TnT says:
=============
I live in NYC, and if I want, I can travel to California without
getting anyones permission, or carrying papers, and having to bribe
border guards to let me pass. It is trully amazing.
==============

Well, I don't know about amazing. If you and I want to visit (I'm in
Canada), we'd both have to wait in infernal lines at the border and be
subjected to interrogation by boder officials. Our friends in Europe
can travel from, say, Germany, to Holland, to France, to Spain, and
NEVER have to stop at the border. That, to me, is more amazing.

You may have thought my response to comrade Weiser was funny, but he
truly did nicely articulate some socialist truths. Very clearly,
governments, representing the people, have to make some decisions
deemed to be in the strategic interests of the nation. Scott happens to
think corporate welfare to agri-business constitutes such a strategic
interest. I don't know. Only the people of America can be the judge of
that.

However, I challenge all right-wingers who are of like mind (that is,
agree with Scott) to consider that nations which they consider to be
"socialist" may have made similar, democratic and strategic choices.

They may have decided that it is in the nation's strategic interest to
have an educated populace. Consequently they may fund free schools and
universities in a strategic interest. I do not consider it far fetched
for a people to decide that it is in their strategic interests to have
a healthy populace -- and to fund medical care. Other nations see the
ability of people to travel with ease as a strategic interest -- and
fund public transit.

Look, if THE PEOPLE choose to fund a variety of activities, that is a
democratic choice. I think it matters little what you call it. Call it
socialism if that pleases you.

Me, I'd rather pay welfare to the poor that welfare to corporations.
I'm hoping my fellow citizens agree with me.

Cheers,
frtzw906

BCITORGB wrote:
OK, I guess I misread your question. Nonetheless, global or not, I'll
venture that most of us outside of the USA would prefer a president
more in tune with our own values. Like so many in the blue states, we
"don't get" the value systems of red state voters. We get New York.
We
get LA. We understand SF, Boston, Seattle, and Portland. But we're
left
scratching our heads at what goes on in Kansas.

You're of course right, whether or not a Kansas school board mandates
the teaching of creationism in science classes, is of no global
consequence to the rest of us. In a similar sense, whether women in
Afghanistan are required to wear a burka or not seems of little
global
import. Or maybe not.

Perhaps you felt outrage at the sight of women in Afghanistan being
required to wear burkas. Now bottle that outrage and think about it.
That's the outrage many feel when they hear that intelligent science
teachers in Kansas are forced to teach religious doctrine in science
classes. This is SCIENCE fer crissake! This is about the scientific
method and a canon of knowledge derived through that method. The
dictates of the Kansas school board are as medieval as the dictates
of
the Taliban. If you want religion, set up religion classes. But don't
ask science teachers teach what they know to be blatantly false.

I guess I still haven't answered your question regarding things of
major "global" import (I'll get to that another time, perhaps). Right
now I'm giving you an example of the visceral reactions your
president
and his FC followers evoke in people around the globe. We don't want
to
be dragged back into the Dark Ages. we're quite comfortable in our
post
modern world.

frtzw906

I almost missed this post, and I really do appreciate your time.

What the Kansas school board does is based very little on who our
president is, but on their freedom to decide what they want for their
children. Not some Government program with enforcement police. Your
science teacher in Kansas is also free to find a classroom where he is
free to teach as he likes. I don't necessarily agree with the school
board, but I do agree that it is their choice, and I live a couple
hundred miles away, in the same country, and its not my business. As
far as the scientific method, sometimes it was not so scientific, but
that is another discussion.

If a woman in Afganistan wears a burka, that is a cultural expression,
no out rage here, from me. As long as she is free to go else where, and
not wear one if she desires, she is free. Now she is also free to stay
and not wear a burka. That liberty is what I value, and would like to
bottle.

I spent three years in southern Mexico right where the Zapatistas are
fighting now for their freedom. I understand cultural differences!

As far as political climate in the blue states, keep in mind that they
were blue by only the smallest margin, even requiring recounts, with no
hanging chads. Those blue need to pay attention to the red in their
district, less the tide turn. Then your head will really swim! TnT

BCITORGB wrote:
TnT says:
=============
I live in NYC, and if I want, I can travel to California without
getting anyones permission, or carrying papers, and having to bribe
border guards to let me pass. It is trully amazing.
==============

Well, I don't know about amazing. If you and I want to visit (I'm in
Canada), we'd both have to wait in infernal lines at the border and
be
subjected to interrogation by boder officials. Our friends in Europe
can travel from, say, Germany, to Holland, to France, to Spain, and
NEVER have to stop at the border. That, to me, is more amazing.

I'm glad to meet another Canadian neighbor. I would love to travel up
there to visit, all the pictures are so pretty. The lines do sound like
a hassel though, so are you infavor of a North American Union? Where we
could freely travel without any border stops from Halifax to Chiapas.
Sounds interesting to me! A few details to work out.


You may have thought my response to comrade Weiser was funny, but he
truly did nicely articulate some socialist truths. Very clearly,
governments, representing the people, have to make some decisions
deemed to be in the strategic interests of the nation. Scott happens
to
think corporate welfare to agri-business constitutes such a strategic
interest. I don't know. Only the people of America can be the judge
of
that.

