Where is great big Tidal wave when you need one?

[Bill from NYC]

And my point is that it's inaccurate to paint the entire populations of multiple continents based on a proportionately small populace. 

 

The average joe in those areas is about as answerable for the actions of idiots as we are for the actions of American extremists.  Like the rest of us, they're just trying to survive.  It's just as wrong to come down on them as it was to come down on us.

343681[/snapback]

>>>It's just as wrong to come down on them as it was to come down on us.<<<

 

"Coming down on them" and giving them untold millions in aid are two entirely different things, no?

[Pac_Man]

Huh? Wal-Mart was found guilty of trying to sneak people in to work at low wages.

If anything, big companies sell our country down the river by not enforcing the weak immagration laws we have.

343610[/snapback]

That's pretty much what I was getting at. Presently, America is importing people while exporting jobs. This combination represents an attack on the American worker and the American people; the primary beneficiary of which is the multinationals.

[Ghost of BiB]

We need to do what is in our best strategic national interest. Period. That's it. sometimes you use a carrot, sometimes a stick. When they've eaten all your carrots, and still don't do what you want, you beat them with the stick.

[UConn James]

We need to do what is in our best strategic national interest. Period. That's it. sometimes you use a carrot, sometimes a stick. When they've eaten all your carrots, and still don't do what you want, you beat them with the stick.

343749[/snapback]

 

Kim Jong Il is still hungry and his minions need energy to goosestep. Maybe we can poison the carrots.

[Ghost of BiB]

Kim Jong Il is still hungry and his minions need energy to goosestep. Maybe we can poison the carrots.

343765[/snapback]

 

I've grossly oversimplified, to the point of absurdity-but what many people fail to realize is that what is in our best national interest, both long and short term is not necessarily "nice". And, it very often makes little sense to the casual observer when it is viewed in individual bits and pieces. Things have to be viewd as a whole, to get a proper perspective. We can not, nor will we always wear the white hats. No one else in the world does it, why should we? We are in a unique-but very tenuous situation right now. The future of the United States for the next century or more may well be shaped inside of the next ten years. If folks don't like it, and think we should go another way- they need to OBJECTIVELY take the time to look at the big picture. Remove personal bias and analyze what is happening, and the courses of action available. Granted, starting from scratch it will probably take a year or more to grasp all of the essentials-but hey! Just like in football there are people who make careers out of working this stuff out. and how often do we disagree with the decisions and the thought processes of those who have dedicated a life to football? Another "Hey". This is a hell of a lot more complicated and a hell of a lot more important than football.

 

Let me see a show of hands who REALLY think everything is the fault of this administration? Hands of those who actually might have a clue as to what they are talking about (see ya, Promo-didn't make the cut) and are willing to look objectively.

 

This truly isn't politics, it truly isn't partisan. Yes, that often rears it's ugly head and gets in the way constantly-but it's not what it's all about.

 

The primary purpose of a central government, our government IS national security. Bottom line. National Security is not strictly defense. National Security includes things like ensuring global markets to keep our economy alive, for example. National Security might involve manipulating a certain block of nations to go one way, rather than another in their thinking and policy to offset the effects of a third. Most everything that I see complained about here, and elsewhere in so far as "social" issues, which always summon such a shiddstorm, should be the purview of the individual states. Hint. We are the UNITED STATES of America. Put what amounts to BS issues (from a global perspective), like "right to life" back into the states realm where it belongs, and let the national be national. If you don't like what your representatives in the State Senates come up with, vote different or move.

 

Partial end to rant.

[Campy]

Just picking a nit or two, but I do disagree with your interpretation of the role of government - which may explain why I hold some of the opinions that I do.

 

I define government thusly:

 

An organization of people responsible for-

 

1. Physical Security/Defense - maintain a standing military and police force to enforce laws and defend from invasion.

 

2. Collective Goods & Services - provide things that is impractical for a sole citizen to provide such as roads, sewers, and libraries.

 

3. Economic Stability - Not full-blown socialism mind you but monitor the economy, and when it's required, regulate the growth or slowing of economy eg, rasing/lowering interest rates.

 

4. Conflict Resolution - Since individual disagreements are inevitable, a mechanism to resolve the issue peaceably.

 

IMO, everything beyond that is just political dogma. Regardless of the political leanings, that dogma generally leads to what I call the "7 year-old boy syndrome" in that 2 boys of that age tend to resolve an issue by punching each other until one of them gives up. Then the kid who "won" has to prepare himself for the eventual payback and revenge. Around and around they go in a cirlce and eventually, nobody really wins, they both lose.

[philburger1]

That's pretty much what I was getting at. Presently, America is importing people while exporting jobs. This combination represents an attack on the American worker and the American people; the primary beneficiary of which is the multinationals.

343706[/snapback]

 

 

OK, we agree on that point. But I doubt that Muslims in Yemen or Syria care about that.

[Ghost of BiB]

Just picking a nit or two, but I do disagree with your interpretation of the role of government - which may explain why I hold some of the opinions that I do.

