Anderson Cooper, famed CNN correspondent, keeps a blog. I subscribe to it, and occasionally, it catches my eye. Especially when he (and/or his co-authors) brings to light the same debate that I had 24 hours previously.
Amar and I were talking yesterday about the situation Middle East. I've virtually been captivated by it since it started intensifying a few days back. I'm not sure why, but if there's a website with an article about it, I'm reading. If there's a news update on tv, I'm watching.
I'm not going to go into the whole Biblical dynamic at work here. A different post for a different time. But I do have thoughts on that which I'm sure will make for a great discussion in the comments :)
What Amar and I were discussing the other day was the idea about evacuating Americans from Lebanon. Who pays for it? The evacuees? The US government? To be honest with you, I'm not sure what side I'm on. It originally struck me as quite odd that the evacuees were required to pay in the end. But Amar pointed out that they chose to go to a risky area. Tourists are very different from government employees. Employees have to be there. Tourists do not.
The blog explores this a bit as well in the article here. I have a few thoughts about the points that the author makes. He states that this debate is similar to, or even the same one, that crops up when hikers are rescued from mountains, or when boats are pulled from rough seas.
I don't know that I'd say it's the same debate. Am I uninformed? Likely. What happens when someone leaves a candle lit at their house, and then needs to be rescued after flames engulf the structure? Does that home owner get a bill from the fire department? Honestly, I have no idea if they do get a bill or not. If you know, please leave a comment.
Or what happens when people are rescued from a hostage situation? Do they have to pay in full for their safe return? Maybe?
All this to say, I really don't know who pays for getting Americans out of harms way. But honestly, why are we bickering about finances when there are far more important things to be done (in my humble opinion)?
And please, don't get me started on this Bush/Blair expletive story. How in the world is that a headline when people are literally tossing rockets at each other for weeks at a time?
P.S. For some reason, my gut feel is that the US should care for its citizens no matter where they are. But I really have no grounds for that stance. Just an opinion.
2 comments:
Interesting...I, too, have been mesmerized by the crisis in the Middle East. Could it be staged to help us forget about Iraq? (Just a thought for any conspiracy theorists out there.) I also agree about the Bush candid comment that seemed to be major headlines yesterday. After hearing it, I didn't think it was that big of a deal...I mean it's not like he hasn't cursed before. Someone is trying desperately to attack Bush's reputation - that's the only reason I see that comment being such a big deal. However, I would advise the president not to talk with his mouth full. I mean didn't we all learn that? As for rescue fees, I would have to say that payment for rescue depends on the reason as to why you are there. If the government sent you, then by all means the government should pick up the tab to help get you out. However, my thinking is that tourists do take a chance going over there. If it was me, I would just be thankful either way that I was out of that area. Send me the bill...
I tend to lean with Amar - if people are willing to put them in harms way, they should be willing to pay to get out of it. However, I also agree that the US should take care of its citizens whenever possible - which they're doing. They're not requiring people to pay before they let them on the boat to take them to safety...they're getting them there and then asking for payment. It will be interesting to see how many people actually do pay.
So, they're being required (hopefully) to be responsible for their choices monitarily, and the US is removing them from danger.
One more side note - if Americans are there because they work for a company who has interests down there, they are making an incredible salary because they're in such a volitile area...
Post a Comment