Lotharr

That is our problem. We have a population that has no concept of conservation. We like our toys and will use force to make sure we keep them. We are not a team player in the global sense. Policy is decided by Commander in Chief Dow Jones. It is sad. Like a drug user, maybe we will have to hit rock bottom before we want to see the truth. I just pray we don't rip apart the planet when and if we do.

quote: First, debating is healthy, even when it merely causes confusion, because that confusion prompts an examination or re-examination of ideas. After all, if one's ideas were so solid, then why did one walk away confused instead of more certain? It is in our attempts to answer such questions that we can learn new stuff. I think discussion is better than debate. Also, who has access to the debate? Further, institutions that exist solely to move an agenda forward (funded usually by personnel that wield power over that current system) then work hand in hand with the cornered market of media put out the that info to disrupt any real attempt at discussion or debate. That's a rough outline of how I see it. Maybe I'm wrong. But it doesnÔÇÖt seem like there is any real debate on things. Like this war. It isnÔÇÖt should we, but how do we get it done etc. I quote: Secondly, waiting for a new leader to fix things is not healthy, even if it's a good one with a bullet-proof vest, because that elevation of leadership prompts passivity among the people. Passivity in politics leads to a lack of substantial debate, hence it generates a complacent certainty about ideas that are never questioned. If we never question any ideas, then we can't learn any new stuff. Yes and no. Leadership is something that people will always look for. With current systems "leadership" seems to be a term applied to those that manage the status quo. I feel that any serious attempt to change things will have to done with the support of people and some leaders will be needed to give those feelings a voice others can hear. Will it lead to passiveness....I don't know...

The US has about 2 mil personal incarcerated I think it was (that's more then Soviet Union ever had) half those are non-violent offenders. Most of those I believe are minorities. Those who are not real criminals tend to learn about crime in jail and come out with skills to break the law and make license plates. Some people's crimes are so heinous throw away the key. However, in my opinion, the vast majority could be rehabilitated. A good look at what a country is all about is how it treats the criminal population. Amnesty international has put out reports that tell a tale of rampant abuse, mostly involving female personnel

Hee hee....in the Army (Ft. Sill) you have to go to sick call before PT if you dont feel good. When you get up to the hospital (the free clinic) you wait and wait and wait. Then you see someone who may or may not be a doctor and they give you motrin and send you back to duty. If you come in puking blood you wait and wait then you see someone and they go from therebut good money is on walking away with some kind of pharmaceutical mix with motrin being the primary catalyst to recovery. I would prefer motrin to surgery however....at least with the pseudo-doctors they have running around the clinic. This system does keep people at work....even if they show up after lunch because of the wait. I personally have only gone a handful of times in my four years as I would rather take the physical pain then the mental stress of sitting in waiting room clogged with people.

All I want to say on this is that I see our justice system...from police, to court, to prison needing some serious overhaul. The idea of competent representation having to be purchased is the farthest thing from the notion that there is equality under the law.

I see it like this. American's are living good. We are high and we don't want to come down. Current generations in power have no idea what it means to have limited resources. I fear for the world when our standard of living falls in response to economic partnerships that are being made in response to our superiority. We will bomb, subvert, donate money / food etc to maintain our position. We will focus on the good and rationalize the bad (if anyone even hears what's really going on). A nation of collective self interest. Good people who don't know any better. Don't have better choices, and want to hide from the certain truths. Policy makers and cohorts will give people reasons to continue in the manner they see fit. Or there will be so much debate that one walks away confused. Pretty cynical picture but I can't feel any other way at present.....maybe one day a new leader will stand up....and hopefully not get shot.

