Which Principle
Chardon Township refused FEMA money for a snowstorm cleanup.
Apparently, 2 feet of snow is enough for FEMA to declare a catastrophe. Those of us who know winter's blasts have to raise our eyebrows in contempt. But this act of nature was enough to qualify this township for money from the FEMA coffers to help pay for overtime snow removal and other costs.
One trustee wanted to apply for the money, but a couple of others thought that FEMA's declaration was erroneous and refused to apply as a matter of principle.
The question here is what principle?
Suppose a thief holds you up at gunpoint and demands all the money from your wallet and you give it to him. And then your wife asks for $20 back to buy medicine for a sick child and the thief holds out a $20. Should you refuse it because your wife is lying? Honesty is the best policy.
With respect to the township, all the trustees are right. Two feet of snow is not a catastrophe unless you live in the deep south, and even then it's short-lived. But FEMA money comes from the federal government which comes from all the citizens, including those in the township. They would just be getting back some of their money. They are entitled to it. It's their money.
FEMA has no right to your money. They obviously don't know a catastrophe from a snowstorm. And claiming all the money we can from them, will just drive them to ask for more money. FEMA will give it away to whoever qualifies for their largesse. We need to put this department to bed.
When the World Trade Centers fell and Hurricane Katrina hit, this country's people responded with overwhelming generosity. That is not possible in a dictatorship. Look at Myanmar where the Junta will not allow food relief to its citizens.
Extra money for unexpected catastrophes can only come from a citizenship that budgets for a snowy day and is entitled to its money. Otherwise, you will get a growing bureaucracy that dictates who and what will qualify for aid.
The principle is one of rights. If you're not entitled to the money you earn, you are a slave.
Apparently, 2 feet of snow is enough for FEMA to declare a catastrophe. Those of us who know winter's blasts have to raise our eyebrows in contempt. But this act of nature was enough to qualify this township for money from the FEMA coffers to help pay for overtime snow removal and other costs.
One trustee wanted to apply for the money, but a couple of others thought that FEMA's declaration was erroneous and refused to apply as a matter of principle.
The question here is what principle?
Suppose a thief holds you up at gunpoint and demands all the money from your wallet and you give it to him. And then your wife asks for $20 back to buy medicine for a sick child and the thief holds out a $20. Should you refuse it because your wife is lying? Honesty is the best policy.
With respect to the township, all the trustees are right. Two feet of snow is not a catastrophe unless you live in the deep south, and even then it's short-lived. But FEMA money comes from the federal government which comes from all the citizens, including those in the township. They would just be getting back some of their money. They are entitled to it. It's their money.
FEMA has no right to your money. They obviously don't know a catastrophe from a snowstorm. And claiming all the money we can from them, will just drive them to ask for more money. FEMA will give it away to whoever qualifies for their largesse. We need to put this department to bed.
When the World Trade Centers fell and Hurricane Katrina hit, this country's people responded with overwhelming generosity. That is not possible in a dictatorship. Look at Myanmar where the Junta will not allow food relief to its citizens.
Extra money for unexpected catastrophes can only come from a citizenship that budgets for a snowy day and is entitled to its money. Otherwise, you will get a growing bureaucracy that dictates who and what will qualify for aid.
The principle is one of rights. If you're not entitled to the money you earn, you are a slave.
When you do a Google search for “Effects of Global Warming,” one of the top results that always appears is the Wikipedia entry for this subject. Wikipedia is a free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Unfortunately, most of the people that sign up to edit this article are pro-global warming evangelists who exhibit a clear pro-global warming agenda. This means that everyone from school children to the media are getting this highly biased view of climate change, when they research this topic via a Google search. Fortunately, however, ANYONE can sign up on Wikipedia free of charge in less than one minute and edit this article. I would encourage everyone to sign up and contribute to this article, to ensure it presents the correct view of global warming. Simply go to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming (or just go to Google and search “effects of global warming” to find the Wikipedia entry right near the top) and start editing! Then you can help to provide the proper balance that is needed in this highly biased article.
-T. Dejmikian
Reply to this