Text 7734, 480 rader
Skriven 2006-09-06 16:36:00 av Robert E Starr JR (8231.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: <DdSdnRORw5yyyGLZnZ2dnUVZ_uudnZ2d@comcast.com>
@REPLY:
<v4CdnZAimscq5n_ZnZ2dnUVZ_rKdnZ2d@comcast.com><ehq6e216tub7uesnj994111il43dd4npeu@4ax.com><C108E3BC.CADD%gabryant@fuse.n


<gabiks@comcast.net> wrote in message 
news:1157563620.568515.202080@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> Vorlonagent wrote:
>
>> How do you assist more and encourage less dependence?
>
> i think we need to focus on programs that lift people out of poverty.
> handing them enough 'money' (food stamps, section 8 vouchers, etc) to
> keep them feed, clothed, and sheltered isn't really addressing their
> situation.  in many ways it allows them to continue without offering
> them a way out.  poverty is not a one size fits all proposition.  i
> think it would be helpfull to look at groups of people and their unique
> situations and then tailor programs to meet their needs.  poverty in
> rural american is very different from poverty in urban america.

I am truly not trying to pick on you when I say that you haven't answered my 
question.  When people get going along these lines, the results tend to be 
more studies and meetings and blue-ribbon comittees that meet and bloviate 
while the problem festers.

We should be able to paint in primary colors.  Rural poverty may not have a 
lot in common with urban poverty but it should have a lot in common with 
other rural poverty.  Can we break things down and make at least a few broad 
generalizations and categorizations here?  If not, there may be a problem. 
I'm not sure the government can really produce completely customized poverty 
solutions for each individual case.

I"m looking for concrete steps that can be taken.


>>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.
>
> there is a huge difference between being socially conscious/aware and
> being *socialist.*

Very true.  At this point I've read enough of your writing that I'd really 
have to *try* to peg you as a socialist.  I'm too lazy.  :)

I am pointing to the political situation any solution would have to exist 
in.


>> 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.
>
> yes, well, let's hope they get over that. :^)

Let's hope they both do.  Keep an eye out for third-parties, too. 
Especially come 2008.


>> 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...
>
> ok, and a more jaded person then i may say that if  the presidents
> economic policy forces more people to live below the poverty line, then
> yes, there would indeed be an increase in assistance necessarily.

Such people exist in abundence.  I don't believe the public assistance rolls 
would bear out a massive increase in need.

Unemployment has been crazy-low and the economy has been chunring along 
nicely up until high oil proces really started to slow things down.  With 
the current right-left disconnect in this country, I'd expect that most 
people who ardently wants to believe things are bad out there would shrug 
off any proof countering their opinion.

You simply have to decide what you think and whose figures you trust.  Not 
necessarily in that order.


>> > 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.  :)
>
> argh, not them!  :^)

Ah the perlis of outside-the-box thinking...   :)


>>>  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.
>
> ok, your right, for the most part i do.   and i certainly understand
> that money makes the wourld go 'round.  yet i feel my personal freedoms
> and my right to the pursuit of happiness is under assault much of the
> time.  "little" things like the push to allow prayer in public schools,
> the hoopla regarding gay marriages, limiting the rights to legal
> abortions, line item vetos, the notion of enemy combatants, and
> executive orders....

We are at war, on multiple levels.  This kind of churning-up is a part of 
the times.

There's the terror war and there's also a culture war about what the 
country's going to be like.

What is the role of religion in society?  Some people want to consign 
christianity (and specifically christianity) to the closet gays come out of. 
Others want christianity to be made the state religion in all but name.  I 
find both viewpoints to be massively toxic.  I don't think the world or US 
is better off in a purely secular world.  True tolerance of religious belief 
extends to christianity, even the variety(ies) we don't personally like. 
But we don't let them insinuate themselves where they don't belong. Exactly 
where the US as a nation comes down on this stuff is an element of the 
culture war being fought in this country.

And we are at war with a kind of opponent we really haven't faced before. 
Organizations that aren't necessarily wed to a given government.  To wit, 
terrorists and terrorism.  They represent challenges to our definitions of 
what a soldier or "combatant" is and how to handle them and how to fight 
them effectively.

All this provokes a lot of cussin' and discussin'.


>> 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.")
>
> i've heard that one too.  my russian freinds don't complain to much
> about not having money.  most complain that there just isn't anything
> to buy.

Capitalism has not been good to Russia.  In fact, *history* hasn't been all 
that good to Russia.  Over the last 500 years or so, they have these peak 
moments where they're "somebody" and then it all seems to come crashing down 
again.  :(


>> 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.
>
> you forgot job _cuts_.

