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.
Monday, December 7, 2009
The Problem of Middle Ground
Lately it seems that politics is dominated by a "not enough" syndrome. If you partly do something, it's not enough, or too late, or weak. Issues are picked at. Problems are indicated. And at the end, no one is happy. When did progress become so complicated?
Recently, I posted my thoughts on the deployment of troops in Afghanistan (which I still object to, but understand). It has been fascinating to me that lately, no one is pleased AT ALL! A recent CNN poll (http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/12/04/rel18b.pdf) suggests that there is general support for the war. Inside the numbers, the opinion of moral justification to the war today (63%) is growing closer to that of 2003 (73%) after treading in the 40%'s for so long.
Yet, seemingly nobody in congress (recall, the people that we elect) are happy. Republicans are upset about a timetable, and Democrats are upset about the surge and not keeping the campaign promise (as a note: his campaign promise was actually about Iraq). It has long been considered by both parties that Afghanistan (not Iraq) was the real threat. But now, the whole thing stinks to everybody. Funny...
It seems that the objection by Democrats is more focused to contested re-election and seeing more images of war and (seemingly) neglected campaign promises to bring troops home. Meanwhile, Republicans understand that it is their job to not approve of anything Mr. Obama does (playing to the extremity Conservative base, that is growing everyday). At the end, there is no real solution to the schism that is growing in Washington. And more and more, representatives are growing more biased to play to re-elections and likely voters, not necessarily the true percentages.
It begs the question: if America agrees with the president, then why doesn't Congress?
Recently, I posted my thoughts on the deployment of troops in Afghanistan (which I still object to, but understand). It has been fascinating to me that lately, no one is pleased AT ALL! A recent CNN poll (http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/12/04/rel18b.pdf) suggests that there is general support for the war. Inside the numbers, the opinion of moral justification to the war today (63%) is growing closer to that of 2003 (73%) after treading in the 40%'s for so long.
Yet, seemingly nobody in congress (recall, the people that we elect) are happy. Republicans are upset about a timetable, and Democrats are upset about the surge and not keeping the campaign promise (as a note: his campaign promise was actually about Iraq). It has long been considered by both parties that Afghanistan (not Iraq) was the real threat. But now, the whole thing stinks to everybody. Funny...
It seems that the objection by Democrats is more focused to contested re-election and seeing more images of war and (seemingly) neglected campaign promises to bring troops home. Meanwhile, Republicans understand that it is their job to not approve of anything Mr. Obama does (playing to the extremity Conservative base, that is growing everyday). At the end, there is no real solution to the schism that is growing in Washington. And more and more, representatives are growing more biased to play to re-elections and likely voters, not necessarily the true percentages.
It begs the question: if America agrees with the president, then why doesn't Congress?
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
No... REALLY!
George Constanza, the fictional character from the popular show "Seinfield" once said "It's not a lie if you believe it." As of now, I have a feeling that the folks that decided that they should show up (allegedly uninvited) to a state dinner have embraced that quote. In this case, perhaps the best defense actually is "No, we really were invited. For REAL!" And against such, there is little defense. Especially if you have lost the invite, or it was stolen, or your dog ate it. Common sense would suggest that they wanted to crash this party for publicity. The bigger problem is that they were actually able to crash is! Let's not forget that massive problem.
If nothing else the Salahis are giving new hope to every third grader who can't produce their math homework. No, no, Mrs. Jones, by dog really did eat it! I promise!
At the same time, they gave new hope to somebody that might want to get close enough to our global leaders to cause some harm. I'm sure that future heads of state that are invited guests of the White House will need a bit more assurance of their safety.
If nothing else the Salahis are giving new hope to every third grader who can't produce their math homework. No, no, Mrs. Jones, by dog really did eat it! I promise!
At the same time, they gave new hope to somebody that might want to get close enough to our global leaders to cause some harm. I'm sure that future heads of state that are invited guests of the White House will need a bit more assurance of their safety.
The Audacity of War...
War is unpopular. Vengeance, however, is not. Interestingly, vengeance only lasts as long as you are actually mad at somebody. We first, seemingly, went to war in Afghanistan and Iraq out of vengeance. We need to get those who hurt us. But the irony is that the cost of all of that is hurting us more.
Think of it almost like a domestically-sponsored terrorism inflicted by foreign militants. This war has burdened us with a substantial human and monetary price tag that has additionally helped lubricate the fall of many sectors of our own society. And now, news from Mr. Obama suggests that this price tag will only go up. I wonder how much more the costs will rise.
