Text 7401, 285 rader
Skriven 2006-09-01 16:06:00 av Robert E Starr JR (7898.babylon5)
Ärende: Re: My presidential pick
================================
* * * This message was from Vorlonagent to rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.m * * *
         * * * and has been forwarded to you by Lord Time * * *         
            -----------------------------------------------             

@MSGID: <LbOdnUZYIOtTDGXZnZ2dnUVZ_qqdnZ2d@comcast.com>
@REPLY:
<MPG.1f4b2f2e987c644b98972b@news.west.earthlink.net><1155690632.218605.182870@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com><v4CdnZAimscq5


<gabiks@comcast.net> wrote in message 
news:1156900652.197197.258530@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> Vorlonagent wrote:

> having worked in the healthcare industry for many years it's
> impossible for me to turn away from the fact that there are many, many
> people in genuine need of assistance.  nor do I consider, by any
> stretch of the imagination, the US to be a 'welfare' state.  we as
> a culture, and a country are for the most part, unaware and
> sufficiently removed from the plight of those less fortunate for us to
> have much empathy in their regard.  We feel, on some level, that they
> are 'less' then we are, perhaps not educated enough, perhaps
> unwilling to work hard or unable to do what needs doing. etc, etc.

> Yes, we need 'to do something else.'  But despite the air of
> entitlement that can be found, most notably in inner cities, I argue we
> need to afford more assistance not less.

The devil is in the details.

How do you assist more and encourage less dependence?

The Left is still wedded to the european welfare-state model and looks to 
expand and extend that model in the US past what has already been done.  The 
Left does not seem to advance or consider ideas outside that framework. Nor 
does it recognize failures in socialism here, blaming all problems on not 
being socialist enough.

I think the Right is more or less as-advertised.  Not really really engaged 
on the human level and primarily concerned with the rampant waste and abuse 
in the government socialism machine and assumign the Free market is a 
cure-all.

It is of note that social spending under Bush has increased dramatically. 
You wouldn't expect that.  You'd expect that Bush would act out of the 
heartless, miserly Republican stereotype, but no...


> Bush and company (as others before) have been great at decreeing what
> must be done, no child left behind, homeland security mandates,
> "healthcare reform, to name a few, while offering insufficient
> funding and little support to those agencies held responsible for there
> implementation.  State after state is declaring 'bankruptcy'
> putting even basic services in jeopardy.  How is this possible in one
> of the richest, most money making economies on the planet?

States aren't declaring bankrupcy.  Perhaps they were at the start of the 
2000's in the shadow of the dot-com bust.

Naturally I suppose, that bust hit my state (CA) hard.

Accoding to the Wall Street Journal, all but 10 states are currenty running 
budget surplusses.  (CA is one of those 10).


> I think we need a serious reversal of fortune between the state and
> federal governments. if president bush can so generously give us back
> 'our money' to spend, we are clearly paying too much in federal
> taxes.

Most conservatives and libertarians would agree with you.  :)


> While I don't think less government is necessarily the
> answer, I do think the 28% or so the majority of us pay in federal
> income tax could be better spent at the state level.  I also think we
> as a nation need to seriously contemplate how we wish the federal/state
> government to effect our daily lives.  How do we wish to be governed,
> as individuals, as a culture, and as a country.  I for one would like
> to be treated as an 'adult,' and to live in a society that takes
> care of its own, in a country that respects and values more then the
> almighty dollar.

For the most part, you do.  Really.

The problem is that the almighty dollar is caught up in the lives of 
individuals because it is the medium of exchange.  People need dollars to 
trade for food and housing (and a few things on the side).  In order to have 
enough dollars to go around, people need to do work that generates them. 
That means business.  In america that also means big business.  Which in 
turn means that the health of all this business affects the people that work 
in them.  There's an old saw, "if the rich arren't making money, nobody else 
is either".

I will agree that one can butt-kiss the rich as easily as co-depend the poor 
and that neither is very good for the country as a whole.

Unfortunately, picking up all the dollars and distributing them evenly, 
while it sounds like a nice idea, doesn't work.  Just ask anyone who grew up 
under Communist rule.  Never mind the fact the the people who pick up the 
dollars are tempted to keep some for themselves.  That's just icing on the 
cake.  (There's an old russian joke that comes from its Soviet days: "If you 
see a line, get in it.  It's something you need.")

The other problem is that the economy here is changing.  Manufacturing jobs 
are leaving and service jobs are replacing them.  The old skillsets aren't 
as needed anymore.  The american worker, one of the best in the world at 
what he does, costs so much he doesn't make for a good price/performance 
ratio.  That means retraining and oftentimes, a pay cut.

Currently most states are, as I said, doing pretty well.  I can't speak for 
the other 9 deficit-prone states, but CA's budget injuries are entirely 
self-inflicted.  CA was flush with cash when dot-com was a boom and refused 
to scale back when the bubble burst.


> For a time I felt globalization was the great evil of our time.  Maybe
> even still do to a degree.

Why?


>> ....So civilization ends in a massive food riot, huh?
>
> pie, i hope there's pie. i love pie.

Me, I'm lobbying for a Great Race pie-fight.


> radical Islam is no more (and no less) a threat then Christian Zionism.

Define, please.


> If fact, if we continue to let the 'moral majority' infiltrate the
> government we may soon come to realize radical islam is a most beloved
> partner.   in who's gun toting hands, we place all our hopes for a
> quick and speedy reconciliation before god.

