USA Politics Thread - *No gun debate*

[Akira 0]

Lord nows there's never been annoying right wingers. Here at UT it is the exact opposite. Especially when the religious nuts come on and start yelling at the top of their lungs. Some lovely anti-abortion people set up in the middle of campus complete with a 50 foot poster display with pictures of aborted fetus' and the whole nine yards.

Yeah that wasn't annoying or disgusting.

[billybob2002 0]

Lord nows there's never been annoying right wingers. Here at UT it is the exact opposite. Especially when the religious nuts come on and start yelling at the top of their lungs. Some lovely anti-abortion people set up in the middle of campus complete with a 50 foot poster display with pictures of aborted fetus' and the whole nine yards.

Yeah that wasn't annoying or disgusting.

Yeah, the anti-abortion people come out too at my university but they do not promote near areas where a lot of people go (i.e. student union) because bad stuff usually happens between them and abortion supporters... Also, the animal rights people come around with their "pictures" but they promote more out in the open than the anti-abortion folks.. I have not seen the religious nuts (anti-abortion folks not counted) on my campus. It seems the "left-wing" groups tend to be more out in the open than right-wing groups here at UMCP. Last time I checked, Maryland is an blue state and the county where I live/attend school is very blue. Too much blue on blue love! Anyway, I feel special because I've been asked twice if I was interested in socialism...

[miles teg 1]

Well Billybob I guess youre lucky then. lol! I guess Republicans might consider anti-war protesters yelling that Bush is a gay bashing, genocidal, lying, muthafooking, hypocritical, Jesus Freak into a microphone as being rude. But I can guarantee you that they would be clapping and cheering back during Clinton's days if some anti-Clinton proteters were doing the same thing.

Yeah Akira, over here at UTSA, we had the same group, "Justice For All" here on campus. I spent 5 hours debating theology with them. It was actually quite interesting. The girls with that group who didn't know jack shit about their own faith got really pissed with me and told me to fuck off. But some of the older guys were nicer and we had some good dialog. We even prayed together and I got them to acknowledge that they hadn't approached some of the issues we talked about from certain alternative Christian viewpoints.

It made me realize that if I don't get the gig with the US government fighting terrorism, I'm going to apply with the Democratic Party as a political consultant to turn the Democratic Party into a lean mean Christian bible thumping machine and that will take Christianity back from the Republicans and use it to promote "liberal" social causes like helping the poor with more job programs and federally subsidized day care for single parents and the working poor... but this time pushing it with the teachings of Jesus behind them!

Democrats also I believe need to take the lead on cracking down on the internet porn industry. Shit I like naked women as much as anyone, but the shit has just gotten WAY out of hand. Its all fine and good to have a some playboy and Hustler mags at the corner gas station magazine rack, but having it EVERYWHERE on the internet trying to get people addicted to the stuff (which as been proven scientifically to be addictive) is just going way too far. Shit I'm sounding like a conservative almost. lol

Anyhoo... I'm all for Jesus if Jesus isn't crammed down people's throats, used to make people hate each other, or for war.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[marcusjm 0]

My comment on the immigration issue.

With the speed US production is moving to Mexico, maybe in the future it will be Mexicans keeping US illegal workers out ;).

Now that would be fun .

As they use to say here in Sweden. The Indians didnd't stop immigration in time. Now they live in reservation camps. (j/k).

Seriously. I allways found it a bit funny that there were anti-immigration people in a country where basically everyone is an immigrant. Also in a country where it's clearly proven that immigration is indeed a recipy for creating a great country, rather than a disaster which is a typical anti-immigration argument here in Europe. USA is a living proof that immigration is not only good but necessary to create a viable country. Industry needs consumers to expand. Immigration = more consumers.

As far as I'm concerned isolation is a recipy for disaster for any country(North Korea and Albania are two shining examples of that). There are simple economic reasons why it should be easy for people to move around and work wherever there's demand for it. It helps the wheels of industry roll and creates additional wealth for everyone. A true win-win situation.

Finally. My suggestion to those "border guards" is to go and man those crap jobs that noone else wants to take except Mexicans. They can do that for free then since they were willing to walk the borders for free. I'm sure the farmers of Texas will be very happy.

Bm

[Akira 0]

Indeed. I'm wondering if anyone truly understands that if all the "illegal" aliens were thrown out, rounded up, sent back, or whatever the solution du jour of the Repubs and rednecks is, that our economy would take a massive hit, and not just the farm sector either.

For the most part, "illegal" aliens are highly productive members of society who still have an idea of the "American dream," which seems to have been largely forgotten by most "natural" Americans.

[marcusjm 0]

But on the bright side .

I(as an Swede/European) find USA (and Americans) to be among the most tolerant country(and people) there is. Sure, you allways hear the bad things in news and things which could be better, but as a general rule it is better than anywhere else on Earth. It took it's time but it's getting there .