However, I challenge all right-wingers who are of like mind (that is,
agree with Scott) to consider that nations which they consider to be
"socialist" may have made similar, democratic and strategic choices.

They may have decided that it is in the nation's strategic interest
to
have an educated populace. Consequently they may fund free schools
and
universities in a strategic interest. I do not consider it far
fetched
for a people to decide that it is in their strategic interests to
have
a healthy populace -- and to fund medical care. Other nations see the
ability of people to travel with ease as a strategic interest -- and
fund public transit.

Look, if THE PEOPLE choose to fund a variety of activities, that is a
democratic choice. I think it matters little what you call it. Call
it
socialism if that pleases you.

Me, I'd rather pay welfare to the poor that welfare to corporations.
I'm hoping my fellow citizens agree with me.

We each have to decide what is in our strategic interest, and it is not
always the same. You in Canada have your concerns. You have mentioned
agri-business on a number of ocassions, as if it is a specific issue
with you. I am not totally aware of the related issues, but my in-laws
have a sugar beet farm in Minnesota. They struggle to stay independent
when many of the large corporate farms are taking over small farms one
after the other. They did not take any gov money to farm, so are not in
debt. but still feel the pressure of free enterprise (?) The biggest
effect they feel, is the price of sugar on the world markets. So now
their land sets fallow, couldn't afford the fuel to run the tractors,
or the seed to plant. Brother-in-law works on corporate farm, and self
employed. That was what was strategic for them. TnT

Cheers,
frtzw906

TnT says:
===============
What the Kansas school board does is based very little on who our
president is, but on their freedom to decide what they want for their
children.
================

I understand all of this local autonomy stuff. My point really was less
about freedom and more about general attitudes and values. I was using
the Kansas school board more or less as a metaphor for right-wing,
FC-influenced policies. I was exressing concern for values that I think
are taking us (you in the USA) back into the dark ages.

Of course the woman in Afghanistan under the Taliban didn't have
choices. And we should be reviled by that. Similarly, the science
teacher should not be required to teach anything that is not science --
you should not force the science teacher to tell lies and to deny that
dinosaurs once roamed the earth. To do so is to drag the teacher and
the students into the dark ages. Hell, it is not in the strategic best
interests of the USA to have an irrelevant science curriculum unless,
like the Taliban, your objective is to keep people stupid so as to
better manipulate them. The people in the blue states get this.

TnT, it's a metaphor for what those of us outside of the USA see
happening in your country. It's not our business, but it's only not our
business insofar as burka-wearing women under the Taliban were not our
business.

To argue that the teacher is free to teach elsewhere is simplistic.
First, the teacher shouldn't be asked to tell lies. Secondly, with
possibly a mortgage, children, etc, it is not that easy to move --
freedom is thus an illusion.

cheers,
frtzw906

BCITORGB wrote:
TnT says:
===============
What the Kansas school board does is based very little on who our
president is, but on their freedom to decide what they want for their
children.
================

I understand all of this local autonomy stuff. My point really was
less
about freedom and more about general attitudes and values. I was
using
the Kansas school board more or less as a metaphor for right-wing,
FC-influenced policies. I was exressing concern for values that I
think
are taking us (you in the USA) back into the dark ages.

Of course the woman in Afghanistan under the Taliban didn't have
choices. And we should be reviled by that. Similarly, the science
teacher should not be required to teach anything that is not science
--
you should not force the science teacher to tell lies and to deny
that
dinosaurs once roamed the earth. To do so is to drag the teacher and
the students into the dark ages. Hell, it is not in the strategic
best
interests of the USA to have an irrelevant science curriculum unless,
like the Taliban, your objective is to keep people stupid so as to
better manipulate them. The people in the blue states get this.

TnT, it's a metaphor for what those of us outside of the USA see
happening in your country. It's not our business, but it's only not
our
business insofar as burka-wearing women under the Taliban were not
our
business.

To argue that the teacher is free to teach elsewhere is simplistic.
First, the teacher shouldn't be asked to tell lies. Secondly, with
possibly a mortgage, children, etc, it is not that easy to move --
freedom is thus an illusion.

cheers,
frtzw906

First, if the burka wearing woman was being raped, and was screaming
for help, would you interfere in another culture? If she said she did
not want to wear a burka any longer would you insist on her being free
to do as she liked. You say you are reviled by the lack of choice, but
would you feel justified to get involved to change the status quo?

Secondly, it seems that we must get into it, so I will a little.
Science has a theory, called Evolution. Lots of info, and not all
supported, so still largely a theory. Never yet proven.

Christianity has another theory called Creation, also lots of info, not
all supported so still largely a theory. Never yet proven.

Kansas (and other) school boards say that both theories have to be
taught equally as theories. Neither can be taught as the only
explanation.

Science deals with proven observable and reproducable facts, then tries
to establish a reasonalbe explanation for those facts. I have no
problem with true science, just theories mascarading as science when
there is little or no proof.

