Text 7727, 226 rader
Skriven 2006-09-06 14:08:00 av Robert E Starr JR (8224.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: <1157563620.568515.202080@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>
@REPLY: <LbOdnUZYIOtTDGXZnZ2dnUVZ_qqdnZ2d@comcast.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.

>
> 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.

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

>
> 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. :^)

>
> 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.

> > 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!  :^)

>>  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....

> 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.

> 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_.

> > 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.

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 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.

> 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?

> 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.

> 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.

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

> 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.

>
> 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?
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.

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