Whatever else that can be said about Bush(good or bad). He has done a remarkable job of getting diversity in his cabinet. I think he's done more to promote it in real action than most others who just talks about it. I mean of course by manning some of the heaviest positions with afro-americans and latinos etc. Good thing for the future imho.

marcus

[miles teg 1]

Good points Marcus.   I wish the French would realize the same thing.  Its funny how they blame Muslim immigrants for being poor because of their failure to become more French...yet their entire society is designed to descriminate against immigrants (regardless of their religion).    But they are there wondering what to do about their immigrant ghettos.  The same people who are in ghettos in France, generally when they come here, are VERY successful and very hard working.  Its fairly rare to find poor Muslims here in the US.  Generally they work very hard here and tend to be quite successful.  However since 9/11 it's become a little bit harder for someone with an Arabic name to find a job.  But fortunately most employers are ok with them as long as they work hard.  But more importantly, people from the Middle East and Asia (the newer immigrants from the old world) tend to be very good at setting up small businesses.   Mexicans and other hispanic immigrants do this also, but they are not as successful.  Why I can only speculate about.  It may have something to do with their lack of support for new immigrants in their communities and it may be because of a different work ethic.  Its not that they're lazy, but some cultures tend to be alot more competitive then others.  For example when I lived in Indonesia, the Javanese (the main ethnic group there) hated the Chinese because the Chinese were generally wealthy in that country or at least that was the perception because many big businesses were owned by Chinese.  The Javanese are much more laid back.  They work hard, but they work hard on their own time and do not put so much emphasis on deadlines or on punctuality.  It's a more relaxed way of life. But when confronted with the highly competitive Chinese, they tend to lose out in certain fields.  Some business saavy Javanese have adapted to the new realities, but for many Javanese changing their culture, increasing their stress levels, and the way they've always done things is not acceptable.

I suspect there are similar cultural reasons for hispanic ghettos here in the US. They are also probably the biggest immigrant group coming into the US so saturation of job markets may be another big reason for poverty.  But from being half Colombian and living amongst many Mexican Americans and other hispanics here in South Texas, I know that they come from a wide range of backgrounds and make up a broad range of socioeconomic levels.  There is no doubt that their economic situation has improved vastly but it often comes at the expense of changing their culture and basically acting more "white".  There's nothing wrong with that in my opinion, but hispanics that leave the barrios and want to get educated and be successful are often accused of acting too white and neglecting their roots.  This same sort of thing often happens with poor white communities as well where young people of the community who leave to get educated are accused of pretending to be better then the rest of their community by coming back more educated and with new ideas after being exposed to the culture of university life.  

PBS about a year ago had an EXCELLENT documentary on the subject of "CLASS" where they really got to the root of this issue with some of the best social science I have ever seen concerning this issue. They followed individuals from many socioeconomic and racial groups to analyze their concepts of class. It was just brilliantly done and they really nailed alot of the complex cultural issues that often keep people from being economically successful.  However that doesn't mean that a person is not successful in maintaining their culture and generally keeping their communities as they have always been.  

Its like small town America protesting Walmarts.  Some people welcome Walmart cuz it brings jobs (even if they are low paying with shitty benefits).  However others hate Walmart because while it may in the long run improve the local economy, it destroys old traditional businesses in the area and much of the local culture and lifestyles disappear with those businesses.

But overall I agree with you Marcus that immigration is a good thing.   But change is painful.  In Europe, cultural change is especially painful because they have such old traditions and cultures that they DO NOT want to see changed.  These traditions are often institutionalized and are embodied in their national spirit.  So when anything threatens that Europeans tend to often react very violently.  In England for example you see a big change in food cultures.  Suddenly there are places serving Curry everywhere.   But it doesn't mean good ol' fashion fish and chips have disappeared.   Just like here in America, Mexican resteraunts have exploded all over the US in places where 10 years ago they may have never tasted a taco in their life.   Yet even here in South Texas, an area with a high hispanic population, there are resteraunts with tons of more or less traditional American foods like hamburgers and hotdogs and steaks and all that good stuff.  But you can also get just about any food from any country imaginable in the bigger cities.  

One of my Aunts who lives in Italy was envious of that as in Italy it is very difficult and/or expensive to find non-Italian resteraunts because Italians are so incredibly nationalist about their food.  Sure they do have arguably some of the finest food in the world, but so do the Chinese.  Mexican food and Indian food also kicks ass!  But its all about cultural integrity and fear of cultural change.  Thats a big reason why Muslims are so afraid of the West.  Western culture is a really really scary thing when they have been so successful at keeping at bay for so long....but now the American cultural jaggernaut has made inroads into their cultures and many in the Middle East are absolutely terrified.   Its not that they are jealous of the West and its not that they hate freedom.  They are just terrified of change and of feeling like their morales and values are being taken with them as Western culture comes sweeping through.  

So... thats a big part of the reason why so many Americans are terrified of Mexican immigrants.  They see them as a bunch of brown riff-raff who are stealing their tax payer dollars in social services and jobs....rather then as just the latest in a long line of immigrants to America who also had to struggle to be successful.  They forget that the Irish, Italians, and most recently Asians took ALOT of shit before they were widely accepted as being fully American.  Even today Asians still get discriminated against quite a bit.  I've seen that several times first-hand being around Koreans alot and it was really quite shocking to me.  

So anyone that says race isn't an issue is not really willing to analyze themselves and why they are afraid of immigrants or other cultures.   Its not just the color of the skin of another race.  Its what they represent that terrifies people.  

At any rate, believe it or not Billybob, I do support you in the idea of continuing to limit illegal immigration.   Totally open immigration would flood the job market and cause serious problems.  It needs to be managed so that the labor markets do not get oversaturated with immigrants.   The US federal government can also provide a type of amnesty program to help illegals catch a bus back to Mexico if they can not find a job here.  This is much better then arresting them if they show up at an immigration office.  Even stupider is that now people leaving the US at the US/Mexico border must have a passport and papers.  I wonder if the US border patrol will arrest illegal aliens as they attempt to go back into Mexico or refuse to let them go back home (without putting them into prison for awhile) if they don't have any papers.