I have problems with faith mascarading as science as well. The Bible is
a book of faith, not science, though there are amazing observations
recorded in the Bible, that parallel the practice of science.

It is when we get into the explanation part of the observable facts
that we get into trouble, especially when Science tries to become
faith. If science were to restrict itself to pure science, there would
be little conflict. If the teacher restricts himself to equipping his
students to go into the field and observe facts, he will still have a
job to pay the mortgage, etc.

I say these things as a person who is first a Christian, and secondly
an observer. I am interested in Astronomy, Geophysics and Geology,
Archaeology, and other areas not so scientific, like UFOs and Crop
Circles, Lay lines and ancient structures like Pyramids of Egypt. I
wonder about Coral Castle in Florida, and the Granite Butterfly. We
live in a wonder-full world where I try to keep all my options open.
TnT

Once the Creationists acknowledge and explain fossil evidence I might
listen to them. Until such time, it is a fairy tale. The Evolutionists
at least have a plausible explanation.

frtzw906
============================

....stuff deleted


I almost missed this post, and I really do appreciate your time.

What the Kansas school board does is based very little on who our
president is, but on their freedom to decide what they want for their
children. Not some Government program with enforcement police. Your
science teacher in Kansas is also free to find a classroom where he is
free to teach as he likes. I don't necessarily agree with the school
board, but I do agree that it is their choice, and I live a couple
hundred miles away, in the same country, and its not my business. As
far as the scientific method, sometimes it was not so scientific, but
that is another discussion.

The freedom to practice religion mandates that the school teach only
what is supportable by secular interpretation. So called "intelligent
design" does not meet this criteria. It is, as is all mythology, not
based upon observed criteria. The myth that our founding fathers
believed in a government based upon religious ideals is equally
unsupportable. A president, who appoints judges based upon their
religious belief, as this one does, and will in the future, appears to
be someone who is trying to build a theocracy. When he selectively
enforces laws to regulate who has free speech and who doesn't, he
appears to be someone who is trying to be a facist (example: he called
some right-to-annoy others and offered support to their protests outside
the White House this week, yet he banned anti-Bush protesters from the
Rep. Nat'l Convention.

Frankly, I think both protests were legal and deserved to be heard,
despite my support for only one of these. The president, however, has no
right to foster a religious perpespective, whatsoever.


If a woman in Afganistan wears a burka, that is a cultural expression,
no out rage here, from me. As long as she is free to go else where, and
not wear one if she desires, she is free. Now she is also free to stay
and not wear a burka. That liberty is what I value, and would like to
bottle.


And you would think others would as well. However, this is not the
society we live in today. How someone dresses is, and always has been,
canon fodder for the intolerent. Our society, however, is one in which
few would support a women dressed in this manner (although the ACLU
would). You may have your differences with the ACLU, as many of us do,
but at least they support the constitution. Something I wish this
president did. To quote Molly Ivins, "I'd prefer someone who burns the
flag and wraps himself in the constitution to one who burns the
constitution and wraps himself in the flag."

I spent three years in southern Mexico right where the Zapatistas are
fighting now for their freedom. I understand cultural differences!

As far as political climate in the blue states, keep in mind that they
were blue by only the smallest margin, even requiring recounts, with no
hanging chads. Those blue need to pay attention to the red in their
district, less the tide turn. Then your head will really swim! TnT


Uh, no. The blue states were mostly over 51% against Bush. Some were as
high as 62%, and most were in the 54% range. Not as close as you paint
them to be. Bush won by only 3 million votes, and in many states, the
poll results are more than slightly suspicious (including the several
thousand Afr. American votes which were illegally invalidated).

Rick

....stuff deleted
Science deals with proven observable and reproducable facts, then tries
to establish a reasonalbe explanation for those facts. I have no
problem with true science, just theories mascarading as science when
there is little or no proof.


Do you understand the nature of a theory? A theory, such as say,
gravity, is one which has no scientific evidence disproving it. In other
words, theories are backed by solid, repeatible, and reliable scientific
proofs. The inability of religion to discredit a theory, say, evolution,
does more to support its foundations than to weaken them.

I have problems with faith mascarading as science as well. The Bible is
a book of faith, not science, though there are amazing observations
recorded in the Bible, that parallel the practice of science.


Oh? Give me a single instance where an observation in the bible
parallels one of science. Mendel did wonders for science, but he
provided support for evolution, not for the existence of a god, but his
work isn't recorded in said bible. The bible is, at best, a good parable
for how a society can be structure and survive the test of time. If
everyone were to follow the words of Jesus, I have no doubt that our
society would be greatly improved. Sadly, as is always the case, the
self-righteous always outnumber the righteous.

It is when we get into the explanation part of the observable facts
that we get into trouble, especially when Science tries to become
faith. If science were to restrict itself to pure science, there would
be little conflict. If the teacher restricts himself to equipping his
students to go into the field and observe facts, he will still have a
job to pay the mortgage, etc.