There are strong resembelences between the public face of Radical Islam and 
Fundamnetalist Christianity.  Even if your worst fears about Christian 
Fundamentalism are true, the two will never be freinds.  Look up a little 
history.  Namely Hitler and Stalin. There's nothing one all-powerful 
authority hates more than another.  :)

Both religious viewpoints emphasize a return to a black and white 
literalistic read of the respective faiths and that's the similarity.  But 
the culture differences are profound.  Radical Islam comes from an 
environment of poor, relatively under-educated people (the only school 
textbook considered needed is the Koran).  Chriatianity is not that deeply 
woven into our society and never was.  Fundamentalist Christianity cannot 
hope for the degree of control over our society that Radical Islam has in 
its native environment.

Indeed, Fundamntalism's political adventures had made Christianity something 
of a dirty word in our society.

While the Christian Right bears watching (and its extremes bear blunting), I 
am not seriously concerned about a theocracy being built in the US.


> I don't see iran having 1, 21 or 100 nukes 10-15 years from now as
> any more problematic then Pakistan having them now.  Nor do I think
> iran wants to be in the arms business.  Providing bombs to groups like
> hesballah would totally negate the power, and more importantly, the
> influence having them brings in the first place.

No it wouldn't.  The "nuclear club" is a rather exclusive one.  One gains 
prestige just be being a member.

I can't see how giving Hezbollah a bomb would decrease Iran's nuclear 
prestige.  Could you explain that?

While you're at it could you explain why Iran wouldn't want to be in the 
arms business?

If Iran gave Hezbollah a bomb, it would simply be a flip of a coin whether 
the bomb ended up in Israel or the US (assuming it wasn't intercepted, of 
course).

I think you're seriously misreading Iran (but in fairness, you probably 
think *I* am).


> IMHO, Iran is looking
> to bring groups like al-queda into the fold, promising protection from
> the 'great satan' in exchange for a controlling interest in the
> region.  If that happens, I'll start to worry.

Iran is cultivating Al-Queda.  I'll agree with that, but there's no "region" 
Al-Queda could give Iran control over.  I think Iran regards Al Queda as 
convienent, expendible shock troops. Al-Queda is composed of Wahabbists 
(radical Sunnis) which means they are normally regarded with hatred by 
Shiite Iran.  I see Iran making common cause with Al-Queda so Al-Queda can 
die in Allah's name instead of and ahead of shiites.

I'm not sure what is supposed to happen where you'll start worrying though. 
Could you clarify?


> In the mean time do I worry about a carefully placed nuke in a world
> financial center? Sure.  but it won't be Iranian made.

Who else then?

Iran is #1 on my list.  They have motive and can make the opportunity (the 
Hezbos), but lack the means.

A pakistani bomb would be the next highest on the list.  Pakistan has lots 
of hardline islamics in power, especially in its intelligence service.  But 
Pakistan doesn't have many bombs.  Trying to sneak one out (and keep it 
quiet) would be difficult.

Unlike a lot of people, I'm not convinced that the North Koreans have a 
workable atomic bomb because I haven't heard of a successful test (Plutonium 
is tricky to make a bomb out of).  They could produce a dirty bomb tomorrow.

There are the old soviet nukes but I'm not as worried about those.  See 
nuclear weapons (especially plutonium nulcear weapons) have a shelf life. 
The fissionable material in the warheads continue to undergo decay and that 
means the uranium or plutonium loses its potency over time.  Usually 
warheads need to be re-enriched every 5 years.  It's been *how* long since 
the fall of the Soviet union?  The only ex-soviet warheads that are any good 
(as *nuclear* weapons) should be those that a government (commonly the 
Russian government) is spending money to maintain.  Now Russia is strapped 
for cash.  It might consider selling a nuke but they would likely sell off a 
warhead that was not maintained.  It would likley go off as a dirty bomb and 
not a nuke.  Still not fun but several orders of magnitude *less* raw 
destruction.

That exhausts the list of likley suspects.


> The real threat, again IMHO, is the blatant disrespect with which our
> leaders and 'captains of industry' travel the world.  We have
> absolutely on grace, we charge in assuming everyone wants what we want.

Some point to this.  The counterpoint is that the business guys make a ton 
of money which means people out there do want what we're selling.  Ideally, 
this is not an excuse for arrogance, however.

There are also some universals everybody *does* want.  Enough food on the 
table to feed the family (and the means to keep it that way), also the 
ability to go about plying that means of putting food on the table free from 
human-imposed fear and corruption.

That's for starters, I'm sure there are others.


> Our need to maintain our present standard of living takes us further
> and further away from home.  Making us more dependent on both the
> economies of other nations and the good will of governments different
> from our own.  We haven't reached an 'economy without boarders'
> just yet.   Pissing people off with a foreign policy that smacks of
> righteous imperialism isn't going to get us there any faster.  I
> think putin said it best:   you can't export democracy.

Putin is an ex-KGB chief.  I wouldn't bet much on him having an august 
understanding of democracy.

Moreover, I believe democracy can be exported.  It is exported every day via 
satellite.

To assume differently consigns the majority of the world's population to 
fear and salvery to power and corruption far worse than the worst excesses 
we'll ever see here in the US and Europe.

How can that be humane or caring?

-- 
John Trauger,
Vorlonagent


"Methane martini.
Shaken, not stirred."


"Spirituality without science has no mind.

Science without spirituality has no heart."

-Methuselah Jones
                                     
--- SBBSecho 2.11-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)