Text 7292, 122 rader
Skriven 2006-08-29 20:27:00 av Robert E Starr JR (7789.babylon5)
Ärende: Re: My presidential pick
================================
 * * * This message was from gabiks to rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.m * * *  
         * * * and has been forwarded to you by Lord Time * * *         
            -----------------------------------------------             

@MSGID: <1156900652.197197.258530@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>
@REPLY:
<MPG.1f4b2f2e987c644b98972b@news.west.earthlink.net><1155690632.218605.182870@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com><v4CdnZAimscq5

Vorlonagent wrote:
> The "War on Poverty" hasn't gone as planned, with lots of money thrown at
> the problem and the percentages staying srubbornly intractible.
>
> Time to do something else, I'd think.
>
> But that's heresy to those wed to socialism and the welfare state.
>

.....hmmmm.......

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.

don't get me wrong I'm not a bleeding heart, first and foremost
I'm a pro-responsibility kind of gal.  However, I do think too often
we make judgments about the 'kinds of people' receiving assistance
based not on their financial situation and prospects, but on our high
opinion of ourselves.  Helping people in need is a good thing.
On the other hand, when my grandmother and her husband immigrated to
this country they lived in public housing and were glad for it.  They
understood however that this was a temporary situation not a life style
choice to be 'taught" to generation after generation.

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.

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?

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


> ....So civilization ends in a massive food riot, huh?

pie, i hope there's pie. i love pie.


> IMHO, the biggest threat is radical Islam.
>
> Currently, the threat they pose to civilization is infinitely small, but a
> nuclear Iran could change that in 10-15 years.  That is, 10 or 15 years
> after they get the bomb.  That's the lead time I am giving Iran to build up
> a credible deterrent to invasion.  Iran won't hand off the first nuke it
> builds to a terrorist group like Hesbollah or Al-Queda, but they might hand
> off the 21st.  A nuke in a financial center like New York, London or Tokyo
> could create an international depression.
>


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.

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.  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.

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.

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.


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.

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