quote: Fine, thosands of IRAQI people die. Not Americans. It's still for our best interests. You sound like an imperialist. Imperialists always fall. Usually hard. Wake up. People are people. Two towers fell and people died because they were AMERICANS. You make labels and you decide who is expendable. I piss on that whole way of thinking. Should I say urinate? quote: Attacking Afghanistan is different from attacking Iraq. Iraq has been EMPIRICALLY PROVEN to be an easy win, Afghanistan isn't. We'd win quickly, minimal loss of US life, get the oil, etc. Look at the cost-benefit analysis, it's a good idea, at least for the US, which is what matters. Just like the peasants in Vietnam. Yes very different situations...but everyone wrote them off just like you want to do with Iraq. And since I'm in the Army I may have to go over and kill some poor fool because you think it's an easy win....and what do you really know? Join the Marines and make Major and we'll talk more. quote: 1. Is it really our responsibility to decide how they should behave? AND 2. How much of the "mistreatment" and "abuse" we hear about and see in movies is merely propaganda designed to develop support for an unpopular war, and to give focus as to why we are fighting (to save people) while drawing focus away from what those we claim to save see us really saving (the oil) ? 1) I don't think so. I think the international community needs to do that and not be regulated by a control counsel....er...security counsel. However, "democracy" is real touch-and-go at this point so I'm not sure. 2) People see what they want to. With positioning they can see things that a small group want them to. And I think we/they thank them...for not having to face certain truths. quote: The world community would find us a dangerous enemy, just as much so as they have found a very beneficial partner. I'm saying we shouldn't turn our backs to our allies, merely restrict exactly what kind of aid we do give them. I bet....if things turned against us I bet the world would see a true "rogue nation" quote: While I do support what happened in World War 2 with us joining in, I do disagree that we should have focused on Germany. Japan was our enemy at the time, but we allowed "international alliances" to bind us to attack Germany, which regardless of what they did, we had no quarrel with them. Hitler stupidly declared war against us which valididated our actions regardless They slaughtered innocent people and we stopped them. They were a true enemy....an enemy of humanity. Check this out. It's about the possibility of war and came from a MSN link. http://slate.msn.com/?id=2067896 [ 07-12-2002, 04:59 PM: Message edited by: Lotharr ]

I think it may be good to consider a few things. It seems your mind is not set on any one or series of actions but consider this. quote: While I completely agree that if we have undeniable evidence that an attack is going to be made against us, we should respond. I'm a bit concerned about the government "beating the drums of war" in order to get our public into a frenzy to support an act (invasion of Iraq), that technically isn't right for us to do in the first place. Moral and Social concerns of what happens in Iraq constitutionally do not concern us. So Sadam might be sitting there doing nothing, and we want to attack because he might is a far cry from actually having solid evidence to act on. Circumstantial evidence is always suspect, we can't act on it. Good points. However I think it is critical that we appreciate what our actions will do to the population that are nothing more then hostages in their own country. If we plan on ever reshaping the political landscape over there we have to understand and support the people. quote: When I really think of what we are doing in the world, and place myself in another countries shoes, I see it as the height of arrogance for us to believe that we are morally superior and have a right to intervene in other countries. I do not believe we have that right unless it is in America's best interest. If we made choices that only reflect our best interest the world would turn against us. And if that happens we are going to have serious problems. All I'm saying is we are a part of the world. Yes our dad can beat up...er...we can destroy a countries infrastructure faster than any other nation but we are a part of something more and we need to act that way. quote: "Walk softly but carry a big stick", rather than openly be the aggressor nation. Yep....like that a lot. Good personal motto and super power way of doing business. Egos drive a lot of people and policy....go figure. quote: If we simply involve ourselves because we think it is our "moral obligation" I think it is the height of arrogance That's a very interesting idea. Isn't that why we are so proud of our actions in WWII? I don't know but people deserve freedom. Does it fall on us to provide it? No....however that is one of the main problems in the Middle East right? They are so far from free it is ridiculous....so we can't deal with a rational set of leaders. And what about here? Why is it one man can make war without due process of congress. I wonder about those things.

Here Sir!

I'm gonna get sim city 4. I just wish the sims could take place in my city so when I make the nuke plant blow up I can watch my little sims mutate.... Er.not that I played the sims..uhand had any fun at all...that is.....

You'll notice the Constitution talks about Congress ALOT. That is a key point I think. In the era of hyper war, congress doesn't have much of a say until too late. That is the difference between a presidential and congressional war. And that is a reason I believe why other countries refer to the Bush, Clinton regimes etc. All I know is this. Ever time we act without heeding the word of the international community we piss people off. Colin Powell believes in building coalitions. Bush believes in old western sayings like "wanted dead or alive"....blaza bla. I dunno....

no comment

quote: I just want to know one thing Can I still sit "Indian" style??? Your fired!

So really all I'm sayin is I'd rather have PC than not. Anyone can review a situation and say "that was just crazy". It happens a lot I bet. But I think PC is just a manifistation of people wanting to do the right thing. Sometimes it's a great thing and sometimes it gets goofy.... quote: I should be able to say anything I want, and if it offends someone who hears it, they should be able to express their discontent with it, and if I decide to apologize or change the way I talk based on their objection, so be it, but I should be able to have that choice without all of society being immersed in this idea that certain words and phrases are off limit even if it doesn't offend them. What annoys me the most is when people advocate PC *not* because they or any of their friends advocate it, but because it is percieved by the media as the "right" thing to do. See I just wanted a little explanation to go with that fine initial summary. And I believe PC goes deeper than the media. The media have a way of doing strange things to reality.