This might encourage some illegals who can't find employment here in the US, to instead file for welfare here in the US and use other social services until they find a job.

So hopefully the US will find some more common sense solutions.  That's why I'm not totally opposed to Bush's idea of guest worker status because it is true that MANY Mexicans very much prefer to go back to Mexico after saving up some money here for their families.  Seasonal labor is not a bad thing at all when they can earn more here, save some money up, and then go back and take it easy in Mexico for awhile before returning to work for another season in the US.  The only negative thing however is that it is VERY hard on families.

Its not unlike military familes where a spouse is constantly being deployed overseas.  It can be fairly hard on a marriage.

Thats why some prefer to take their whole immediate families.  With migrant laborers you often see families.  Many US farms have gotten into trouble for employing children to pick crops.

So its a complex problem, but I think the key thing is for our immigration policies to be highly flexible.  We should experiment with different programs to see how to make it as easy as possible for Mexican immigrants to easily return to Mexico if they wish to do so regardless of their immigration legal status.   If one program doesn't work, then you simply try another.  Its also very important that we support Mexico in its effort to further develop their economy and education system as well as strongly supporting their efforts in cracking down on corruption.  

But... I also thing that there is VERY strong corporate pressure in the United States to make sure that the developing world stays as the developing world because other wise it creates more competition in the global market where the US, China, Japan, and Europe could begin to lose some control over global markets.  Already the Latin American countries have seriously flexed their muscle at recent WTO conferences and have put the U.S. on notice that they can not any longer have their way on any trade issue just because America is the dominant economic power.

So the future will be interesting I think when it comes to US/Latin American relations.

Chris G.

Miles Teg<GD>

[marcusjm 0]

Good(long) reply MilesTag. Text-heavy though .

In the end I think it's about being afraid of the unkown(I think). I might seem like a simplistic answer but it's really the only viable answer I can come up with. Afraid of losing jobs, increased crime, weird diseases or weird smells from food they don't recognize. Whatever .

To take an example from my country(Sweden). Every decade saw a wave of immigration(or refugees) from various countries. At first they werent accepted but with time the acceptance became bigger.

EiZei mentioned "dark skinned" people but as someone with part Finnish parents I can tell that the VERY same arguments i see in this thread against Mexicans were used against Finns. As in "they take our jobs", "go home", "criminals all of them". This was in the early 70:s when the Finns were still quite new here. And Finns are neither dark skinned or have weird cultures. Same religion, basically same looking. Still hit with the same stupid in-tolerance as todays refugees(if people could understand that distinction at some point). I don't know how many times i got into fist fights after beeing called "Finn Jävel"(Finn-bastard) or something similar. I never backed down though ;).

I have friends from as diverse countries as Iran, Poland, Russia, Greece, Croatia, USA, Lebanon, Israel etc. They have ALL been exposed to the same stupid comments at some point. Being called black heads, being exposed to anti-semitism (or anti-arabism whatever, slavic etc). It's just the same stupidity from different angle.s

There's simply no logics or reason behind these type of arguments. In-tolerance is allways stupid and simply not logical.

marcus

[denoir 0]

But they are there wondering what to do about their immigrant ghettos.  The same people who are in ghettos in France, generally when they come here, are VERY successful and very hard working.  Its fairly rare to find poor Muslims here in the US.  Generally they work very hard here and tend to be quite successful.

The difference is that you don't have a social security to speak of. The problems that France has is the same all over Europe, including here in Sweden. It's just that the French have a larger Muslim minority than other countries.

It is as simple as this: In Europe, if you want, you can choose not to work and still have a decent financial situation. So if you want, you can just sit at home and watch reality TV all day long, without interacting with anybody else. And compared to the original economic background of many immigrants, they get a fantastic financial situation.

In default mode, people generally form groups with other people that have similar interest, background etc The average person takes the path of least resistance which in this case means sticking to your group. Integration requires effort and energy. If you have no real motivation to do so, you most likely won't.

In America on the other hand, you have to work, or you'll end up on the street. So immigrants have no choice but to integrate. And once groups and people start communicating on a regular basis, the mutual suspicion disappears.

As far as Europe goes, I don't really have a solution. Killing off the social protection is not an option, and trying to ban all immigration would be short-sighted and stupid. Fact is, given the European demographic trends (ageing population), we badly need immigrants.

[denoir 0]

I(as an Swede/European) find USA (and Americans) to be among the most tolerant country(and people) there is. Sure, you allways hear the bad things in news and things which could be better, but as a general rule it is better than anywhere else on Earth. It took it's time but it's getting there .

It depends a bit how you look at it. America is far more tolerant to non-American immigrants than Europe is to non-European immigrants. The US has always had a principle of importing workers, engineers and scientists from abroad. And it's certainly a sound principle, but the only reason why it works is because it works on the principle of social, rather than national discrimination. What is relevant is not if you are Swedish, German or Japanese, but if you can contribute to society somehow - in practice, if you can earn cash for someone.

Americans generally see people as resources, which is to a certain degree quite right ( the problem is that it doesn't take into consideration the weaker segments of society, which arn't too useful resources, but that's another story).

So from that point of view, America is far more tolerant.

If you however look at some practical things, you get a different picture. While blacks have officially all the same rights as whites, in practice they are much poorer, end up in jail far more often etc The social segregation is quite large, and there's a very strong link to race.