 

I define government thusly:

 

An organization of people responsible for-

 

1. Physical Security/Defense - maintain a standing military and police force to enforce laws and defend from invasion.

 

2. Collective Goods & Services - provide things that is impractical for a sole citizen to provide such as roads, sewers, and libraries.

 

3. Economic Stability - Not full-blown socialism mind you but monitor the economy, and when it's required, regulate the growth or slowing of economy eg, rasing/lowering interest rates.

 

4.  Conflict Resolution - Since individual disagreements are inevitable, a mechanism to resolve the issue peaceably.

 

IMO, everything beyond that is just political dogma.  Regardless of the political leanings, that dogma generally leads to what I call the "7 year-old boy syndrome" in that 2 boys of that age tend to resolve an issue by punching each other until one of them gives up.  Then the kid who "won" has to prepare himself for the eventual payback and revenge.  Around and around they go in a cirlce and eventually, nobody really wins, they both lose.

343830[/snapback]

 

I put "2" in the States category. "3" is inherently global, which is sort of what I said. You are thinking inside the box, Chris. Open your focus outside of what is happening beyond our eastern and western shores.

[Pac_Man]

OK, we agree on that point. But I doubt that Muslims in Yemen or Syria care about that.

343839[/snapback]

Agreed. I was just saying that if the multinationals are harming this country as much as they are, they're probably similarly indifferent to the fate of countries such as Yemen or Syria. And yet, because of their size, power, and economic interests, they are probably a significant source of influence in such countries. This combination of interference and indifference may be breeding hatred.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

2. Collective Goods & Services - provide things that is impractical for a sole citizen to provide such as roads, sewers, and libraries.

 

343830[/snapback]

 

The way I usually define this is things which individuals benefit from equally regardless of their input, and consumption from a program by one does not preclude consumption by others. A classic example is clean air and water: even if I contribute a tenth of what you do to clean air efforts, we both benefit equally as we both breathe the same air, and my breathing it does not preclude your breathing it in any way. Roads and sewers are other good examples. Libraries...maybe not so much (and historically, libraries were privately supported. Ever hear of Carnegie?)

[Pac_Man]

The primary purpose of a central government, our government IS national security. Bottom line. National Security is not strictly defense. National Security includes things like ensuring global markets to keep our economy alive, for example. National Security might involve manipulating a certain block of nations to go one way, rather than another in their thinking and policy to offset the effects of a third. Most everything that I see complained about here, and elsewhere in so far as "social" issues, which always summon such a shiddstorm, should be the purview of the individual states. Hint. We are the UNITED STATES of America. Put what amounts to BS issues (from a global perspective), like "right to life" back into the states realm where it belongs, and let the national be national. If you don't like what your representatives in the State Senates come up with, vote different or move.

343808[/snapback]

An excellent post. I will go one step further, and say the purpose of government in general--not just national government--is to impose fear and terror in the hearts of those who would deprive us of our liberty. This means the military must strike fear in the hearts of those who would invade our nation, and our police force must strike fear in the hearts of those who would invade our homes. A government which deliberately falls short in either of these tasks has no moral authority.

 

So that's the core role of government. But Campy has a point in saying there are other things the government can do also; such as provide a money supply or roads. He actually used the phrase "economic stability" which is somewhat broader than the role I see for government. There are two ways the government can influence the economy: monetary policy (think Alan Greenspan, interest rates, etc.) and fiscal policy (that is, taxes and spending). Most people agree that having someone like Alan Greenspan adjust the overnight lending rate (which is what people mean when they say he raised or lowered interest rates) is a good way of helping the economy be stable. Others go further, and say the government should spend more during economic slowdowns than during good times, to further increase stability. However, efforts to create stability in this way have been unsuccessful, and also it's very difficult to eliminate a program during a good time that you created during a depression. Moreover, quantitative research has shown that an influx of government spending doesn't stimulate the economy anyway.

 

Campy has a point about conflict resolution. The legal system should be simple, inexpensive, efficient, just, and predictable. The more like this the legal system is, the better the economy will function.

 

Collective goods and services is a thorny issue. Some things, such as electricity lines or roads, are natural monopolies. It makes no economic sense to have road network A run by company A, and road network B run by company B. Nor does it make sense to have two separate networks of power lines running through a given town, with the separate lines of Company A and Company B hooked up to each house. Because such things are natural monopolies, they can never be subjected to true supply and demand forces. However, allowing private, regulated companies to run such natural monopolies may be less bad than having the government run them. I don't like regulation in general, but in this case it can kind of serve as a proxy for the market forces that would encourage increasingly high levels of service at decreasing levels of cost.

 

Then there is the issue of negative and positive externalities. A negative externality is when you do something which imposes costs or negative side effects on others; without bearing the cost of these side-effects yourself. A good example of this would be someone dumping a bunch of pollution into Lake Erie, killing all the fish. Maybe those fish were worth $50 million a year, whereas the piece of pollution control equipment would have cost just $1 million. Given a choice, the factory owner will not buy the $1 million piece of equipment, because nobody is forcing him to pay for the $50 million annual loss he's created. So when practical, the government must tax or prohibit negative externality activities.