Interesting points.....I was just wondering. But a few things... quote: men were not made to be single parents. it is not in our genes to be caring and loving... men are hunter gatherers by nature, and its a culture shock for us to be thrown into a situation to where we need to take care of a child by ourselves, and to play both roles. I don't agree with that. I find the potential in anyone exists to be anything. Just because I'm male does not genetically predispose me to walk with a swagger, prefer beer to wine, or not be as caring or loving as a female parent. I think that is all it is. Culture shock. In our society (and almost everywhere) else it falls on the woman to take care of the kids. It is just expected because of systems of patriarchy that still exists in many forms. I feel that any man can make an outstanding single parent if they deprogram. Any single parent environment is considered lacking. But I can't say for sure that just because a woman is that single parent it is better for the child. The only thing I will give you is that higher levels of testosterone in males make us inherently more aggressive. But that's about it. Well the above is all perception maybe I'll get back with after I hit college and see some hard data to the contrary. quote: you show me a guy who says he is just as sensetive and nurturing as a woman and I will show you either a full blown homosexual or someone who wishes they were a woman. I guess I should switch to wine and lose that swagger....NOT! quote: This is thought control, just as "hate crimes" is thought control. How do you know what a person was thinking as they comitted a crime? Your kidding right? Hate crime is something that can be proven with supporting evidence. Hate crime is a serious threat to a multicultural society. A person can say whatever they like but if they cross the line their history will catch up with them....drop the axe then the house.heh heh! quote: Like I said, I don't go around insulting people for sport, and most people don't either. But if I wanted to, then yes I could because we have this thing called the First Amendment (another topic for another time). And, if 245,000,000 decided to call the other 5,000,000 names, who's going to stop them? The people of course. As time goes on people realize that what was once acceptable is no longer. Justice and liberty. That is why one can say whatever one wants but they have be prepared to interact with a society that is going to review those ideas. I think most people would agree that sesitivity to others has done nothing but allow for more positive interaction between various groups. quote: Yes. Today, it goes even further than that. As Soback and Tac were illustrating, Political Correctness is a one-way street. If you're a protected class belonging to the American Left then PC rules, but if you are on the Right, then the rules rule against you I'm not following on that last part. I do believe the majority have more responsibility to take care in what is said. However if anyone slanders another they can face prosecution. I dont think it is such a burden or unfair. I am a white male and I work with African American females. I have to be careful what I say. I want to be careful what I say. They are good people and competent professionals who assist me greatly in accomplishing the mission. I don't want to offend them...I wouldn't want them to look at me with disappointment because I didn't respect a cultural sensitivity. This, in my opinion, is a byproduct of PC...not too bad in my opinion. quote: i respect everyone, until they give me reason to not respect them anymore. criminals i have no respect for. men who beat on their women i have no respect for. hypocrites i have no respect for... and i dont care if theyre white, black, hispanic, chinese, japanese, jewish etc... you see where im going. and im sure the majority of people that post here agree. So then if a small group come together to represent the greater group that is busy trying to make ends meet and say: "Using the term oriental in language is offensive to this group of citizens after we examine where this word came from and what it really means to us etc" Then you should have no problem in using the correct term because this shows respect. Right? So no one should have to cover their ears because you have that respect and will choose to do the right thing by those people ...right?

I want my fifdy bucks back!!!

So if 2% of a 250 mil population is Native American you should be able to refere to those individual's anyway you want? quote: Political Correctness goes to extremes to prevent perceived slights before they occur. So in your mind Political Correctness is when people take the idea of trying to look out for the sensitivities of others too far?

In another thread I think someone referred to being politically correct in an exquisitely detailed and creative way as...stupid. Extreme anything is bad right? Except beer and BCM. But does anyone think that having the citizens of the world's only superpower become more international savvy and sensitive to the feelings of others a bad thing? All things in moderation right? But are we not spearheading the era of global communications? Is making sure that people do not feel alienated or threatened because of beliefs or skin color a bad thing? Of course I believe that all people are equal.... I believe that people have a right to fight labels that are stereotypical and racist….hmmm….stupid eh? I’m curious what else people thing fall into being PC and why it is so....stupid.