[marcusjm 0]

So what it really is, is a flaw in the system. Instead of changing(or blaming) the system we find someone else to blame. That's what we should learn to do instead of finding scape goats. Or alternativelly make it easier to start succesful businesses for both new and old Europeans. For instance by making more business friendly tax systems. I can think of millions of things to do before starting to blame immigrants. I use the term "we" liberally here, but what is "we". Is there some border when you are "them" and become "we"? I don't know, never had a good answer to that really. I of cours prefer to think individual but that's a different debate.

Btw. USA does have social security but as you say it's based on promoting work and not the opposite. Something we should work on rather than finding scape goats for those problems. Let me put it this way. I'm sure there's a middle road here. US social security could be better so could the various European systems(since they are too different to be called as one).

Combining my reply to your second reply Denoir.

The reason USA has come this far is because they had their fights and struggles over it. As far as seeing humans as products. I would say. They see potential in each human. They don't first as "What's your color, where are you from". They ask "What can you do for me?". Discounting some extremists etc. But in general it works this way. I've seen it in action and I see it everytime I see Americans here in Sweden. They have moved past many of the hurdles we(as in most European countries) are only beginning to see.

Under no circumstance did i want to start a comparison debate btw. Let's stick to "US politics". As in Immigration from a US point of view. The only reason I used Sweden for comparison was to put my first reply into a Context which made more sense.

BM

[denoir 0]

For instance by making more business friendly tax systems. I can think of millions of things to do before starting to blame immigrants.

Don't get me started on that..

Quote[/b] ]Btw. USA does have social security but as you say it's based on promoting work and not the opposite. Something we should work on rather than finding scape goats for those problems. Let me put it this way. I'm sure there's a middle road here. US social security could be better so could the various European systems(since they are too different to be called as one).

They are a bit different, but they are much more similar to each other than to the one that exists in the US. There are very strong ideological differences involved as well. In the US, individual responsibility is a big thing, while in Europe the idea is that society must provide good basic living standards for everybody, regardless of anything.

Furthermore (and this relates very much to immigration as well) European industry and American industry are in very different gears. The US can go on like it has for a while still, thanks to influx of a cheap work force. In Europe on the other hand industrial automation has been given preference - basically removing the human from the industrial process loop.

The second issue is the consumer trends, which are quite different. Americans are much better at spending their money on domestic industrial products. If you can afford three cars, you buy three cars. In Europe, if you can afford three cars, you buy one car etc

America can continue as a strong industrial society for at least 50 years or so. What lies ahead for Europe is a bit more difficult to say. The changes we are seeing today are the start of something at least as big as when we turned from an agriculture based economy to an industrial one. The popular predictions now among economists is that the "next phase" is a cultural based economy. That rather than having X number of industrial products, having something unique will be seen as more valuable.

Anyway, my point is that in several aspects Europe and America are in different gears and a compromise between the systems might not be possible.

[marcusjm 0]

Some points taken there Denoir. But I dont want to dwell too deep into it due to the nature of the thread(ie US politics)

I also want to stress something which is all too often mixed into one sad bag. Namelly immigration and refugees. I still(naivelly perhaps) belive it should be create a world where millions of people DONT have to flee their country. Mexicans thankfull do not have to flee anywhere at the moment. The only way to ensure that is to promote democracy and freedom as often as possible(preferably with peaceful means if possible) and wherever possible.

Immigration however is not only good but necessary. Any country would stagnate without it, it's sad that some people refuse to understand that. EU itself has only begun to see the benefits of the internal movement. I'd even liken USA itself as many countries benefitting from "internal movement". USA has ridden through many crisis thanks the option for (most at least) to move elsewhere if a region stagnates.

It is and was in the USA i was talking about. USA needs immigrants. Period.

BM

[miles teg 1]

WARNING LONG REPLY AGAIN! Sorry... didn't mean to. It just happened. But its good stuff...mainly me just thinking aloud ideas along with possible problems and solutions to those ideas.

Yeah actually the comparison to European immigration programs is I think very useful for this topic in this thread and both you and denoir made excellent points.  

Many of us more liberal Americans envy the social security that you Europeans enjoy although we shiver at the thought of the incredibly high fuel prices you all have their also.  But still overall you all in Western Europe have a pretty sweet standard of living.  

I think there IS a middle road.  Most poor Americans are not so concerned about starving to death.  What most are concerned about is, "What happens when I get old?  What happens if I get injured or seriously ill with cancer, heart disease, etc...?"  

I think a good middle of the road is to first fix up our current social security system so that there is some basic coverage for people who can't work because of disabilities or who are too old to work effectively.   The biggest hurdle is that Americans don't want to pay higher taxes for a secure social security system.  Worse President Bush passed what was perhaps the first tax cut in US history that did not enjoy popular support because of the wartime situation and our social security problems.  Sure most Republicans welcomed it and yeah most people were not exactly sad to see a few hundred bucks extra in their tax returns, but overall it was just a short term economic boost and most people just used that money to pay off credit card debts.

At any rate, this President has made a lot of very very dubious financial decisions for this country based on trickle-down economic theory that has been proven not to work.  

Anyways...with all that said, fixing our Social Security system was not the main point about what I was refering to as a middle of the road solution.  What would REALLY stimulate our economy is a national health care system.  Yes it would be at least partially socialized medicine.  However I think it could be done with just enough regulation of the medical and pharmeceutical industry to insure that there is no serious price gouging going on.  I think that most poor people would not mind so much working low paying jobs if they knew that their medical expenses of themselves and their families were covered by the government.  Many states have already had state subsidized health care coverage for children.  There is no reason why total health care coverage couldn't be done for every citizen of this country.  

