Text 8005, 256 rader
Skriven 2006-09-09 20:49:00 av Robert E Starr JR (8502.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: <BdadnV9G47tliZ7YnZ2dnUVZ_tqdnZ2d@comcast.com>
@REPLY:
<C108E3BC.CADD%gabryant@fuse.net><rrv9e2hm9423gsf4v4hs5963lgbut50u78@4ax.com><1156191901.879384.126430@i3g2000cwc.google


<gabiks@comcast.net> wrote in message 
news:1157743530.808735.184360@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...

> 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.

Oooh, that's so sweet  Johnny!  if I ever feel picked on I promise to
let you know :^)

Unfortunately finding solutions to issues like poverty do require a
committee or two.   Properly identifying the root causes and effects
are vital to crafting any kind of meaningful/lasting solution(s).
again, unfortunately, this fact-finding often leads to some
uncomfortable truths and a distilled vocabulary that many find
offensive.  If you suggest that minorities  are poor you're a racist.
 If you suggest the existence of a subclass of working poor you're an
elitist.  If you suggest poverty is a sign of social neglect and decay
you're a fascist.

So you see there's a reason I chose to write in 'gross'
generalities.  I've been enjoying our conversation.  If it were to
spiral into an endless tic for tat exchange I'd completely loose
interest.  Having said that, it would be unfair of me not to
acknowledge that you've played fair so far.  :^)   I'll give it a
try, but you should know I'll be fighting my programming the whole
time.

On to some broads generalizations and categorizations...off the top of
my head (I think at this point its important to note I'm not an
expert on poverty)......

Huge corporate farming operations have forced many small farms out of
business.  Economic Darwinism? Sure.  perhaps a percentage of the
ginormous subsidies that go to these mega farms can be deferred to
newly created farming co-ops.  Organic produce is hotter then hot right
now.  Perhaps the government needs to invest more time (expertise) then
money organizing/empowering groups of farms/farmers to succeed closer
to home in markets they hadn't considered before.  personally I buy
my produce through a 'food share' at an organic farm not 10 miles
from my home.  I can pick up my weekly 'share' at the farmer's
market or have it delivered to my front door for an additional fee.

Heifer International also operates within the US offering everyday
folks like you and me the opportunity to take part in the process of
empowerement.

Migrant workers.  Let's assume for the moment that all are either
natural born citizens or here legally (hb2 or better).  In rural
America when they are in town the shopkeeper makes money, when they
move on, not so much.  Is it possible to offer services and stability
to the children that move around with them through education, permanent
affordable housing, and healthcare.

The elderly.  There is nothing worse (or more life threatening) that
having to tell a little old lady that her prescription has gone up
$1.50, again.  even though social security was supposed to be a
pleasant supplemental income there are plenty of people who depend on
it for everything.  (in fairness to the big pharmas, most do have some
sort of assistance programs in place to help the poorest of the poor.)


My grandmother was one week away from being homeless before she won the
lottery for a room at a senior center not far from our home.  326
people had their name in that bag.  (before you ask why didn't we
just take her in, she didn't want to live with us.  Something about
noisy children. :^)
instead of trying to 'warehouse' (her word not mine) old people we
might offer tax incentive to builders and landlords that encourage them
to set aside square footage for senior appartments.  This keeps seniors
in their neighborhoods and active and involved in their communities.
How about we expand medicare to cover YMCA memberships and the like to
encourage our seniors to stay physically fit.  How about we up the
amount of money they can earn and still receive full social security
benefits.

Inner city yutes.  Would it be possible to 'forgive' tuition for
students unable to afford higher education through some sort of
internship program.  I'm not thinking affirmative action here I'm
thinking corporations can intern qualified graduates (effectively
trying them out before deciding whether or not to hire them) in
exchange for money the school can use to waive tuition for others.
again there could be a tax incentive for the corps and matching funds
from the government.


Most of these things can be done if the will to do macro-ly what needs
to be done micro-ly is there.  If that make any sense.



> 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 hadn't taken that personally.  I'll try again, there is a huge
difference between a government being social aware and said government
being socialist.

Confronting poverty can happen in any political situation. It's a
matter of priority.

> 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.

that was nicely said.  I don't disagree.  But as others have pointed
out there is a system in place that allows for social change to
legalize it's way into the order of law.
I think the 'framers' of the constitution did a fine job (I do
however wish they had paid a little more attention to the notion of
term limits.)   Do I worry overly much about the far right/left, no.  I
too think we will start to see some pushback in the coming months.


>
> 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.

Scared? Me? Ah, no.  I'm just trying to point out that a
democratically inclined government with free elections doesn't always
yield the expected results.  The west pushed for free elections among
the Palestinian people; the result, hamas is a huge part of the
government body.  Same with Hezbollah in Lebanon.  Yet the thought of
something like that happening here is rejected without pause.  I find
that curious.  Especially for a B5er!


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

 Ah-men!  (you do realize your preaching to a member of the choir,
yes?)

> ....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.

There's no need for iran to sell anything.  Terrorist can easily
order up a dirty bomb piecemeal from a number of different sources by
taking full advantage of the 'global factory.'

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

I agree, sort of, rushing in to save them from themselves is an
impossibility, not to mention self-important and self-serving.  As
brilliant as the bill of rights reads it did not always apply to all of
the people living in the country.  It's meaning has grown as we have
grown collectively as a nation.  The middle east is experiencing it's
own growing pains at the moment and I think we need to respect that
they are in transition.  Force feeding them democracy and the American
way is going to make for one resentful teenager.

>>
> > 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.

To be sure.  the gang and I refer to this phenomenon as "big brain
syndrome."

> 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.

Now I get what your saying.   You never can tell what someone will take
away with them.  But I still don't agree.  During a childhood visit
to Greece, I was introduced to 'life in the village' one night when
everyone gathered in the square to watch the waltons on a TV the café
owner wheeled out in front of the crowd. (I remember feeling quit
superior as I was able to understand the dialogue and read the
subtitles. Kids) I wasn't a stranger to them I was a Walton.  They
connected with the waltons, and with me, in a real way. TV was young
and new then.  Not so anymore.  europeans enjoy a full schedule of
programming.  Most of it is local 'in-house' stuff with a fair
share of airtime slotted for ethnic minorities.  You're more likely
to see folks watching subtitled aljazeera then Miami vice reruns.


sorry wasn't able to respond to erverything this post is getting way to
long.  how about we pick one topic from the many?

lg


> --
> 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)