As a consumer, I develop a proposal for what I want, and because I am the only consumer who will be affected by the decision, I have all of the say, so I don't need to go to any consumer council (Parecon's alternative to private ownership is council democracy). However, the decision also affects the workers who have to produce the clothing, so I take this proposal to the appropriate worker council (there are several layers of worker and consumer councils for issues of different scales). Those workers develop a proposal of how much they're willing to work to produce the clothing (which, inevitably, doesn't match the consumer's proposal), then the two parties negotiate and reach a compromise. Because of the small scale of the issue, hence the small number of people involved in decision-making (the consumer and the team of workers who will produce the item), the entire procedure of councils and such would take a matter of minutes, and the decision is made in proportion by the people who are affected by it. It's called Participatory Planning (a new alternative to central planning and markets). Maybe unions will get wind of this kind of stuff and try to implement it.....I hope they get the word. I don’t think something like this can happen until we have another economic catastrophe…and will current systems I think it’s just a matter of time.

I think that this is a step in the right direction...whenever there is some Army function we are all supposed to pray in some way…usually the Christian dogma is overpowering. Sometimes they even want you to bow your head. When I don't, I feel the eyes on me. Get rid of the god stuff....we just don't need it. If all countries took the religion aspect out of politics we might be able to make some real progress in certain areas. I do believe in a God...however I acknowledge the potential for abuse when the institutional link from the divine to the mortal is made. Take out the language but keep the morals.

Take that idea one step further and you have a government owned and operated by big business...lovely....

LOL!!! She needs some bolt cutters, a magnet, and a family sized can of whoop a*s...

quote: The corporate "systems" are only interested in one thing -- maximizing shareholder return. And that is a problem in my eyes. There is more to a person than a means to shareholder return. quote: This is the second reference to the few who profit. Whom do you think makes up the NYSE, NASDAQ, Chicago Mercantile Exchange, Nikkei, et.al.? Companies buy the seats, but shareholders trade the stocks all over the world. Why do you think that there are only a few who profit? A lot of extremely rich people. Some good some bad. Also the rich wanna be's....gamblers incognito....and those who have a nest egg and are seeking to expand it. Not the working poor or vast majority of other personnel who are economically cut off from ever even trying to be part. quote: It is economic war when we embargo and sanction. However, I wouldn't consider NAFTA to be economic war -- that was supposed to be a boon to Mexico at the expense of American workers (remember Perot's complaints of a "giant sucking sound" coming from the south?). If you want to talk about trade wars, you can look at how the Japanese flooded the American market with below-cost computer chips in the 1980s, or how the Japanese restricted the sale of American autos in Japan, or even rice, while at the same time flooding the US market with cars. Now, I don't blame them for the cars since Detroit was putting out an inferior product and needed a kick in the behind, but when Detroit got its act together and tried to break into the Japanese market, they closed the door. That is economic warfare. The United States is the largest donor of economic aid around the world. I don't think one can sustain a charge of the US involved in economic warfare. It seems the Japanese have more discipline as a culture. in good and bad ways. They study long term stratagem so don't count them out. Global stabilization is key in "economic prosperity". World aid is not a bad thing. However I am not qualified to really answer this question effectively....maybe I can turn something up....or maybe I'll get back to you. However we aid dictatorships and fundamentalist regimes as well...then we have to spend more money to break them up. American taxpayer dollars end up in the strangest places.... I do know one instance off hand that I can comment on. After we attacked Afghanistan we closed the Pakistani Afghan border. You may have seen some clips of food drops at various positions. But do you know how many people died trying to get out? I think the number is staggering but I'm not sure....I'll try to get some info if I get the chance. These were poor people trying to get away....sprinkled amongst them were terrorists go we made the hard choice some would say..... There is more to a story then what CNN puts out. Also, if I offended I apologize. I think I'll post on the other topic on why I do what I do...