That way if immigrants want luxuries like two cars, their own house, the latest laptop computers, the latest game consoles, expensive cell phones, and big screen TV's...yeah they'll have to work harder to get those material goodies.  But will they starve?  No.  Will they be denied health care?  No.  But will life still be rough?  Yeah.  But they won't die.  It needs to be where life is not too comfortable for not only immigrants but poor citizens if they don't want to work.  In fact if they don't work they will end up in a homeless shelter.  But they will still have medical coverage.  

The exception should be those who are documented as being mentally ill and the seriously disabled...and many Americans don't realize this but those individuals can apply for Social Security, medicaid, etc... and it helps them out tremendously.   But those individuals and the elderly should be the only exceptions.  Food stamps can be given to those in between jobs who have that need.  

So I think there is a middle ground, I hope and pray that America has the leadership and the intelligence to find that middle ground so that we can once again be a progressive leader of the world in terms of human rights, freedoms and democracy in our own country.   That way we can proudly say as Americans, "Look, we have developed one of the most effective and balanced social systems in the world."

Currently we are just saying to the world, "Hey Look everyone!  Look how RICH our RICH people are!  Look how strong our Stock Market is!  Look at how huge our corporations are!!! Look at how amazing and powerful our military is as we take your resources!".

Instead if we really moved ahead as a progressive yet balanced society (not totally capitalist driven, but not totally socialist) then I think America could really lead the way for the world once again by putting our money where our mouth is and walking the walk rather just talking the talk to countries we don't like.  

The trick is to convince conservatives in this country, that socialist programs can actually powerfully benefit the economy and many other industries as it takes the burden of health care costs off of corporations and individuals so that they can invest that money into their corporations while individuals can use that money to invest, to save, but most likely to spend!!!   And SPENDING is what American economists like to hear!  So while the medical industry and pharmeceutical industry would take a hit, it would not be the end of the world.   That along with some moderate tort reforms (caps on rediculously huge law suits).  

Oh..but the biggest losers would be the health insurance industries.  They would go bye bye.   That does mean some big job losses, but many of these companies are owned by parent companies or have other companies under them.  Others would adapt to other areas of insurance.  But I think the jobs lost would only be a short term loss.  

Sadly, a national health care system is very difficult to pass because of the MASSIVE campaign contributions by the insurance industry.  Their lobbiests have HUGE clout in Washington DC as do the medical industry lobbiests who would stand to lose some of their high earnings.

So it'll be a tough battle but I think again here there may be some compromises on how to find some kind of common sense ways of controlling health care costs while providing low cost health care to all Americans or at least to those who can not afford health insurance.   But it also means higher taxes and cuts in our military.  Our military is high on our priorities right now, but there are still TONS of wasteful programs that really need to be cut like the V-22 Osprey.  Yeah they'll get it to work but its basic design is still critically flawed by the fact that it'll crash if one engine goes out.  Old cheap but successful designs like the A-10 warthog and the CH-53 could be reissued and improved rather then replacing them with vastly more expensive aircraft.   The F-22 can be kept in small numbers with the bulk of the airforce made up of low cost F-16 variants.   The M109 Paladin can be continually updated, Expensive Apache gunships and new designs could be supplemented by cheap Russian made gunships like the Mi-24 Hind which would be perfect for Iraq where currently Army and Marine gunship pilots use the exact same tactics that the Hind is designed for (high speed strafing with a big weapons payload over heavy small arms fire).  Our Airforce's airlift capability could earn extra cash by doing civilian airlifting projects on the side for items to big for most commercial carriers.  The Russian and Ukranian airforce do this.    They even make money off their fighter planes at airshows by offering rides at $10,000 a pop.  

So there lots of ideas and TONS of areas where costs can be cut but it just requires inventive ideas like the Army has of rewarding soldiers who come up with ways to reduce government waste with cash bonuses.  

Anyhoo...sorry again for the long reply.  Stream of consciousness. But I hope some of these are good ideas that I can push forth at political rallies or eventually hopefully, directly to the politicians if I don't end up becoming one myself. 

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[marcusjm 0]

Yes. If someone made an actual working CH-53 for OFP they could advertise it that way ;). (sorry coulnt'd resist)

BM

[Akira 0]

More wonderful news fromt he land of the Capitol of Texas. While reading this, keep in mind that there still is no school finance bill. Despite 3 special sessions for redistricting in order ot gain a majority, the Republicans are unable to come up with school finance, and are in a pissing contest with the Senate.

Quote[/b] ]EDITORIAL

House stupidity is nothing to cheer about

Advertisement

EDITORIAL BOARD

Thursday, May 05, 2005

The odd thing about the Texas House of Representatives' sudden obsession with sexy cheerleaders is that there is no scandal to explain it. The only pep squad scandal in recent memory occurred in 1991, when the Channelview mother of a would-be cheerleader was charged with plotting murder to thwart her daughter's rival.

Yet late Tuesday afternoon, the House debated, with passion usually reserved for tax bills, a proposal to require the Texas Education Agency to intervene when school districts' cheerleaders, drill teams and the like perform "in a manner that is overtly sexually suggestive" at public school events.

Complaints about cheerleaders who shake too much of their tops or bottoms could be filed with the state agency, a sort of Booty Regulatory Authority. It then would direct the local school district to explain itself and, well, do something.

