So I've been hearing about a lot about the evils of raising taxes on the rich and how that will only cause more problems for us. Then I hear that Warren Buffet supports Obama, and it caused me to pause for a moment. In the world of science, there is a very serious and distinct difference between theories and laws. A theory is a generally accepted idea that hasn't been proven "beyond a doubt" to be true. Such as: the Theory of Evolution, the Theory of Relativity and the law of gravity. So the question I have then is this: The republicans speak as though the idea of taxing the rich is a damning move, as though it is a foregone conclusion that their will be negative ramifications. Is this opinion based on any economic law? Or is it just such a heavily espoused theory that people have come to believe it a law?
If you know fill me in. I'd like to know.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Sunday, October 5, 2008
The idea of "The Win"
I've been thinking about this for a while. One of the major debate points of the last two debates has been the topic of Iraq vs Afghanistan. Obama wants to pull out of Iraq and focus on Afghanistan. McCain wants to "focus" on both. One of McCain's primary arguments for not pulling out of Iraq is the concept of letting the troops stay there till they win.
Till they win.
What does that mean? To me it seems like the definition of the win, has been a moving target. I've heard arguments ranging from stopping the proliferation of WMD's to establishing democracy. So what exactly is our goal there? When do we know we've won? When there aren't any terrorist bombings? When the Iraqi security forces are "ready"? When Democracy is secure? Is anyone else confused by the vagueness? I can understand the troops desire to "win" If ever there was a greater collection of hyper-competitive individuals I can't think of it. But if we don't give them a clear definition of win, can they win?
If they can't "win" will they ever feel closure? I doubt it.
I have this theory about PTSD. Why did we never hear about PTSD before Vietnam? It might be because of the generation thing, but I think it's because the vets believed in what they were doing. Vietnam, and Iraq are both wars where the soldiers are there without clearly understanding why. In fact, I would be interested in seeing the numbers on PTSD cases coming out of Afghanistan, where I believe the soldiers really went in with a clear definition of "the win," and Iraq. I'd be willing to bet that there are far fewer coming out of Afghanistan.
That being said, and after a lot of internal debates and conflict I've decided I support the idea of pulling out of Iraq based on the lack of the clear definition of the win, as well as the fact that we are the aggressors in this war and it is clearly an "un-holy" war.
Till they win.
What does that mean? To me it seems like the definition of the win, has been a moving target. I've heard arguments ranging from stopping the proliferation of WMD's to establishing democracy. So what exactly is our goal there? When do we know we've won? When there aren't any terrorist bombings? When the Iraqi security forces are "ready"? When Democracy is secure? Is anyone else confused by the vagueness? I can understand the troops desire to "win" If ever there was a greater collection of hyper-competitive individuals I can't think of it. But if we don't give them a clear definition of win, can they win?
If they can't "win" will they ever feel closure? I doubt it.
I have this theory about PTSD. Why did we never hear about PTSD before Vietnam? It might be because of the generation thing, but I think it's because the vets believed in what they were doing. Vietnam, and Iraq are both wars where the soldiers are there without clearly understanding why. In fact, I would be interested in seeing the numbers on PTSD cases coming out of Afghanistan, where I believe the soldiers really went in with a clear definition of "the win," and Iraq. I'd be willing to bet that there are far fewer coming out of Afghanistan.
That being said, and after a lot of internal debates and conflict I've decided I support the idea of pulling out of Iraq based on the lack of the clear definition of the win, as well as the fact that we are the aggressors in this war and it is clearly an "un-holy" war.
Friday, October 3, 2008
Half Truths
Last night the Vice Presidential nominees had their first and only debate. I don't care to discuss the whole issue of win or lose but rather the tactics that I noticed being employed. (Warning: I will be using examples of the republicans, that's mostly because I know more about the Democrats and could catch the subtle nuanced barbs of the republicans, but I don't doubt the Democrats were doing the same)
The most disturbing tactic I noticed was that of telling a half truth in order to smear the other candidate. Example? How about both McCain and Palin trying to cast Obama in an anti-soldier light because he voted against a funding bill for the troops. That's what they say. He voted against a funding bill for the troops that had NO time line for withdrawal. So yes he did vote against a funding bill, but not because he doesn't support the troops. By their own logic then McCain is guilty of being anti-soldier because he voted against a funding bill for the troops that did contain a time line.
What is the point of this tactic? Do politicians think they can get away with making that accusation with their opponent right there to defend themselves? Is it even worth it if you're integrity is going to be challenged right there on the spot? I don't get it, it's a bad move at anytime because one has to compromise one's integrity to employee it. But it's just plain dumb to do it in a debate setting. If you're going to do it, do it in a stump speech where you're opponent can't react to it and take the heat out of the accusation.
Summary: Half truths frustrate me for the lack of simple honesty, and poorly used half truths frustrate me for the simple lack of thought behind them.
The most disturbing tactic I noticed was that of telling a half truth in order to smear the other candidate. Example? How about both McCain and Palin trying to cast Obama in an anti-soldier light because he voted against a funding bill for the troops. That's what they say. He voted against a funding bill for the troops that had NO time line for withdrawal. So yes he did vote against a funding bill, but not because he doesn't support the troops. By their own logic then McCain is guilty of being anti-soldier because he voted against a funding bill for the troops that did contain a time line.
What is the point of this tactic? Do politicians think they can get away with making that accusation with their opponent right there to defend themselves? Is it even worth it if you're integrity is going to be challenged right there on the spot? I don't get it, it's a bad move at anytime because one has to compromise one's integrity to employee it. But it's just plain dumb to do it in a debate setting. If you're going to do it, do it in a stump speech where you're opponent can't react to it and take the heat out of the accusation.
Summary: Half truths frustrate me for the lack of simple honesty, and poorly used half truths frustrate me for the simple lack of thought behind them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
