it was thought that this open condemnation had more to do with civilian casualties of these drones. He stated that there is no way that the government could publicly support the use of such technology when innocents are caught in the crossfire.
Well, that's not right. If a drone fires on a crowd of people to kills terrorists and there are innocent victims, where's the cross-fire? Cross-fire denotes that party A is firing upon party B; whilst party B fires on party A. If a stray bullet fired from a random gun aimed at a target (by surprise), kills the target and kills an un-targeted child, it is not cross-fire. It seems more like reckless manslaughter. It was always the nature of these drones that they are unmanned and clandestine.
While cross-fire is generally applicable (especially in historical warfare), it seems like it misses the point of the true nature of the accident. I make no grandiose statements of "this is why we should/shouldn't...". But it stresses caution to give more attention to semantic differences in what you hear. Sometimes reporting can be very misleading.
Earlier today on NPR, I heard a counter-terrorism expert talking about the escalating war on terrorism in Middle Eastern countries. He was making a vary accurate point that while the nation itself is clearly in accord with us using weaponry, particularly drone fired weapons, they still publicly condemn the attacks. In part, it was thought that this open condemnation had more to do with civilian casualties of these drones. He stated that there is no way that the government could publicly support the use of such technology when innocents are caught in the crossfire.
Well, that's not right. If a drone fires on a crowd of people to kills terrorists and there are innocent victims, where's the cross-fire? Cross-fire denotes that party A is firing upon party B; whilst party B fires on party A. If a stray bullet fired from a random gun aimed at a target (by surprise), kills the target and kills an un-targeted child, it is not cross-fire. It seems more like reckless manslaughter. It was always the nature of these drones that they are unmanned and clandestine.
While cross-fire is generally applicable (especially in historical warfare), it seems like it misses the point of the true nature of the accident. I make no grandiose statements of "this is why we should/shouldn't...". But it stresses caution to give more attention to semantic differences in what you hear. Sometimes reporting can be very misleading.
The Road to Hell is Paved with Good Intentions...
Earlier today, Americans were charged with kidnapping in Haiti after the earthquake-decimated terror convinced good folks to go and attempt to rescue kids without any Haitian authorization. It seems fairly obvious that they were just trying to get some kids out of a bad situation and into a better one. That sounds legit. However, it is ALWAYS a bad idea to go and take kids that aren't yours anywhere.
The old saying is that "the road to hell is paved with good intentions". That is actually fairly accurate representation of biblical times, where folks did seemingly good things, that ended in their fall because God wasn't pleased. In this case, it is not to say that these Americans are going to hell; more to indicate that not every good idea is actually good. Yes, kids need help. No, you can't just go get them.
It is of interest that these folks claim that they did attempt a "Godly" mission..., this was some sort of call of God to go rescue these kids. One might argue that such a call is real. However, one should also ask, would God send you to do something that is illegal? In this case, God's "call" should've included some paperwork. Do good the legal way..., yes. Do good the illegal way..., no.
One aspect of this story that has me troubled is... how do they identify "orphan"? I would think that most orphanages are basically destroyed in Port-au-Prince. So just walking in to one and asking the clerk for kids would not be possible. At the same time, you cannot walk around looking for kids with absent parents. Early reports seemed to suggest that the parents willingly signed the kids over to this delegation. I am not sure how such a willing decision was made. But one thing is clear: these folks made a big mistake. And they should pay, because they did wrong.
The old saying is that "the road to hell is paved with good intentions". That is actually fairly accurate representation of biblical times, where folks did seemingly good things, that ended in their fall because God wasn't pleased. In this case, it is not to say that these Americans are going to hell; more to indicate that not every good idea is actually good. Yes, kids need help. No, you can't just go get them.
It is of interest that these folks claim that they did attempt a "Godly" mission..., this was some sort of call of God to go rescue these kids. One might argue that such a call is real. However, one should also ask, would God send you to do something that is illegal? In this case, God's "call" should've included some paperwork. Do good the legal way..., yes. Do good the illegal way..., no.
One aspect of this story that has me troubled is... how do they identify "orphan"? I would think that most orphanages are basically destroyed in Port-au-Prince. So just walking in to one and asking the clerk for kids would not be possible. At the same time, you cannot walk around looking for kids with absent parents. Early reports seemed to suggest that the parents willingly signed the kids over to this delegation. I am not sure how such a willing decision was made. But one thing is clear: these folks made a big mistake. And they should pay, because they did wrong.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)