Science doesn't try to become anything. Scientists interpret their
observations, report them, and those results that cannot be reproduced,
are discarded. Those who poorly understand science, however, often made
assertions based upon their incomplete understanding of that work.
Sadly, those who reinterpret these results for the masses, often make
errors or use poor anologies which confuse the results. Hence, many feel
that Darwin said that humans evolved from apes, when he did not. He
stated, however, that due to our similarities, humans and apes probably
had a common ancestor (which may well have been neither human, nor ape).
Genetics has proven that we share about 98% of our DNA with chimps,
hence providing support for his hypothesis (which is one of thosands of
reasons why it now has the status of theory).

Lacking a scientist on hand to witness the birth of the universe (or any
other being, for that matter), any explaination of "creation" can only
qualify as mythology, or at best, hypothesis. When you invent your time
machine and make those observations, please send us a report.

Rick

TnT says:
=================
Science deals with proven observable and reproducable facts, then tries
to establish a reasonalbe explanation for those facts. I have no
problem with true science, just theories mascarading as science when
there is little or no proof.
================

Please review the scientific method. Theories don't mascarade as
science, theories are what drive science forward into new frontiers.

Envision, if you can, science without theories. If we didn't
"theorize", based on sound empirical data, how or why would we venture
into new scientific domains.

And today's empirically verifiable "facts": where did they come from?
Were they not, at some point, just so much "theory" driving scientists
to verify their veracity?

Galileo started with hypotheses and theories. Einstein had a theory. If
science didn't have theories we wouldn't have technological advances.

It is critical to remember that today's theories (likely tomorrow's
"facts") are based on a huge foundation of data verified through
experimentation. These theories are not the result of fanciful notions
taken from an interesting book of myths.

As an aside, I find it interesting that virtually every culture has
it's own creation mythology -- from Adam and Eve of Christian fame to
the Raven myth of the coastal First Nations of the North American
Pacific coast. These myths are often of local interest only. But, the
scientific theory has fairly universal acceptance. I wonder why?

Cheers,
frtzw906

On 11-Feb-2005, "Tinkerntom" wrote:

As far as the scientific method, sometimes it was not so scientific

Don't confuse the scientific method for the nonsense that some people
practice.

Mike

On 12-Feb-2005, "BCITORGB" wrote:

To argue that the teacher is free to teach elsewhere is simplistic.

Where the teacher goes is irrelevant - the students aren't going
anywhere and will grow up at a disadvantage compared to those
in other countries. US children already trail the rest of OECD
countries in academic standings (particularly maths and science)
so any further degradation in knowledge and skill will make it
worse.

Mike

On 12-Feb-2005, "Tinkerntom" wrote:

Christianity has another theory called Creation, also lots of info, not
all supported so still largely a theory. Never yet proven.

It's not a theory, it's a doctrine. It has been proven - to be false.

By the way, for something to be a theory, it has to have a solid
body of evidence to back it. If it does not, it's a hypothesis,
not a theory.

Mike

On 11-Feb-2005, "Tinkerntom" wrote:

I see them as two sides of the same coin, you don't have a political
system without an economic system. They are joined at the hip. You
can't deal with one, without dealing with the other. Though I can
understand your fine line distinction.

There are democratic socialist countries, totalitarian capitalist regimes
and everything in between. The choice of an economic system does not
dictate the political system.

Mike

On 11-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

That does not make them socialistic endeavours. In socialism, the government
would not "prop up" defense industries, it would simply take them by force
and force the workers to produce the products without compensating them.

So if there's any socialism, no one get paid? What a bizarre thought.
You don't have a clue do you?

Mike

On 11-Feb-2005, "Tinkerntom" wrote:

My in-laws have a sugar beet farm in Mn, and the
price they get for their sugar is determined by world markets.

You'd better check your facts, TnT - in the US, sugar prices
are _not_ tied to world prices. That's why US sugar producers
can stay in business and those in, say, Africa, cannot sell
sugar in the US. In fact, many agricultural products in the
US are out of whack with world markets. World markets are also
out of whack with reality, since agriculture is the most heavily
protected and subsidized industry in the west.

Mike

On 11-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

China won't go to war with us,

They don't have to - they just have to call in the debt.

Mike

On 11-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

If Canada wants to legalize heroin poppy production, that heroin is likely
to find its way to the US. We have every right to use our economic and
political influence to prevent that.

Why don't you just use your border to do that?

Mike

On 11-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

So Americans are free and everyone else is oppressed?

Pretty much.

Can you offer any proof?

Actually, I have. Have you? Can you cite the "gross abuses of freedom" you
claim the Patriot Act includes?

How about the ability of the President and his cronies being able to
declare anyone a threat and having them tossed into custody without
charge or access to legal representation?

Really? Cite me one single nation other than the US that is both democratic
and protects the right of citizens to keep and bear arms.

Canada, Britain, Switzerland and many others allow their citizens to own
guns.

If you don't have a right to keep and bear arms, you are not, ipso facto,
free, you are a slave to your government because you do not have the
capacity to overthrow it should it become a tyranny.

And you think a bunch of disorganized, untrained citizens with glorified
pop guns can overthrow the US military? Yeah, right. That might have
been true two hundred years ago, but not today. You're going to need
some serious explosives too, and in most US states, explosives are
illegal to own or make.