I don't think so.  Cuts one place are replaced with expanding jobs 
elesewhere.  With a 5% unemployment rate, there's no shortage of jobs 'round 
here.  It's all about what they are and what you need to get one that's 
worth something.

We used to have lots of decent-pay, low-skill jobs here and they're going 
away with the manufacturing sector of the country.  People need to know more 
before they can land a decent job.  They need more skills and training than 
they did 50 years ago.  The low-skill jobs are different and don't pay as 
well now.


>> > radical Islam is no more (and no less) a threat then Christian Zionism.
>> > 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.
>
>> While the Christian Right bears watching (and its extremes bear 
>> blunting), I
>> am not seriously concerned about a theocracy being built in the US.
>
> not sure i can define it any better, you've hit all the scary bits.
> while i agree that it's not very likely that our republic will devolve
> into a theocracy, i do worry that if the current lean toward the far
> right continues the oh so easily mislead voting public will elect to
> office a president who shares some frightening, to me, fundamentalist
> ideas.  and just like that, nukes in the hands of extremists.

The folks aren't as easy to mislead as people think.  I believe that's a 
myth.  People can be mislead and there have been spectacular moments of it 
over not just the history of the US.  Nazi Germany for example.

The US has "checks and balances".  The constitution makes it damn had to 
really wield uncontested power here.  even with both houses of congress and 
the presidency from the same party.

The current lean to the Right means nothing.  It's the US as a nation 
pulling back from liberal/progressive ideas and deciding what to keep.  It's 
liberals and progressives who do not want to yeild up power to change, just 
as the conservative power-holders before them didn't want  to yield up 
power.

You shouldn't be scared all the time, or scared of a whole politcal wing of 
the country.  Just as fear of communism turned into McCarthyism, so will 
fear of Republicans turn to something equally self-destructive.  It's 
overblown.  Republicans aren't closet fascists any more then Democrats are 
closet communists.

Look at what they say.  Think.  Decide who makes sense.  Vote accordingly. 
People who excessively evoke fear are trying to influence that process.


> as for the the under-educated part, with out knowing who you are
> referring to specificall, i doubt muslims are as ignorant as you
> assume.  last i checked plutonium enrichment was not part of amy
> elementary school program.  i'm willing to bet that as a percentage
> of the total population, iranians are no less educated then americans.

I'd take that bet.

You don't need a nation of skilled people to build an atomic bomb.  Just 
enough educated minds to do the job.  Pakistan's a great example of this.

So's North Korea.

BTW it's important to keep track of who's working with what.

With Iran, once they have the bomb-grade uranium, they're in the home 
stretch.  That's why halting Iranian enrichment is so important.  For NK, 
having bomb-grade plutonium is where the headaches *start*.

South Africa was a nuclear power even though they never officially tested a 
bomb (there is some strange unofficial stuff floating around)  They tested a 
casing for a uranium bomb and they had the bomb-grade uranium handy (they 
were co-developing nukes with Israel) so they knew what would happen if they 
used uranium.  The US never felt the need to test its first uranimum bomb 
either.  It was tested over Hiroshima.  Trinity was a plutonium bomb.  We 
felt the need to test*it*.


>> > 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.
>
> yes, and we've already established that once you have them you don't
> need to us them.

....but it also confers an amoutn of invulnerability to the conventional 
military.  With Iran as a primary source for money and weapons to people who 
are dedicated to bringing down the west, I'd consider allowing them an 
invulnerable stonghold a very bad thing.

This does not even address the possibility of Iran letting a terror group 
have a bomb down the road.


>> 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 it's clear given the recent events in lebanon that iran IS in
> the arms business, my bad :^)  being in the nuclear arms business
> however is a completely different thing.  as you mention the world is
> watching.  buying a nuke draws to much unfreindly attention from the
> world, not just the US.  it's far better to associate with a like
> minded regime that already has them, then to assume all that risk
> oneself.  additionally it takes a bit of equipment to get a bomb
> (especially a long range one) to where you want it to go.  these
> 'facilities' could be picked off rather easily by a US guided missiles.
> why run the risk of having one go off in your own back yard?

Those facilities can be picked off at any time, true.  The best time to do 
it is before it's started turning out bombs.  That time is now.

Terroists think low tech and sneaky.  If the US is hit by a nuke inside the 
next 20 years it will not be delivered by missile.

Picture a tramp steamer.  Plenty of scrap iron packed around the nuke to 
minimize its radioactive signature.  It just wanders into, say, New York 
harbor and gets as close to the business district as water and the 
authorities allow.  Then detonates.  For physics reasons, it wouldn't be as 
bad as an air burst a couple of hundred meters up but imgine the effect on 
the US and its economy.  With all the participants and the ship vaporized by 
the blast there's no clues to lead back to Iran but suspicion.

