Recently, the Obama administration has decided to cut the Pentagon's missile defense programs by $1.2 billion. Fort Greely, Alaska is in the process of expanding its missile field, and this cut to the defense budget will compel the project to suspend progress before its completion. In response to this situation, Palin has made a bold statement. She has said that, "Reducing Alaska's defense readiness in these perilous times is a show of weakness, it is not a sign of strength." Palin fears Alaska's vulnerability to a missile fired from North Korea. But is this the only reason that she classifies the current situation as a weakness? Or maybe, she was accusing the Obama administration of being weak. [http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/]
But then again, what is weakness? How do we define it? Merriam-Webster online says that it is the quality or state of lacking strength or having deficiency, both mentally and physically. Isn't it odd, though, that what may manifest itself as a weakness may turn into a strength? What if Obama's decision turns out to be a healthy one? It's status (weakness/strength) therefore depends on the given circumstances or environment. Wouldn't this make us hesitant to classify something without giving it time to develop and follow its course?
(Sam Maliha)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Well, it has been said that a person's greatest strength can turn into his greatest weakness. "Strengths" or "weaknesses" are really dependent upon context and personal perspective. You can't judge how beneficial or harmful a particular trait is until you see it in action.
After all, determination can equal stubbornness. Confidence can equal arrogance. Kindness can equal softness, while pragmatism can equal cruelty. Whether something is a strength or a weakness is purely a matter of judgment.
-Eric W
Post a Comment