The linked story is about a Rhode Island National Guard member who was fatally injured when he put his body between a young Afghan girl and an Army MRAP (which weighs 16 tons).
Anyway, it shows how strange a world we live in: I once was in the unit he was in, only it was part of the Texas National Guard at the time
C Company, 1st Battalion (Airborne) 143rd Infantry Regiment
First, I only know what I have read on the internet … and that means I really haven’t a clue about what happened back on that February night in Florida. Having said that I am appalled by the divisive and lynch mob atmosphere its aftermath has generated.
First, the suspect was “arrested” or at least “detained” at local police headquarters and then released for lack of evidence under Florida law that a crime was committed.
It seems readily apparent that both men involved made a series of bad choices that led to the tragic incident. Regardless, it is time to let the legal system do its work and stop demanding that one result or the other be the outcome. That merely is mob law and we all know how wrong that is … or do we?
I don’t think we do. And I think there are some in 21st century American society who want there to be racial divides in this country. Well, as long as we think in racial terms, we will be racists – all of us.
IF we think of others in terms of their ethnicity or the color of their skin, then we are being racist. There is no two-ways around it.
In this case, I don’t know how much race has played into the tragedy, but I do think race is being exploited by those who seek to discredit authority … and that is a long tradition in this country (at least since the 19 60s).
It is sad that a young person had to die, but it even more tragic that patience is no longer part of our collective psyche.
I think I need to scream: LIFE IS NOT FAIR. NEVER HAS BEEN. NEVER WILL BE.
It drives me up the wall when I hear people, like our president, go on and on about people paying their “fair” share. Guess what our tax system is not fair … no progressive income tax is, period … end of statement.
If you want fair, then everyone plays by the same rules. That means a flat tax … where everyone pays the same percentage of the same things (whether it is income from salaries and wages, income from investments or annuities or wherever the income comes from) but that doesn’t happen in the U.S. We, the people through our representatives in congress assembled, have decided that certain people have to pay more and others pay less. We have decided to give “tax breaks” to these people. It sounds good, and in some ways it may be good public policy, but don’t even try to say that it is fair to those who don’t get the breaks … because in reality it is flat out discrimination based on some artificial criteria. Now, in the US, some people pay little or no federal income tax (in fact, some poor people actually get subsidies) and the rich, no matter who they are, pay more in taxes … maybe not the same percentage as some, but actual tax dollars, yes they pay more. Plus, you can be “wealthy” on paper and cash poor … or rich in real estate and cash poor (which is why property taxes are so discriminatory)
If you don’t like income taxes, then set up a consumption tax, like the “Fair Tax”. Again, at least there, everyone is playing by the same rules, rich or poor, minimum wage or billionaire. But that isn’t seen as fair by those who think that those who have money (and that doesn’t include me, unless you think that getting about 36K per year is into money)should pay lots more (a much larger percentage of whatever it is you are taxing) because they can afford to part with it.
The problem is, as always with humans, we don’t want all to play by the same rules. That is not “fair” because talent, circumstances and nothing better than outright luck often play a role in who get to be the “winner” in life.
But that is life … equality of outcome is just about the worst thing that I can imagine because it fails to recognize that all things have to be rationed because wants are unlimited. It is how you ration wants, or if you just lower all to the lowest common denominator so everyone’s “needs” are satisfied with existing resources. Try doing that and you crash society
Think about it … and the next time someone tells you it just isn’t fair, ask them to explain why … especially if everyone is paying the same rate. IF you get a class-based answer, remind them that life isn’t fair. Never has been and never will be.
Is my calendar correct …. we are still in 2011? I am reading all these news stories about how the next 10 days will decide who the Republican nominee will be … when not even the first election has been held, much less the convention … and the presidential election isn’t for another 11 months.
Somebody needs to yank the chains of the national news media.
A. Public opinion polls do not decide primary elections … or at least they shouldn’t.
B. Please stop the horse race crap … and let the people decide and then report the results … gee, that would be novel reporting … rather than hyperventilating over the latest poll numbers or the latest gaffe or the most recent scintillating tidbit that really has no bearing on anything.
I may be a bit old fashioned, but when did the word “profit” become obscene. I obviously missed something in my education long ago, but I was taught it was alright to try to profit, whether it was from your individual labors or as part of a team or group.
But it seems that I am wrong, or at least it appears that way from various and sundry news stories that have appeared lately.
HuffPo hilights an article pointing out the Presidential wannabe Newt Gingrinch profits from the sales of his many books and videos as he wanders the campaign trail. And they have a problem with this?
I guess I just am backward and born in the wrong era.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/45087391#45087391
I don’t know about the rest of America, but this is getting scary (and just in time for Halloween)
In the above link, President Obama says that if Congress won’t pass his proposed jobs legislation, then he will do the same things by executive order.
Hello, does that not bother anyone. It bothers me, a lot.
Constitutionally, a president does not make the law, he enforces the law. He proposes, Congress disposes.
I find it exceedingly uncomfortable when a president starts acting on domestic matters via executive fiat.
I am not sure, but I would hope our members in Congress would rise to this challenge and seek to restore the checks and balances that make the United States practically unique. Yes, those checks and balances make for gridlock. Yes, they make the government look inefficient and slow moving. But, honestly, that is more prudent than acting on impulse or seeking immediate gratification.
I think President Obama is wrong in seeking to enact his plans by executive order. Not because the policies are necessarily bad, misguided or wrong, but because it should not be in any president’s power to do so.