In my humble opinion, we've done this enough. The lives of thousands of Americans and "coalition forces" members, and billions of dollars suddenly don't seem worthy of the cost for the capture of a few men. (Recall, the objective of the Bush-era was focused on Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein). Now the objective is on the Taliban. An organization that seems as complicated to put together as a 5000 piece puzzle of a cloudless sky. I don't know what this will accomplish, more than confusion.
It seems that (under Bush) vengeance, then confusion led to a common sense "cut-and-run" outcry from the public with the election of Mr. Obama. But now, we're drifting towards confusion again. I understand that keeping the Taliban under-wraps is best for America, but how long are we to go on keeping them under wraps? The conflict with the Middle East will perpetuate for some time, it seems. And now, I simply don't understand why...
Think of it almost like a domestically-sponsored terrorism inflicted by foreign militants. This war has burdened us with a substantial human and monetary price tag that has additionally helped lubricate the fall of many sectors of our own society. And now, news from Mr. Obama suggests that this price tag will only go up. I wonder how much more the costs will rise.
In my humble opinion, we've done this enough. The lives of thousands of Americans and "coalition forces" members, and billions of dollars suddenly don't seem worthy of the cost for the capture of a few men. (Recall, the objective of the Bush-era was focused on Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein). Now the objective is on the Taliban. An organization that seems as complicated to put together as a 5000 piece puzzle of a cloudless sky. I don't know what this will accomplish, more than confusion.
It seems that (under Bush) vengeance, then confusion led to a common sense "cut-and-run" outcry from the public with the election of Mr. Obama. But now, we're drifting towards confusion again. I understand that keeping the Taliban under-wraps is best for America, but how long are we to go on keeping them under wraps? The conflict with the Middle East will perpetuate for some time, it seems. And now, I simply don't understand why...
Friday, November 27, 2009
Now that IS interesting... kinda.
I don't really care to think much about entertainment-related stories. But this one was interesting to me. Apparently, there's a guy named Adam Lambert who was supposed to be on a cable morning news show, but was dropped after he kissed a guy on live TV... dropped for Chris Brown who admitted to physically abusing a fellow artist and girlfriend. And the outrage has begun.
It is fascinating that this network would make a (VERY OBVIOUSLY) controversial decision to bring on Brown (of all people) for Lambert. But not surprising in the least. I tend to be "suspicious guy" when it comes to networks doing controversial things, simply because I know there's a guy in a suit somewhere thinking "...ratings-advertisers-money...". But generally, I think we often condone what is illegal versus what some consider amoral. Illegal acts are often accompanied with sincere apology, tears, interviews, change, and a very understanding and accepting public. Because, in theory, they are no longer committing the illegal act.
But Lambert is still gay, and still kissing guys. And if you find that amoral, then you're likely not going to want to see him throwing it in your face (so to speak). But Chris Brown's "road to redemption" can be played from many angles. Regardless of what I feel, it's not my network, not my show. And if I'm upset I can still choose to not watch... or I can watch and then complain that it happened. No doubt, there is a group of guys in suits hoping I do the latter and consider buying a Jeep during the commercial breaks. I guarantee you that articles of outrage, public statements, and the like may as well come with Network promos and logos. Not watching and often not caring is the most powerful voice of anger.
It is fascinating that this network would make a (VERY OBVIOUSLY) controversial decision to bring on Brown (of all people) for Lambert. But not surprising in the least. I tend to be "suspicious guy" when it comes to networks doing controversial things, simply because I know there's a guy in a suit somewhere thinking "...ratings-advertisers-money...". But generally, I think we often condone what is illegal versus what some consider amoral. Illegal acts are often accompanied with sincere apology, tears, interviews, change, and a very understanding and accepting public. Because, in theory, they are no longer committing the illegal act.
But Lambert is still gay, and still kissing guys. And if you find that amoral, then you're likely not going to want to see him throwing it in your face (so to speak). But Chris Brown's "road to redemption" can be played from many angles. Regardless of what I feel, it's not my network, not my show. And if I'm upset I can still choose to not watch... or I can watch and then complain that it happened. No doubt, there is a group of guys in suits hoping I do the latter and consider buying a Jeep during the commercial breaks. I guarantee you that articles of outrage, public statements, and the like may as well come with Network promos and logos. Not watching and often not caring is the most powerful voice of anger.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)