"The sky is falling! The sky is falling." Chicken Little became famous for his role and exclamation in the children's story. He (or is it, she?) is reprising that role in the current protests of the ban on travel from terrorist countries. "Our university systems will be irreparably damaged. Critical research will suffer across the globe. The US will become a second class educational nation. This is not the America that I know." These are just some of the plaintive cries of academics protesting the ban.
Did I say "temporary travel ban?" They make it sound like it is permanent and impenetrable. "No one, ever from anywhere will ever get in again." And did we say that it is from seven countries that are known for terrorism?
Is this an extreme reaction? Absolutely. The flow of immigrants is like a flood bursting through an earthen dam. To save the dam and protect downstream residents, the engineers employ every piece of earth moving equipment at their disposal. They plug the breach in the dam. Only then do they begin to reconstruct the spillway to control the release of water into the river.
The previous administration threw open the floodgates and the dam broke. The primary task is to cut off the uncontrolled release (or entrance in this situation) and then begin to filter out the bad actors and pass the acceptable ones.
Extreme circumstances call for extreme reactions. Once the situation is normalized, we can get back to life as usual. Ninety and 120 days seems like a long time to the people caught in the flood tide. But for the proper controls to be installed, that is a short window. In the long run immigrants will be free from suspicion, having been vetted properly, and the country will be safer.
A second children's story also comes to mind. There once was a little boy who cried, "Wolf!" He did it when there was no real danger. When a real crisis occurred, he cried again, but everybody just assumed that it was another false alarm.
In the past week and a half, everything President Trump has done has been "wrong." The hue and cry has gone out. "Wolf!" If a true emergency occurs the fake adrenaline rushes will numb the populace to the calls and we could end up in real trouble. (Not that we expect any untoward event to happen. But neither did the little boy.)
Speaking of boys, the Boy Scout motto is "Be prepared." That must surely include not overreacting at minor events. The sky is not falling.
Tuesday, January 31, 2017
Thursday, January 19, 2017
Boycott
With all of the interest in boycotting the new President's inauguration I have to confess that I have been remiss. I have boycotted several inaugurations in the past and did not have the decency to announce it to the world so that those who care could tabulate the true numbers of boycotters.
For the record, I have boycotted both inaugurations of Presidents Obama and Clinton. Sorry that I did not let everyone know so that they could keep an accurate count and announce it in the news every other day. I know their statistics will now be skewed by my tardy announcements, but better late than never, I always say.
The world is waiting with bated breath to know the exact count of those who will be missing on January 20 so that they can compare it to the past, or something. I am not sure why the fascination with the number of delinquents, but I want to do my part in keeping the record accurate.
Have a good day, mate.
For the record, I have boycotted both inaugurations of Presidents Obama and Clinton. Sorry that I did not let everyone know so that they could keep an accurate count and announce it in the news every other day. I know their statistics will now be skewed by my tardy announcements, but better late than never, I always say.
The world is waiting with bated breath to know the exact count of those who will be missing on January 20 so that they can compare it to the past, or something. I am not sure why the fascination with the number of delinquents, but I want to do my part in keeping the record accurate.
Have a good day, mate.
Wednesday, January 11, 2017
Let's Roll
Another Mass Shooting
Another mass shooting and we have innocent, unarmed people dead because only one guy was armed and committed. I have never been in the circumstance, thankfully, and hope to never experience that. But I have determined, before hand, that if anything like that happens I am rushing the shooter.
What if he shoots me? What if I lie down like a sheep and he shoots me anyway. I want to be moving. Ever hear of Rasputin, the Russian monk? His assassins beat, shot, stabbed, and poisoned him. He finally died, but he did a lot o damage in the mean time. If someone starts shooting, I will lead the rush. If nothing else it will distract him and either let someone else subdue him or others escape.
Are Americans so docile or self-centered that they will not “risk” anything to stop a tragedy? We hear of people rushing into burning buildings or other dangerous situations to save someone. What is the difference?
Three air liners flew into buildings with seemingly no resistance. One flew into the ground, completely missing its intended target. I want to be on the “Let’s roll,” plane.
Another mass shooting and we have innocent, unarmed people dead because only one guy was armed and committed. I have never been in the circumstance, thankfully, and hope to never experience that. But I have determined, before hand, that if anything like that happens I am rushing the shooter.
What if he shoots me? What if I lie down like a sheep and he shoots me anyway. I want to be moving. Ever hear of Rasputin, the Russian monk? His assassins beat, shot, stabbed, and poisoned him. He finally died, but he did a lot o damage in the mean time. If someone starts shooting, I will lead the rush. If nothing else it will distract him and either let someone else subdue him or others escape.
