Posts
I see many articles in the periodicals tearing down existing laws, court cases, items to consider: What I don't see in these articles is something to replace what they want to tear down with workable material.
Somewhere beforehand, elected officials, bosses, whomever, saw a need for such an action. Perhaps after using the action for several years there are flaws apparent. Most of the pundits give reasons to do away with the item all together.
What they should be writting about is the flaws they see, and possible SOLUTIONS to those flaws, perhaps with avenues to make the corrections in the fastest way possible. (i.e. word changes, cuts in the budget for obsolete items, etc.)
It is very easy to criticize someone's work, because they have already done the hard work; to research, write, gain passage, help with regulations, etc. When you add how to correct the flaws, the critics do not want to go through the hard work the original "author" did to gain passage.
Somewhere beforehand, elected officials, bosses, whomever, saw a need for such an action. Perhaps after using the action for several years there are flaws apparent. Most of the pundits give reasons to do away with the item all together.
What they should be writting about is the flaws they see, and possible SOLUTIONS to those flaws, perhaps with avenues to make the corrections in the fastest way possible. (i.e. word changes, cuts in the budget for obsolete items, etc.)
It is very easy to criticize someone's work, because they have already done the hard work; to research, write, gain passage, help with regulations, etc. When you add how to correct the flaws, the critics do not want to go through the hard work the original "author" did to gain passage.
No comments:
Post a Comment