The bill does not define "overtly," leaving room for creative but covert sexually suggestive behavior. Nor does it define "sexually suggestive," which the bill's author, Rep. Al Edwards of Houston, indicated falls into the category of "I know it when I see it."

Edwards is a Democrat, but it was Democrats who most mocked and attacked his bill.

Rep. Senfronia Thompson, another Houston Democrat, was so angered by its inanity that she denounced it in unusually direct terms by House standards, "This is a ridiculous bill. It's stupid and it's insulting. It's an embarrassment and indictment of this body that this kind of garbage has reached the floor of the House."

Amen.

Edwards responded that nothing the Legislature does is more important than caring for the state's children. Yet this same Edwards is recorded as "present, not voting" on House Bill 2, which the House approved in March and, if it becomes law, would radically change how the state finances the education of its children. Sex is always more fun than financing.

Some of the chamber's most socially conservative members, including Reps. Robert Talton of Pasadena and Debbie Riddle of Tomball, both Republicans, defended the bill.

Talton is the representative who got the House to adopt an amendment to bar gay Texans from taking in foster children. And Riddle, as a newcomer to the Legislature in 2003, broke out of anonymity when she asked, after a hearing involving health care for illegal immigrants, "Where did this idea come from that everybody deserves free education, free medical care, free whatever? It comes from Moscow, from Russia. It comes straight from the pit of hell." She's now fighting those lithe cheerleader devils prancing in gymnasiums and on school fields across the state.

Edwards' bill has no sponsor in the Senate, so let's hope it now dies a quiet death. The Senate is fully capable of passing its own bad legislation, but it seldom ratifies House silliness.

EDIT: Oh yeah. Happy Cinco De Mayo!

EDIT2:

Cartoon One

Cartoon Two

Cartoon Three

EDIT3:

Actual News Story

[denoir 0]

Many of us more liberal Americans envy the social security that you Europeans enjoy although we shiver at the thought of the incredibly high fuel prices you all have their also.  But still overall you all in Western Europe have a pretty sweet standard of living.  

Hehe, high gas taxes are a good thing.

Interestingly enough, very few Europeans complain too much at that particular tax. I think it is mostly because of awareness of the pollution that cars cause. Furthermore, lots of people (in the larger cities by far most) use public transportation. There's a long tradition of it and the typical urban layouts in Europe are suitable in it.

I can understand though the need for cars in the US. The urban layout is simply too distributed (people live more in suburbs, the city center is less important and people shop in large malls, also outside the city.)

Quote[/b] ]I think there IS a middle road. Most poor Americans are not so concerned about starving to death. What most are concerned about is, "What happens when I get old? What happens if I get injured or seriously ill with cancer, heart disease, etc...?"

While medical insurance etc are indeed important, you'd be surprised about the levels of poverty that exist, with people actually starving (http://www.endhunger.org/us_hunger.htm).

Quote[/b] ]But will they starve? No. Will they be denied health care? No. But will life still be rough? Yeah. But they won't die. It needs to be where life is not too comfortable for not only immigrants but poor citizens if they don't want to work. In fact if they don't work they will end up in a homeless shelter. But they will still have medical coverage.

I think that this is a very relevant ideological difference. In America it is seen ultimately as the individual's resposibility to take care of himself. In Europe it is seen as ultimately the government's responsibility that everyone in the society has a fairly good quality of life - regardless of anything.

Both systems are flawed to some extent.

The problem with the American model is that the individual is in reality very dependant on his or her social background. If you are born in a ghetto, it's unlikely you'll go to Yale. And even if there is a theoretical possibility, you will have to be über-bright and break completely with your social context. If your family is rich, then there's no problem. The concept of the "American dream" - that you can accomplish anything through hard work and ambition, is very naive. That may have been true when America was founded, but hardly today. Best example of that is father & son Bush aka Mr President.

The problem with the European model is that it's first of all bloody expensive and has the effect of decoupling performance from reward. In effects, it doesn't promote work and ambition. To finance this, tax levels are far higher - which is even further reducing the economic gap between those that work and those that don't.

Quote[/b] ]So I think there is a middle ground, I hope and pray that America has the leadership and the intelligence to find that middle ground so that we can once again be a progressive leader of the world in terms of human rights, freedoms and democracy in our own country.

You really need to get over that "world leader" complex.

Quote[/b] ]Currently we are just saying to the world, "Hey Look everyone! Look how RICH our RICH people are! Look how strong our Stock Market is! Look at how huge our corporations are!!! Look at how amazing and powerful our military is as we take your resources!".

Well, that image has taken some beating, given the deficit, the weak dollar and of course Iraq, which has hardly been a great success. Generally speaking, I think that the US will sooner or later have to re-evaluate it's view on where it belongs in the world community.

Quote[/b] ]Instead if we really moved ahead as a progressive yet balanced society (not totally capitalist driven, but not totally socialist) then I think America could really lead the way for the world once again by putting our money where our mouth is and walking the walk rather just talking the talk to countries we don't like.

There's one more significant difference between trends in Europe and American I'd like to point out. Both capitalist and socialist systems work in terms of money, the question is just the distribution. In Europe for the past decades a third trend has become quite strong and it's about the goal of "quality of life", which is besides money measured by other factors. Typical such things are free time, a good environment etc

These started in many cases as socialist concerns as a form of worker protection but has evolved ever since. On the most fundamental level it's stuff like strictly legally enforced how many hours you can work per day, the minimum amount of paid vacation (now 5-6 weeks) etc It has however gone a step further.