Given that 30% of the US populace treats the president as royalty,
I rather doubt you could generate enough interest to overthrow the
feds.

Mike

On 11-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

No, I merely point out that there is no such thing as the "Christian Right"
as an organization. It's a sound-bite label attached to conservatives in
general that is used as a device of demonization by the left.

Well, sweety, there's no such thing as an organized left either. Yet
the right condemns that invisible group as well.

Mike

On 11-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Not true, but even it it were true, so what? Oil is a strategic resource.
Every nation on the planet wants to secure strategic resources for its own
use. That's the nature of nations. That's the history of the planet.

That's why Japan trashed US bases in Pearl Harbor and the Philippines
in Dec, 1941. I suppose you think that's justified.

Mike

Michael Day says:
================
Well, sweety, there's no such thing as an organized left either. Yet
the right condemns that invisible group as well.
==================

Michael, you have a great knock-out punch!

Cheers,
frtzw906
++++++

A Usenet persona calling itself Kegs wrote:

Scott Weiser writes:

A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:

On 10-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

To assume that the US is the only free and democratic nation is both naive
and a grotesque misrepresentation of facts.

Really? Cite me one single nation other than the US that is both democratic
and protects the right of citizens to keep and bear arms.

Switzerland

There we agree. Any others?


If you don't have a right to keep and bear arms, you are not, ipso facto,
free, you are a slave to your government because you do not have the
capacity to overthrow it should it become a tyranny.

You are fuill of ****

What a pellucid analysis of inconvenient facts. Not.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

OK, I guess I misread your question. Nonetheless, global or not, I'll
venture that most of us outside of the USA would prefer a president
more in tune with our own values.

Of course you would. But what makes you think that you represent most of
anything?

Like so many in the blue states, we
"don't get" the value systems of red state voters.

Stupidity is its own reward I guess.

We get New York. We
get LA. We understand SF, Boston, Seattle, and Portland.

You can have all of the above. Take them, please.

But we're left
scratching our heads at what goes on in Kansas.

Primates often scratch their heads when confronted with the manifestations
of intelligent thought.


You're of course right, whether or not a Kansas school board mandates
the teaching of creationism in science classes, is of no global
consequence to the rest of us. In a similar sense, whether women in
Afghanistan are required to wear a burka or not seems of little global
import. Or maybe not.

Indeed.


Perhaps you felt outrage at the sight of women in Afghanistan being
required to wear burkas. Now bottle that outrage and think about it.
That's the outrage many feel when they hear that intelligent science
teachers in Kansas are forced to teach religious doctrine in science
classes. This is SCIENCE fer crissake! This is about the scientific
method and a canon of knowledge derived through that method. The
dictates of the Kansas school board are as medieval as the dictates of
the Taliban. If you want religion, set up religion classes. But don't
ask science teachers teach what they know to be blatantly false.

Well, there's a difference between teaching that creationism is truth and
teaching that creationism exists as a theory. In case you missed it, the
requirements were not that creationism be taught as the only truth, but
merely that creationism be presented as an alternate theory to the theory of
evolution. Presenting both sides of a debate is called "academic inquiry,"
and it is through examination of the strengths and weaknesses of both sides
that truth and understanding is arrived at. Censoring one side of the
argument merely because secularist dogma dismisses the theory is just as
offensive as censoring discussion of evolution by theocratic dogmatists.

Besides, there is still a good deal of scientific debate about "intelligent
design" versus "random evolution." I've been reading a most interesting
science-fiction book called "Calculating God" by Robert Sawyer, that brings
up a number of questions about whether the Universe is the result of
intelligent design or not. I highly recommend it as a thought-provoking
essay on the subject.

I guess I still haven't answered your question regarding things of
major "global" import (I'll get to that another time, perhaps). Right
now I'm giving you an example of the visceral reactions your president
and his FC followers evoke in people around the globe.

Once again you falsely presume that the only people who agree with President
Bush are fundamentalist Christians.

We don't want to
be dragged back into the Dark Ages. we're quite comfortable in our post
modern world.

You've presented no evidence that this is the intent of the Bush
administration.


--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

Comrade Weiser states:
======================
The last thing you guys need is cowboy bravado.

It's served us pretty well so far, I see no need to change.
========================

Bravado: the last desparate actions of the vanquished (also an
indication of a waning intellect with nothing of substance to
contribute).

Cheers,
frtzw906
++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Michael Daly wrote:
On 11-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

No, I merely point out that there is no such thing as the
"Christian Right"
as an organization. It's a sound-bite label attached to
conservatives in
general that is used as a device of demonization by the left.

Well, sweety, there's no such thing as an organized left either. Yet
the right condemns that invisible group as well.

Mike

Well it is nice to see you two sweeties getting along so well together,
since it is almost Valentine's Day. Should we expect to see Valentine
cards and a box of chocolate, maybe some flowers!

Now I don't want to bring up any sore points, but I would point out
though that Scott did not say that there is no organized right, or that
there are not organized conservative Christians. What he said, was that
there is not one monolithic organization that represented the
conservatives right and all Christians, which is what the media is
implying when they refer to the Christian Right. They like the image of
David and Goliath, and they do not see the right as David, -Bible
scholars that they are (not!)