quote: Democratization of the work place eh? Why not democratize education while were at it, or perhaps the police force and military. I mean hell; if it works for government then it should work for everything. Seriously though, I cant see how democratization could help businesses run better. I understand why you feel this way....maybe one day you will understand where I'm coming from. I have a great deal of respect for common sense shall we apply some here? I understand that you believe current systems are better than making changes. I think your afraid of change....very mob like. But you are entitled to your opinion....but I disagree. I think corporate systems while effective at getting the bottom line for a select few...does not hold a true interest of people in heart. In my opinion that is the wrong way to do business. Some things corporate systems do well...take out the good....leave the rest to rot. quote: So you have said a number of times, but you continue to support an excessive level of democracy, this doesnt make much sense. Either politics is a full time job, and our country should only receive minimal input from the mob, or else politics is not a full time job, and our country should be run as democratically as physically possible. Sure, there is a middle ground, but you seem to be making two opposed statements. You cant, as they say, have your pie and eat it too. Maybe....maybe not....unlike you I do not discuss my points and ideas from the bizarre position of having some divine insight that others do not. I do however observe serious problems in my country of a moral nature and I don't necessarily expect you to understand. Some issues could be resolved by referendum. Others not. Perhaps a vent for the politicians...some issues will burn them no matter what choice is made. So they can hand it off to the people for a decision. Other things are extremely complex and demand full time attention. But all choices should have the goal of serving the people. Not because they can't do it themselves but because people have lives to live and don't have the time. Perhaps if more focus we're put on people to think about issues you might not be so disappointed with their actions or lack of. Oh...and if their made to feel their voice has no meaning why would they be interested in the first place? quote: Gee, arent I popular. I understand your sentiments, I wouldnt want to live in a country ruled by someone like me either, but allowing the mob to be a major power in politics is ridiculous. If anything it supports spin doctors, pork barrel politics, and similar nonsense that should have no role in how our country operates. If you want my opinion (which you probably dont) high government positions should be for life, or at least a very long time. There exists a need for the people to be able to exert influence on how our country is run if for no reason other then to protect themselves, but the mob is currently far too powerful You are popular...just for me it's in a sick fascinated kinda way.... Or perhaps current systems need major overhauls now and again....like anything that feels the passage of time....but in a different way. Heh heh...they already get life terms....they just redraw voting lines..... I don't think representatives should get life positions. /rant on You get out what you put in. The systems today strongly influence people to be what they are. We came out of caves....we landed on the moon....we can love and we can love to hate....but we always move forward and we would not be here today if people did not care for others on some basic level....I believe that we can move forward in this as well...global consciousness is a new realm in human experience. If we do not allow those who have captured the power to ruin our potential I believe our future will be a bright one. Every day we make that choice for ourselves. Every day a small group of profiteers gets to force its' will over the rest with no clear path to accomplishing a positive goal...the warm smile contrasts hypnotic eyes.... we have the gift and curse to rationalize what is positive and what is not. I believe in happiness. I believe in challenge. I believe in a notion of "good" that is not manufactured for some ulterior motive. I believe others hold this in their hearts as well. I will not hide from the challenge of seeking a better future (for my children(that I dont have) or those of others) based on faulty logic that can be reinforced with historic reference that may or may not be accurate....my beliefs have historical foundations as well. In short I believe in people...as we search for answers all we seem to get are more questions but there is always that person that stands on our left and right sharing this our human condition. Wisdom, knowledge, a desire for truth... these our the tools I will reach for when asked to construct a future. This future does not have room for the destructive forces of the morally impoverished and the fundamentally narrow minded. This is my truth currently...always open to revision. /rant off quote: Sure, so we insulate them by putting them under extra pressure from there constituencies as well, peachy. If anything, that results in even more pressure on congressmen to act in a manner opposed to the best interest of our country. While it could be argued that these pressures (that from there constituencies and from the sources you mentioned) exist in a state of concordant opposition (or some facsimile thereof) to do so would be incorrect. Your best interests or mine or the people's? I think you are losing sight of why these positions exist in the first place... People are what its all about. Me thinks the two forces above werent in the current state of disarray ..or course economics as we know it today is radically different from the majority of history.I am surprised you dont agree with the above idea. Economics are a part of society and should reflect that society. Americans endorse a value system based in part on fair play.due process.liberty.. However we wage economic war and we call it free trade.it does have that noble ring eh? We also employ jacked up employment practices. Like I said earlier I dont think we will win this war. I think those that believe too strongly in any one thing can get stuck with tunnel vision and lose any practical perspective. I think we are blinded by our successa success that that comes at the expense of others..a success that takes from those it is supposed to encompass forces are moving to change that.I believe we should move with that change instead of trying to fight it.but I sure as hell dont want that power able to dictate policy over people. ~If I die in a GALCOM zone, box me up and ship me home...pin my medal's upon my chest, tell my mom I done my best~

There are other places democracy can manifest itself. The next frontier I believe may be the work place. Yep politics is a full time job. quote: The masses do not know whatÔÇÖs best for them and most of them are simply uninterested in spending the time necessary to make an educated choice I would rather have them calling the shots via internet referendum then allow pockets of power to dwell in the hands of personnel with your mentality and beliefs. But politics is a full time job. quote: There have been a number of democratic reforms over the years (let us look at how senators are elected not as opposed to how they were originally selected) that have distributed too much power into uneducated hands. Let us think of how the existing system could be modified to promote a better society....and that is for all by the way. We must remember that even Senators are people and need to be insulated from overt pressures placed on them by sources that may not have the general interest of their constituency in mind. There is room for massive improvement.