For instance in France, they reduced the standard 40 hour work week to 35 hours. In Germany (possible because of extensive automation) parts of the industrial sector introduced 6h work days, rather than the usual 8h - while keeping the same pay levels. In terms of the environment, people who can without a problem buy two cars, don't - because of the environmental impact.

This change, which I think is positive in general, is however very problematic. It is the reason why the growth of the EU economies is so slow. It's not a temporary recession - there are big structural problems. The industry can't grow, because the EU market is to a large degree saturated. People are simply less interested in buying industrial products (such as cars for instance). This of course violates every ideal of market economy. At the same time the strong Euro makes it difficult to export the stuff elsewhere - European industrial products are simply too expensive to be competitive else in the world. A third problem is the extensive automation that the industry uses, requiring fewer and fewer people to work in industry. This in turn creates higher unemployment.

And finaly, we have the über-expensive social security which only becomes more expensive, as less people work.

While this is all happening, the European economy is still entirely dependant on its industry. The old ways have become obsolete, and we don't really know where to go next. So in the short term, it is not looking too good. In some countries like Germany, they are now desperately trying to balance things by cutting down on their horrifically expensive social security - but the problem is far more fundamental than that.

Anyway, America on the other hand is free to go on like it is now for quite a while still. I think however you'll face the same problems sooner or later. Just like agriculture, industry is bound to become a thing of the past for the majority. And then you have to find something else to replace it...

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]While reading this, keep in mind that there still is no school finance bill. Despite 3 special sessions for redistricting in order ot gain a majority, the Republicans are unable to come up with school finance, and are in a pissing contest with the Senate.

Speaking about education....

http://members.roadfly.org/Agent7/college_paper/page1.jpg

http://members.roadfly.org/Agent7/college_paper/page2.jpg

http://members.roadfly.org/Agent7/college_paper/page3.jpg

http://members.roadfly.org/Agent7/college_paper/page4.jpg

http://members.roadfly.org/Agent7/college_paper/page5.jpg

http://members.roadfly.org/Agent7/college_paper/page6.jpg

http://members.roadfly.org/Agent7/college_paper/page7.jpg

Anyway, the "protest" happened today at the sundial and turnout was very low (<30) . This time they were not has loud but they were semi-loud to say the least. I heard something about minorities and how there was recruitment problems. I think he was trying to blame Iraq but that is not the truth. However, I did hear loudly that Bush is an terrorist...BAH More people went to meet the school mascot, who was 100 yards north of them near a table that was offering food and t-shirts (pay), than sit down and listen to them.

[red oct 2]

I heard something about minorities and how there was recruitment problems. I think he was trying to blame Iraq but that is not the truth.

and just out of curiosity, what exactly would you blame the low recruitment rates on? would it because everybody by coincidence has the exact same excuse you have for not enlisting?

[billybob2002 0]

I heard something about minorities and how there was recruitment problems. I think he was trying to blame Iraq but that is not the truth.

and just out of curiosity, what exactly would you blame the low recruitment rates on? would it because everybody by coincidence has the exact same excuse you have for not enlisting?

Fear of death? Recruitment of minorities went down right after 9/11 and not because of Iraq.

Anyway, I'm going the get my degree and then enlist route. Hopefully, I will have 82 credits after this semester (fecking untransferable credits ) and after the summer, 88 credits. So, basically, I got 1 1/2 years to go (give or take) before graduation.

[miles teg 1]

Dude the paper you posted rocked! Ah...and the colored paper was just priceless! LOL!

If I would have his teacher I would have given him a passing grade just because of the shear humor and creativity in attempting to write the world's worst college paper.

lol!

I actually grade alot of papers and fortunately I haven't come across too many like that. At least in my University I can fairly confidently say that students get a pretty damn good education even at the Jr. College level. True grammar (including my own) isn't what it should be, but content wise, most students seem to do fairly well in not only recounting facts but actually using information they learned productively to forumulate their own ideas and opinions.

Speaking of facts... looks like Kansas is going through with another idiotic "Creationism vs. Evolution" trial again.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050506/ap_on_re_us/kansas_evolution

Quote[/b] ]

TOPEKA, Kan. - Eighty years after the Scopes Monkey Trial, Kansas education officials began four days of trial-like hearings to consider changes to how Kansas students are tested on the origins of life.

Science groups are boycotting the hearings, held by a Board of Education subcommittee, because they view them as being rigged against evolution. The board could revise its science standards in June to include both the theory of evolution and criticism of it.

Many scientists fear that the board will follow recommendations from advocates of "intelligent design" in adopting standards critical of evolution. Conservatives hold a majority on the 10-member board.

Evolution says that changes in species can lead to new species, and that different species, including man and apes, have common ancestors. Intelligent design advocates contend the universe is so complex it must have been created by some higher power.

In 1999, the board deleted most references to evolution in the science standards. Later, current standards were adopted to include evolution as a key education concept.

Last year, the board asked a committee of educators to recommend changes to the standards and received two competing proposals, one of which would include criticism of evolution.

The board has sought to avoid comparisons of its hearings with the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial in Dayton, Tenn., in which teacher John Scopes was convicted of violating a law against teaching evolution. But the hearings resemble a trial, with attorneys managing each side's case.

Witnesses were questioned by Topeka attorney Pedro Irigonegaray, who was arguing against teaching theories other than evolution.