There are definitely conservative organizations, some of which are
Christian, and the primary directives of the different groups are
similar enough to allow for communication and a great deal of
cooperation. But not all conservative Christians, and certainly not all
Christians belong to one of these groups. There are many Christians
that would not identify with these groups at all.

An Example: the Anti-abortion issue. Many Christian are anti-abortion.
Not just Fundementalist, but Catholic, Protestants, Pentecostal. There
are some Liberal Christians that have no problem with abortion. And all
of the above would not support the extremist that shoot doctors and
blow up clinics. There is a spectrum here, and we are not all in the
conservative camp.

Now as to the left, they definitely appear unorganized, so you are
right, or should I say correct, on this one, and I agree with frtwz
that this was a knockout blow. Our reference to the left as a monolithe
is also not totally correct, since I am sure there are a few little
cells in NYC, LA, and SF, that are very organized. However by and large
they appear disorganized as a crowd at a family reunion. All the same
family, but who's in charge. I guess Howard Dean? This should get
interesting! TnT

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Scott Weiser says:
===================
Once again, government support of industry is not socialistic.
AND
Welfare is socialism, which is why it ought to be done away with
======================

Government support of industry is welfare. Welfare is (according to
you) socialism. Thus, by your reckoning, government support of industry
ought to be done away with.

No, government support of industry is government support of industry, which
produces things that add to the nation's prosperity in return for the
economic protection and support. Welfare is a drain on the system consisting
of money given to people who produce nothing in return.


Please explain to the entrepreneur, trying to compete in your free
market, how agri-business (for example) deserves to be propped up but
his particular industry or firm doesn't.

That would be up to the Congress to decide. Perhaps it's because
agribusiness is a strategic resource that we cannot risk losing, and thus it
is more important than an entrepreneur trying to sell mousetraps or
tee-shirts.

If, for example, overseas competition in oil production and refinement
threatened to destroy America's capacity to recover and process oil, then it
might be appropriate for the government to support the oil exploration and
refining industry in order to preserve a vital national strategic resource.


I would have thought that you were of the opinion that the marketplace
should determine the allocation of scarce resources.

Within limits, yes. However, when a resource like domestic agriculture is
threatened, particularly by below-market product dumping on our markets from
foreign nations, it's necessary to ensure that US agriculture remains
strong, because once agricultural production capacity is lost, it's
extremely hard to impossible to recover, and it places our nation at
strategic risk for us to be dependent on other nations for our basic food
supplies.

I would have
thought that you would argue that government is in no position --
through central planning -- to determine what is or is not a prudent
use of society's scarce resources.

I'm not suggesting central planning, nor am I suggesting government control
of agriculture. I'm merely supporting price controls and subsidies for
American agriculture so that it is not driven into extinction by imported
goods produced by people paid slave wages. That's unfair competition, and
agriculture is a strategic resource that must remain viable in the US.


Apparently you do favor central planning and government intervention in
the marketplace. You have argued that government can (and even should)
make those choices.

Guess what? That makes you a socialist.

Hardly. I don't favor central planning, I favor government subsidies to
support domestic agriculture, which makes its own decisions about what to
grow and how to market it. Government protection of agriculture merely
ensures that American farmers don't go out of business because of low crop
prices. That's a necessary function of government.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

Michael Daly wrote:
On 11-Feb-2005, "Tinkerntom" wrote:

I see them as two sides of the same coin, you don't have a
political
system without an economic system. They are joined at the hip. You
can't deal with one, without dealing with the other. Though I can
understand your fine line distinction.

There are democratic socialist countries, totalitarian capitalist
regimes
and everything in between. The choice of an economic system does not
dictate the political system.

Mike

Just for my CEU. certificate,

Totalitarian Socialist N. Korea, China, Ex-USSR

Democratic Socialist Britain, Canada, Germany,

Democratic Capitalist United States

Totalitarian Capitalist ?????????

Im sorry, I could not feel in the Blank, could you be so kind? Thanks
TnT

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Comrade Weiser emphatically asserts:
=========================
government support of industry is not socialistic. It's
merely the people of the US, through their duly elected
representatives,
choosing to support necessary strategic resources and production
capacity.
===============

Congratulations to Comrsade Weiser for so clearly articulating
fundamental socialist truths. In the name of The People, the Government
CAN and SHALL interfere in the workings of a so-called marketplace. In
the name of The People, and in Their strategic interests, the
Government must support production capacity in those industries judged
to serve The Peoples' interests.

Indeed. "To secure the blessings of liberty, governments are instituted
among men." Any government that cannot or will not intervene in commerce in
order to protect national strategic resources is pretty useless as a
protector of the nation's interests and the rights and safety of the people.
Democratic nations certainly recognize the concept of exigent circumstances.


As the determination of what is of strategic interest lies with The
People and their duly elected Representatives, all firms must be
prepared to either benefit or suffer from the Government's interference
in the marketplace.

Indeed, at need.

The Government will determination how scarce
resources, even tax resources, are to be allocated.