Do we nuke Iran just because?  With the deaths of millions riding on the 
decision of who to retaliate against, "what if we're wrong?" will figure 
big.


>> I think you're seriously misreading Iran (but in fairness, you probably
>> think *I* am).
>
> of course. :^)   likely we've both got it wrong and the truth lies
> somewhere in the middle.

The wild card in Iran is the substantial part of the population that is 
unhappy with theocracy and wants normalized ties with the West.  If they can 
pull a coup, things change.  They don't look all that close right now.


>> 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?
>
> i disagree, there is a region.  a region of countries that, except for
> it's supply of oil, has been largely ignored by the globilization of
> the US economy.  it's easy to say that the more secular nations in the
> middle east are enjoying more economic freedoms *because* they are more
> secular.  while this is true on some levels it doesn't quite ring true
> for me.  sudi arabia enjoys many western freedoms (and vices) but make
> no mistake the royal family is in charge.  again this is not the great
> evil that the US sometimes paints it to be.  arab/muslum culture is
> very different from ours.  what works for us doesn't necessarily work
> for them.  how do you go from a culture that is used to looking to the
> royals for favors, advice, arbitrations, justice, etc,  to a free 'dog
> eat dog' market economy?  understanding a bit about the cultural
> histories of the middle east is vital to understanding how the people
> think and work.

I'll agree to a point.  Russia is an example of how such a shift goes wrong.

But mideast culture doesn't exist in a vaccum.  They have satellite TV over 
there and they can see what their missing and glean the concepts that 
underly it.  That's the problem.  They see how better other people can have 
it and wonder at the lack of opportunity they have.  Israel and the US are 
handy scapegoats.

The Saudi royal family pays al queda to not operate inside the Kingdom. 
They have a deal with wahabbist clerics allowing them to run the schools iof 
they don;t attempt an islamic revolution.  The few times al queda has cause 
trouble inside Saudi Arabia, the Saudi police found the poeple fast. 
Because they knew who they all were.  The Saudis didn't care what was 
happening outside their borders.  Some do care and give money to terror 
groups to keep it going.

Just because mideast people can't jump into western-style capitalism 
overnight is no reason to consign them to their present plight.


> in the case of iran, it's not the president that rules the country, its
> the mullahs.

I know.

> i dont know what forces thrust irans current president
> into the spot light but i'm sure the powers that be will temper his
> rhetoric should it become problematic for them.

....or he's their mouthpiece.


> the middle east has been around a LOT longer then the US.   it has a
> long and storied history.  to me 'nuclear ability' has become a symbol
> of freedom throughout the middle east.  "if we have it, western powers
> will let us alone.  they will have to speak with us, not at us."  the
> easiest way for iran and the like to ensure this is to hold isreal
> hostage under the threat of annhilation.   will they actually do it?
> no.  they are neighbors after all and even the dumbest dog knows you
> don't shit where you eat.

Intelligence has the strange ability to make the most self-destructive 
things sound reasonable.

Nuclear "freedom" would be a chimera.  Living under despot governments with 
nukes only allows those governments to be more despotic because it minimizes 
what pressures can be brought to bear on them.  If they can't see clearly 
enough to realize this, then I'll have to content myself knowing I'm doing 
the right thing (in interfering) for them even if they don't.

If you know about mideast the mindset then you know that the arab muslims 
have a huge distrust for Iran.  That's why they delivered even tepid 
denouncements of Hezbollah's attack on israel.   If Iran concerns arabs from 
their perspective and concerns us from ours.  I'd say there's something to 
be concerned about.


>> Putin is an ex-KGB chief.  I wouldn't bet much on him having an august
>> understanding of democracy.
>
> yes. :^)  keep your friends close and your enemies closer.  if not
> august, then june.

Beware the ides of March while you're at it...  :)


>> 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.
>
> oh,  please, you don't honestly believe this?  mtv as world panacea?

Hardly.

> do you watch tv?  i doubt very seriously that shows like CSI improve
> our image over seas.  i think freedom of speech gets completely lost in
> the translation.  c-span? hardly a ratings getter here never mind
> there.  i think most of our programming gets used as examples of what
> is ill with the world and should therfore be avoided.

Joseph Cambell had a story about the Soviet Union.  Check with your russian 
friends.  Campbell said that the Soviet government broadcast our 60's unrest 
and riots intending to show how close to collapse the West was.  Instead, 
people noticed how well-dressed the rioters were.


-- 
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)