He asked witness Bill Harris, an advocate of intelligent design, "Where in the standards does it say teachers and students cannot discuss criticism of evolution?"

"It doesn't say that. I think it's implicit," said Harris, a professor of medicine at the University of Missouri-Kansas City.

Instead of testifying at the first hearing, representatives of national and state science groups held the first of a planned series of news conferences at the Statehouse. On display Thursday night was a wheel barrow and two crates full of copies of scientific journals — to suggest evolution is well-documented.

"The only way we can make our point is to stop playing their game," said Harry McDonald, president of Kansas Citizens for Science.

Intelligent design advocates pointed to the boycott as evidence that evolution's supporters are afraid to debate.

The state board's standards determine what is on statewide tests, but local school boards decide what is actually taught and which textbooks are used.

Similar battles have been waged in the past few years in Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania.

We evolved from lemmings damn it. Not monkeys...lemmings!

The evidence is clear and Bush and America make the case for this scientific fact.

Seriously I think that the scientists over there are going about things the wrong way. They are right in that they CAN NOT combat religious beliefs with science because you can't change faith very easily that way, when faith is absolute truth for so many people. They gotta realize that the only way to convince them to quit trying to force religion into the classroom is to argue evolution from a theological standpoint as well as to give some ground by accepting the fact that the theory of evolution DOES have problems. But so do many well accepted scientific theories. No theory is perfect and there should always be room for criticism and counter-theories in order for science to grow.

The creationists on the other hand don't even seem to understand evolution as they keep getting it confused with the origins of life... something the theory of evolution does not explain. They seem to be fighting not so much against the theory of evolution now but instead theories of how the Universe began. The Theory of Evolution is just a model showing how certain mechanisms of change in species seem to be working. It does not attempt to explain WHY we have these systems or WHY we have any of the natural laws that we see in the universe and on Earth. It is simply a means of studying change in species. I wish creationists would get that through their thick heads instead of trying to slowly push religion into the education so that they can try to keep children from learning about the scientific evidence that yes, we evolved from monkeys...or something monkey'ish.

This can also be blended in with Christian beliefs of how God created mankind if you don't take the bible literally word for word. If you did that, then we should trash all science and live purely by the Bible and nothing else... kinda like Islamic extremists want to do with the Qu'ran and Islamic societies.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[Colossus 2]

OK this is just too paranoid, the whole capitol Riga is closed just becouse Mr. President is in town. Police and even the army is driving up and down the streets of Riga just to protect ONE man.

This is Riga when Bush was there.

[denoir 0]

OK this is just too paranoid, the whole capitol Riga is closed just becouse Mr. President is in town. Police and even the army is driving up and down the streets of Riga just to protect ONE man.

This is Riga when Bush was there.

That's not too surprising. When the US president plans on making a state visit the security is always a matter of negotiations. The US basically demands that everything is cleared from people, that the secret service takes charge of all the security etc

The smaller and less politically important the country is, the more it will agree to any terms. If it is a larger country, then the US delegation usually can't dictate the terms and the locals are running the show.

For instance when Bush visits Russia, he gets to keep his car, but that's basically it. One or two secret service agents stay with him, but the rest of the security is handled by the Russians. The same thing was when Bush visited the EU institutions in Brussels - almost every part of the security was handled by the Belgians, and of course the streets were not cleared out.

Latvia is a small country, a fairly big fan of the US and this visit is very important to them. So it's not surprising that they agreed to more or less any terms that the secret service dictated.

[walker 0]

Hi all

We have to remember that George Bush junior is such a coward he admits he was going to blow his eardrum out with shotgun rather than go to Vietnam. Luckily his dad got him a spot in a champaign squadron for war cowards.

Then when America was attacked on 9/11 he froze in terror unable to make decisions in the nations defence.

And most recently he had a the secret service rush him to the bunker when a dark cloud menaced the whithouse with rain. The US under presedential order retaliated with ground to air missiles and an air combat squadron.

Quote[/b] ]Incoming cloud forces Bush into safe bunker

Julian Borger in Washington

April 29 2005

President George Bush was bundled into an underground bunker, Dick Cheney was evacuated to an "undisclosed location" and heavily armed secret servicemen took up defensive positions when a fast-moving cloud scudded towards the White House, it was reported

http://search.guardian.co.uk/search9....te+Desc

Of course the man has the streets cleared a secret pretzel could leap up and cause him to self assasinate.

Kind Regards Walker

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]And most recently he had a the secret service rush him to the bunker when a dark cloud menaced the whithouse with rain. The US under presedential order retaliated with ground to air missiles and an air combat squadron.

Did you even clicked that hyperlink on the page?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1472872,00.html

Quote[/b] ]

Incoming cloud forces Bush into safe bunker

Julian Borger in Washington

Friday April 29, 2005

The Guardian

President George Bush was bundled into an underground bunker, Dick Cheney was evacuated to an "undisclosed location" and heavily armed secret servicemen took up defensive positions when a fast-moving cloud scudded towards the White House, it was reported yesterday.

The cloud that materialised 30 miles south of Washington on Wednesday morning was so dense it triggered radar monitors on the Domestic Events Network, intended to prevent a repeat of the September 11 attacks.

Radar goes off and the Sercet Service followed procedure to secure the president. And, Bush followed procedure to give permission in case it was a real terrorist attack. OMG!!! The SS and president did their jobs!!! OMG!!!

Edit: sp...