When necessary, yes.


The Government will do The People's bidding in all matters.

The government is the people, so it can hardly do otherwise.


Thank you Comrade Weiser for reminding us of the very essence of
socialism.

Wrong. The essence of socialism is "From each according to his ability, to
each according to his need." This is without regard for individual
enterprise or diligence. In socialism, there is no reward for hard work, and
the fruits of your labor are taken from you by the government and are
distributed to others without your input or approval, and without
compensation for your work. All persons in a socialist regime are required
(in theory) to give their all with no expectation of reward for the benefit
of the proletariat. This system has been proven unworkable in every
instance because with no expectation of reward, people simply do not choose
to work any harder than they absolutely must to avoid punishment. This
results in huge bureaucracies of enforcement and brutality as a motivator,
which is always completely ineffective in stimulating above-average
production.

In a democratic capitalist state, the free market rewards diligence and hard
work, and the government cannot "take private property for public use"
without paying "just compensation." At need, however, the government can
provide support, either in the form of protective legislation or cash
subsidies to industries and enterprises deemed essential to our strategic
needs in order to ensure that the strategic resources are kept available.

That's entirely different than having the government appropriate everything
you produce and give it to others without compensating you, as is done in
socialist systems.

Here endeth the lesson in Civics 101.
--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

Tovarich Weiser says:
===========
I'm merely supporting price controls and subsidies
============

Which implies central planning insofar as a central government decides
on the allocation of scarce resources, not Adam Smith's "invisible
hand".

As to how this is different from welfare to the poor, you have not made
clear. This is corporate welfare which, in the specific case of
agri-business, may well be driving TnT's sugar beet in-laws and other
ma and pa farms out of existence.

Further, we have yet to establish that orange groves in the desert
serve some sort of national interest. Seems like a bad idea if the the
price of the oranges doesn't reflect the true cost of growing them.
Wouldn't we be better off eating apples?

Ultimately, somebody has to pay the price of the water. Most likely it
is Henry Homemaker when he pays higher residential water rates. This
would be tolerable if our agri-business firms operated as non-profits.
As they don't, Henery Homemaker is subsidizing those who hold shares in
agri-business. That sounds like WELFARE to me.

Welfare to the poor further serves the purpose of reducing the nation's
income disparity. Check your history books for the consequences of
income disparity, Tovarich. You'll then understand why this is of
strategic importance to your government.

Cheers, comrade,
frtzw906

Tnt says:
========
Totalitarian Capitalist ?????????
=========

Nazi Germany springs to mind. Chile in a previous iteration.

Although, given the nature of this thread, I'm going to quibble with
you a bit. I'll contend that so long as nations confer welfare (both
individual and corporate), there exist absolutely NO capitalist
economies.

Like communism, capitalism is an interesting academic concept. I'm
reminded of my college physics texts which prefaced questions with
"assuming no friction" in order to make the theoretical concepts easier
to comprehend. In the case of both communism and capitalism, if you
could preface your explanations with "assuming no human avarice, ....
oh hell, let's keep it simple: assumimg no common human traits".

I find it interesting that you should label Canada as DS, and the USA
as DC. What lead you to that conclusion? In your mind, how is the USA
more capitalist than Germany?

Cheers,
frtzw906
++++++++++=

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

TnT says:
=============
I live in NYC, and if I want, I can travel to California without
getting anyones permission, or carrying papers, and having to bribe
border guards to let me pass. It is trully amazing.
==============

Well, I don't know about amazing. If you and I want to visit (I'm in
Canada), we'd both have to wait in infernal lines at the border and be
subjected to interrogation by boder officials.

If you twits would quit letting terrorists in, we might not have to.

Our friends in Europe
can travel from, say, Germany, to Holland, to France, to Spain, and
NEVER have to stop at the border. That, to me, is more amazing.

Well, first, it's an extremely recent thing. For most of history, you still
had to have a passport and stop at the borders. It remains to be seen if the
lack of border controls in the EU will be beneficial or will facilitate the
movement of terrorists. Nonetheless, the EU's epiphany regarding open
borders merely copycats what's been happening in the United STATES for more
than 200 years. We may not have utterly unguarded borders with Canada or
Mexico, but not only CAN you travel freely from state to state in the US,
you have an absolute constitutional right to do so, regardless of what any
particular state may say.


You may have thought my response to comrade Weiser was funny, but he
truly did nicely articulate some socialist truths.

No I didn't, you just fail to understand socialism.

Very clearly,
governments, representing the people, have to make some decisions
deemed to be in the strategic interests of the nation. Scott happens to
think corporate welfare to agri-business constitutes such a strategic
interest. I don't know. Only the people of America can be the judge of
that.

However, I challenge all right-wingers who are of like mind (that is,
agree with Scott) to consider that nations which they consider to be
"socialist" may have made similar, democratic and strategic choices.

They may well have done so, although in the vast majority of cases the
choices are anything but "democratic." They are most often entirely
undemocratic, as the proletariat has no voice whatsoever in their government
or in the selection of government officials. There are some rare exceptions.


