Two Words: In. Sane. When President Obama was asked during the campaign why he would raise a tax even though that tax increase had been shown in the past to decrease overall government revenue, he replied that he’d raise it in the interest of fairness.
Liberals are every bit as interested in equality as conservatives are. The difference is, they don’t want equality of opportunity. They want equality of outcome. And yes, some will evidently sacrifice their children on the altar of that god. At Moonbattery – a letter by one Doug Van Gorder, which was published in the Boston Globe:
Current school security procedures lock down school populations in the event of armed assault. Some advocate abandoning this practice as it holds everyone in place, allowing a shooter easily to find victims.
An alternative to lockdown is immediate exodus via announcement. Although this removes potential hostages and makes it nearly impossible for the shooter to acquire preselected targets, it unfairly rewards resourceful children who move to safety off-site more shrewdly and efficiently than others.
I’d like to know how that’s unfair. And I’d also like to know why progressives, who typically are big Darwin fans, aren’t supporting his “survival of the fittest” concept.
But I’ll tell you – based on a quick Google search, including this defense of the Ft. Hood terrorist by Mr. Van Gorder, I think this guy is a moby working against the left. At least, I sincerely hope he is… because the alternative is he really means this stuff. Good Lord.
So he’ll put a gun to our collective head and kill us all in the interests of being…fair??
Liberalism (actually, I think this is really riding the communist edge pretty hard) is a mental disease.
ECM´s last blog ..Sheer Boredom
“Survival of fittest”, although often applied to other arenas, is a part of evolutionary THEORY not public safety, not individual human life survival, and not national tax policies. If anything, it is a and should a concept be employed by God and not by man. Humans (e.g. Hitler) should not be able to make choices on who should live or die.
With that said (and yes I’m being somewhat extreme on purpose), I think this illustrates what is done in media for sake of rhetoric. I agree, hopefully the people writing the stuff aren’t really as extreme as they sound.
The explanation in the letter is crap, I agree. However, I think the problem with policies is that they necessarily take assumptions about the nature of violent individuals and situations. Therefore policies really only make sense in a certain set of situations.
If you watch “Dark Knight” you can see the pros and cons regarding the proposed situation. Yes someone could target a school (much like the bombing of the hospital). However, Joker was a criminal who intentionally worked outside law enforcement’s expectations. Someone could be targeting buses, or a certain nearby community. Of course, I know this is real life. However, keep in mind we’re living in the times where terrorists actions don’t fit the into a simplistic motive-based crime model used in our traditional thinking.
I’m not advocating one policy or the other. However, perhaps policies should include some adaptability to fit specific scenarios as these scenarios change from what we’ve been used to seeing.