According to HWJ Jr., a writer from that Daily/Weekend Business Street Publication, if you are investigating the underlying issues involved in causing the greatest financial breakdown in nearly a century (as occurred in 2008), start by asking an irrelevant question. In his opinion, the WHO was not addressed only the WHAT. My late Mother in her wisdom would point out “if you start wrong, you are not going to end up right”. HWJ Jr. in the January 29/30, 2011 edition (A17) concluded that the investigation was an exercise in political correctness because the relevant WHO question (or the elephant in the room for lack of a better symbol) was not addressed. What was missing in my opinion was clarity of focus, such as was exercised by those who established the “ground rules” for determining at whose doorstep ALL the (complex security issues involved in the changing role of an Embassy in a “war” zone) responsibility for the blame in the recent Syrian Embassy issue, lay. For example, if an embassy is called upon to provide assistance to another Department or Agency (especially one more proficient in security measures), who bears overall responsible for adequate security, especially if such practices are carried out in a “war” zone? That Report from all media reports left no doubt about the central responsible party and it can only be concluded that all these secondary factors were examined in arriving at the conclusion drawn. It only goes to show in all fairness, that the “will” to find out the WHO is possible, on occasion does take place. All that’s needed is to find out is, what are the type of contributing “factors” required in order to establish clearly focused ground rules that “target” the relevant criteria, such that the focus will be consistently clear instead of being diffused on occasion, (in the opinion of some).
Perhaps by this action, it was demonstrated that the Writer in the December 31, 2009 edition of the same Popular Publication (A13) was not correct in concluding that under the current Administration, “we have pulled back from the foreign world. We’re smaller for accepting that false choice between burdens at home and burdens abroad, and the world beyond our shores is more hazardous and cynical for our retrenchment and our self-flagellation.” However, it may take more than a single decisive action such as this to prove this writer wrong, (when the state of the world is taken into consideration). Maybe, it was the loss of “life” that marshaled all the competing interests, but what about all the secondary indirect lives impacted by the financial disaster either directly or indirectly. Who can say with any certainty that loss of “life” did not occur as a result of the financial disaster and that those as well as the surviving do not deserve a WHO answer as well! This demonstrates fair(ness) to those impacted in the financial crisis scenario and does not represent a delve into political policy on my part!
NOTE: This Writer is taking steps to ensure that the repeated use of “we” is not inclusive just because of my use of this quotation in this subject. This position is necessary especially since “Society’s” types standards for demonstrating “legitimacy” are very “thin”.
Perhaps by this action, it was demonstrated that the Writer in the December 31, 2009 edition of the same Popular Publication (A13) was not correct in concluding that under the current Administration, “we have pulled back from the foreign world. We’re smaller for accepting that false choice between burdens at home and burdens abroad, and the world beyond our shores is more hazardous and cynical for our retrenchment and our self-flagellation.” However, it may take more than a single decisive action such as this to prove this writer wrong, (when the state of the world is taken into consideration). Maybe, it was the loss of “life” that marshaled all the competing interests, but what about all the secondary indirect lives impacted by the financial disaster either directly or indirectly. Who can say with any certainty that loss of “life” did not occur as a result of the financial disaster and that those as well as the surviving do not deserve a WHO answer as well! This demonstrates fair(ness) to those impacted in the financial crisis scenario and does not represent a delve into political policy on my part!
NOTE: This Writer is taking steps to ensure that the repeated use of “we” is not inclusive just because of my use of this quotation in this subject. This position is necessary especially since “Society’s” types standards for demonstrating “legitimacy” are very “thin”.
No comments:
Post a Comment