Are Americans so docile or self-centered that they will not “risk” anything to stop a tragedy? We hear of people rushing into burning buildings or other dangerous situations to save someone. What is the difference?
Three air liners flew into buildings with seemingly no resistance. One flew into the ground, completely missing its intended target. I want to be on the “Let’s roll,” plane.
Mis Mal and Non-feasance
Academic policy debate in high school and college focuses on a specific policy action and whether such a policy should be adopted. (“Should,” means ought to, but not necessarily will. Definitions are important in debate.) The definition means that it might not be adopted because politicians will not vote for it, but the question is whether it would be a good idea.
One of the legitimate arguments against implementing a policy would be that it would not work. Even if implemented, the policy, would not deliver the desired benefits. Since it would be of no advantage to make the change, we should vote no. Enough debate theory.
One of the “stock” arguments, or ones that every team hits just to throw trash cans in the path of the pursuer, is one of “mis, mal, and non-feasance. Misfeasance is when a bureaucrat or other functionary unintentionally or ignorantly hinders the effect of the plan. There is no malice or wrong doing involved, the agent just makes a mistake. Misfeasance.
Malfeasance is when that agent deliberately sabotages the plan. This might even be illegal activities, but is deliberate and designed. Malfeasance. The final barrier is nonfeasance. This is when the agent merely ignores the implementation and does nothing. This may or may not be intentional or merely ennui. Nothing happens. Nonfeasance.
In order to make the argument as efficiently as possible and use as little time as possible, the argument is presented as, “The affirmative plan will not work due to mis, mal, or non-feasance.” With only 10 minutes to respond to all of the negative arguments, the affirmative rebuttal will be forced to use precious seconds to answer this. Now for the point.
The article about the fire suppression and active fighting made me think of these old arguments. The report of how the fire was handled seemed to detail every aspect of the mis, mal, and non-feasance argument.
The fire was about 1.5 acres for several days and not much was done to actually put it out. It seems that the strategy was mainly involved containing the fire and letting it burn itself out. Nonfeasance. And once the fire began to spread, an insufficient number of additional fire fighters were requested. Misfeasance. Well, maybe malfeasance is not involved, other than a desire to contain costs, as opposed to the fire. But since the mandate for fire suppression agencies is to control the fire, irrespective of the costs, this could be a deliberate attempt to “stay in budget.”
In retrospect, no one expected 50 plus mph winds to “jump” the ridge line of the mountains and speed the fire far beyond any anticipated limits. Future efforts will undoubtedly focus on, in the words of Smokey the Bear, “Snuff it out.”
Then there will no mis, mal, or non-feasance.
One of the legitimate arguments against implementing a policy would be that it would not work. Even if implemented, the policy, would not deliver the desired benefits. Since it would be of no advantage to make the change, we should vote no. Enough debate theory.
One of the “stock” arguments, or ones that every team hits just to throw trash cans in the path of the pursuer, is one of “mis, mal, and non-feasance. Misfeasance is when a bureaucrat or other functionary unintentionally or ignorantly hinders the effect of the plan. There is no malice or wrong doing involved, the agent just makes a mistake. Misfeasance.
Malfeasance is when that agent deliberately sabotages the plan. This might even be illegal activities, but is deliberate and designed. Malfeasance. The final barrier is nonfeasance. This is when the agent merely ignores the implementation and does nothing. This may or may not be intentional or merely ennui. Nothing happens. Nonfeasance.
In order to make the argument as efficiently as possible and use as little time as possible, the argument is presented as, “The affirmative plan will not work due to mis, mal, or non-feasance.” With only 10 minutes to respond to all of the negative arguments, the affirmative rebuttal will be forced to use precious seconds to answer this. Now for the point.
The article about the fire suppression and active fighting made me think of these old arguments. The report of how the fire was handled seemed to detail every aspect of the mis, mal, and non-feasance argument.
The fire was about 1.5 acres for several days and not much was done to actually put it out. It seems that the strategy was mainly involved containing the fire and letting it burn itself out. Nonfeasance. And once the fire began to spread, an insufficient number of additional fire fighters were requested. Misfeasance. Well, maybe malfeasance is not involved, other than a desire to contain costs, as opposed to the fire. But since the mandate for fire suppression agencies is to control the fire, irrespective of the costs, this could be a deliberate attempt to “stay in budget.”
In retrospect, no one expected 50 plus mph winds to “jump” the ridge line of the mountains and speed the fire far beyond any anticipated limits. Future efforts will undoubtedly focus on, in the words of Smokey the Bear, “Snuff it out.”
Then there will no mis, mal, or non-feasance.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)