I was reading a story/commentary on MSNBC about eight corporate executives who, in the author’s judgment, apparently are not worth the very large compensation packages they receive.
OK, other than pointing out that the people who invest in these publicly held corporations are not getting what they probably should, what is the point? If you don’t hold common stock/voting stock in the company, then your interests are pretty much zero.
OOPS, my bad. That is right, we are supposed to resent others who have more than we do and demand that we get our share of the pie.
I really feel like running screaming into the streets.
What is greed? Would someone please define it, as Pappy used to say, in words of one syllable or less so us old farts can understand it.
Now we have a US congressman proposing that the US government put 15 million unemployed on the government payroll at $40k per year and use another $200 billion to bail out local and state governments.
Did I miss something or did the world go blind?
Now, it seems the US media is giving big play to the “occupy” movement going worldwide. With all due respect to the young people involved, but there ain’t nuthin’ that comes free in life and it ain’t gonna be given to you.
Ok, folks. Something doesn’t quite add up here.
I have been trying to piece together exactly what the plot to kill the Saudi ambassador was all about and how it supposedly was to come about.
Either there are some IRGC Al Quds people who are incredibly stupid or these guys make some of the crackpot schemes of the CIA look absolutely brilliant.
First, I admit I am never going to see any of the NSA intercepts that may be linked to this, but it sort of beggar’s belief that some Iranian sleeper is going to go down to Mexico to link up with somebody he doesn’t know from Adam but is supposed to be from one of that nation’s drug cartels and offer them $1.5 million (do you want that in small bills or in opium) to off the ambassador. If I was some Mexican cartel guy, I would have tossed this yahoo in a heartbeat. Shooting up ICE and Border Patrol people is one thing, but I would think that the Mexican drug lords have got enough on their plate to even contemplate getting involved in that sort of international shenanigans. And then it turns out that the cartel contact is a DEA informant … like great choice Iran.
Next, I admit I don’t have any inside dope on the machinations of the Iranian regime or the theocrats who pull the strings, but this sounds about as dopey a plan as a poor novel plot or movie script. It takes a certain suspension of disbelief to think someone really thought it might work.
Let’s assume what has been reported is true. Some low to mid-level functionary at Al Quds decides to enhance his career and go rogue. He contacts his American cousin and tells him to hoof it down to Mexico to see if he can troll up someone in the Mexican mafia to provide a hit man/team. This guy in Al Quds obviously has some pull, cause he is able shift $100 K electronically to some bank account.
But why use a Mexican cutout? They don’t have any reason to play square and a lot of reasons not to.
It would seem cheaper and more reliable to get a Jihadi to do it.
And the blowback on this hit is going to be intense. If you are going to try something like this, you better have something better than just plausible deniability going for you, especially when you are coming from the Dark Side as far as the US and its erstwhile friends seeing things.
It all just tends to make one wonder why any Persian with more than two functioning brain cells (and these people really do go way back in the smarts department, chess versus checkers anyone) would do this without having some really important goal in mind. It doesn’t make whole lot of sense.
I have been trying to understand and follow the “Occupy Wall Street” protests of the last three-plus weeks (and its various stepchildren around the country) and I have yet to figure exactly what point the protesters are trying to make.
That corporations are “bad” … all a corporation is is a voluntary – yes, I said voluntary – legal construct to allow people to unite for some purpose while limiting their liability. This limited liability is part of the reason for the success of the modern world because those who voluntarily invest in any corporation, of whatever size, shape or purpose, are only liable to the extent they are invested in the corporation. That actually serves a good economic purpose, rather than bad … in my humble estimation.
If you eliminate the corporations, then what are you left with? I am not sure anyone has an answer to that or at least I am not hearing any.
Ok, so five percent of the nation controls most of the nation’s wealth … since when is that news. It always has been that way, and besides, most of that wealth these days is on paper and is not real “wealth” … however you want to define that.
So the people who manage corporations are “greedy” … so what? First of all, I wish someone would give me a practical working definition of what greedy means, because I am not sure what it means.
Are we saying that individuals can’t own their own labor and profit from it or leverage it to their advantage? That they are not allowed to exchange the fruits of their own talents and labors for whatever the market will bear? If that is your viewpoint, then you have seriously missed out on the historical lessons of the last three centuries. By granting the individual the right to own their own labors (and the results of that labor) and to exchange it is the reason why millions –if not billions - of people are not living at subsistence levels, particularly in the US,
The biggest problem I have with the devotees of the concept that society/government owes individuals the satisfaction of their “needs” is that nobody ever gets around to defining exactly what satisfying those “needs” means. At what point do needs become merely desires or even luxuries?
If you mean survival, then a shirt, coat, pants, socks, shoes, a puptent, a blanket, a portapottie (1 for every hundred people or so) and maybe 2,000 calories a day should do the trick … anything more than that and you are getting into discriminatory choices that differentiate individuals and then we are not treating people equal.
Oh, that is the point. We all are supposed to be equal … but in what way? We should be equal before the law (the law should be blind to our differences and our treatment therefore should be equal) … But that doesn’t happen because we happen to be individuals, different and unique, and discriminatory by nature.
Equal outcomes (incomes, etc.) are about as fallacious as anything that can be proposed. If you are not happy where you are, then change something … usually starting with yourself.
Anyway, so much for my ramblings.