 

Then there are positive externality activities, such as basic research, education, etc. In a free market, these things are done too little. So I have no problem with the government subsidizing K - 12 education, or even college education. Nor do I see anything wrong with the government subsidizing a particle accelerator or an orbital telescope. My preference is for these subsidies to go to private institutions and organizations, especially for education. Such grants should have only a minimal amount of red tape associated with them; because parents and children working to choose schools is a far more powerful model than some bureaucrat trying to use regulations to deal with every little thing. America's public education system is an abysmal failure; whereas private and parochial schools have shown they can do more with less. Moreover, a system in which parents and children choose their own schools is far more consistent with the concept of freedom than is a centrally planned education system run from Washington, the state capitol, or even by the local school board.

[Ghost of BiB]

The way I usually define this is things which individuals benefit from equally regardless of their input, and consumption from a program by one does not preclude consumption by others.  A classic example is clean air and water: even if I contribute a tenth of what you do to clean air efforts, we both benefit equally as we both breathe the same air, and my breathing it does not preclude your breathing it in any way.  Roads and sewers are other good examples.  Libraries...maybe not so much (and historically, libraries were privately supported.  Ever hear of Carnegie?)

343875[/snapback]

 

Uhhh...I'm trying to keep up with this while emailing my bi-sexual 5-10 125 pound blonde green party tree hugger pen pal in the Netherlands. Don't confuse me.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Uhhh...I'm trying to keep up with this while emailing my bi-sexual 5-10 125 pound blonde green party tree hugger pen pal in the Netherlands. Don't confuse me.

343882[/snapback]

 

Well, if you don't like my short posts, read Pac_Man's long-winded inane drivel instead.

[Ghost of BiB]

Well, if you don't like my short posts, read Pac_Man's long-winded inane drivel instead. 

343904[/snapback]

 

I'm good at multi-tasking.

 

It's probably about time to go back to the ether, isn' it? as the ghost, I'm only allowed so much time.

 

And, there is the really HOT little Polish girl to consider. I just so love an international job.

 

God Bless diplomatic relations.

[Pac_Man]

Well, if you don't like my short posts, read Pac_Man's long-winded inane drivel instead. 

343904[/snapback]

Don't you have something better to do than to incessantly annoy everyone else on this board by your weird crusade against me? I mean, you had to have been doing something with your time before you'd heard of me, right? Why not go back to doing . . . whatever it was you did before you met me? Oh, wait, the police might arrest you if you went back to throwing feces at people. Never mind.

[Alaska Darin]

Police forces will never strike fear into those that invade our homes. That's not their job and never will be. The justice system should be swift and the punishments severe - though even that won't deter the worst criminals.

 

In reality, the person most likely to adequately protect your home is you. The police will certainly be happy to draw a decent chalk line around your carcass if you ain't up to the task.

[Pac_Man]

Police forces will never strike fear into those that invade our homes.  That's not their job and never will be.  The justice system should be swift and the punishments severe - though even that won't deter the worst criminals.

 

In reality, the person most likely to adequately protect your home is you.  The police will certainly be happy to draw a decent chalk line around your carcass if you ain't up to the task.

343925[/snapback]

I'll agree with this up to a point. Instilling fear in criminals needs to be a combined effort between the government and law-abilding citizens. If the government can't have a police officer to defend your home 24 hours a day (which it can't), at least it needs to not interfere with your right and your duty to do what needs to be done. However, if a criminal gets away with doing something bad anyway (which they sometimes will), the government must do its best to catch and punish them.

 

I completely agree with your statement about swift and severe punishments. The goal of punishment should either be rehabilitation or elimination. Keeping people in cages--where they can spend years learning from and being influenced by other criminals--accomplishes neither.

 

Colonial Virginia was swift and severe. The first time you were convicted of stealing, you'd pay a moderate fine. The second time, you'd get branded--usually a small brand on your thumb. The third conviction would result in an execution, on the grounds that a career thief has no use to society. Rehabilitation (that is, scaring someone straight) or execution. One or the other.

[/dev/null]

Uhhh...I'm trying to keep up with this while emailing my bi-sexual 5-10 125 pound blonde green party tree hugger pen pal in the Netherlands. Don't confuse me.

343882[/snapback]

 

so how much money have you given your penpal in nigeria, err netherlands

[Ghost of BiB]

Don't you have something better to do than to incessantly annoy everyone else on this board by your weird crusade against me? I mean, you had to have been doing something with your time before you'd heard of me, right? Why not go back to doing . . . whatever it was you did before you met me? Oh, wait, the police might arrest you if you went back to throwing feces at people. Never mind.

343924[/snapback]

 

Hey...isn't that a class three misdemeanor?

 

Damn. That bad old crap throwing...

 

Oh well, got you, didn't he?

[Pac_Man]

Hey...isn't that a class three misdemeanor?

 

Damn. That bad old crap throwing...

 

Oh well, got you, didn't he?

343957[/snapback]

Well, it kind of slipped on its way out of his hand, so he missed me. Speaking of which, he's got a bad habit of eagerly offering to shake people's hands immediately after his throwing sessions. Watch out for that.