They may have decided that it is in the nation's strategic interest to
have an educated populace. Consequently they may fund free schools and
universities in a strategic interest.

Which they are entitled to do.

I do not consider it far fetched
for a people to decide that it is in their strategic interests to have
a healthy populace -- and to fund medical care.

Which is fine, except that socialized medicine has been proven to be a death
sentence for the seriously ill because underpaid, overworked doctors have no
reason to extend themselves and because health care is free, people with
minor complaints feel free to clog the system with petty complaints.

Ask anyone in Britain with heart disease how long they've been on the
surgery waiting list for proof.

In a capitalistic health care system such as the US, you can obtain the best
health care in the world, if you can afford it...and indeed in most cases
even if you cannot (through subsidies paid medical providers by the
government) when you need it because the marketplace provides rewards for
exemplary service.

Other nations see the
ability of people to travel with ease as a strategic interest -- and
fund public transit.

So do we.


Look, if THE PEOPLE choose to fund a variety of activities, that is a
democratic choice. I think it matters little what you call it. Call it
socialism if that pleases you.

It depends entirely upon whether the system is truly democratic, in that it
allows the people to regularly choose their representatives in government,
or whether the socialism is imposed by the unelected bureaucratic elite upon
the proletariat.

In the vast majority of cases, socialist systems do not allow the
proletariat any choice at all, because socialism presumes, as a fundamental
precept, that government bureaucrats are better able to judge what the
proletariat need and deserve than the proletariat itself is.


Me, I'd rather pay welfare to the poor that welfare to corporations.
I'm hoping my fellow citizens agree with me.

The flaw in your logic is that when you pay welfare to the poor, they don't
produce anything in return, and they have no impetus to improve their
condition and become productive members of society. Just look at places like
Denmark, where the marginal tax rates are above 50%, and half the nation is
on the dole, paid by the other half.

When you give subsidies to companies to help them succeed, excel and become
larger, the immediate return is more jobs that the poor can take, thus
becoming productive and self-sufficient members of society rather than
leeches.

Giving money to the poor is like giving a fish to a hungry man. He'll eat
the fish and be hungry again in six hours. Put him to work on a fishing
boat, bought with a low-cost government loan, and not only will he never be
hungry again, but he'll feed others and improve the economy.

Welfare is the touchstone of the failure of the liberal democrat's agenda.
They simply cannot understand that it is better for everyone to support
business, which employs the unemployed and moves the economy forward, than
it is to simply dole out tax money to the indigent.

In this country you have the right to *pursue* happiness, not a guarantee
that you will achieve it. You have a right to *fail* to achieve happiness
too, and it's up to each individual to provide for their own happiness, or
lack thereof. It's not an obligation of the rest of us (through our
government) to provide happiness.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

TnT says:
===============
What the Kansas school board does is based very little on who our
president is, but on their freedom to decide what they want for their
children.
================

I understand all of this local autonomy stuff. My point really was less
about freedom and more about general attitudes and values. I was using
the Kansas school board more or less as a metaphor for right-wing,
FC-influenced policies. I was exressing concern for values that I think
are taking us (you in the USA) back into the dark ages.

How very diverse of you. You do recognize that people do have a right to the
free exercise of religion down here, don¹t you? I do understand that up in
PC Canada, insulting any ethnic group is a crime, but I don't think there's
anything wrong with the majority of people in the US requiring their
government policies to reflect the majority viewpoint. That's why we have
elections, after all.


Of course the woman in Afghanistan under the Taliban didn't have
choices. And we should be reviled by that. Similarly, the science
teacher should not be required to teach anything that is not science --
you should not force the science teacher to tell lies and to deny that
dinosaurs once roamed the earth. To do so is to drag the teacher and
the students into the dark ages. Hell, it is not in the strategic best
interests of the USA to have an irrelevant science curriculum unless,
like the Taliban, your objective is to keep people stupid so as to
better manipulate them. The people in the blue states get this.

Your argument fails because no one, in Kansas or anywhere else, is demanding
any such thing. You are completely mischaracterizing the debate, and appear
to be doing so deliberately. Either that or you are just abysmally ignorant
of the actual controversy.


TnT, it's a metaphor for what those of us outside of the USA see
happening in your country. It's not our business, but it's only not our
business insofar as burka-wearing women under the Taliban were not our
business.

To argue that the teacher is free to teach elsewhere is simplistic.
First, the teacher shouldn't be asked to tell lies.

You make the unproven assumption that creationism is a "lie." It's not. It's
a theory, albeit a weak one. A better description of creationism is
"intelligent design" of the universe, which is something that I think you
will find more than a few reputable scientists have questions about.

Secondly, with
possibly a mortgage, children, etc, it is not that easy to move --
freedom is thus an illusion.

Sorry, but that's the Ghetto argument. "Gimme money because I live in a
ghetto." My response is: "If you have two operating feet, get up and walk
out of the ghetto. If you don't want to, then you CHOOSE to live in the
ghetto, and I have no sympathy for your plight."

Sell the house, pack the kids up and move elsewhere, or quit bitching.
--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

TnT

I have found 2 definitions for you:

(1) An economic system in which the means of production and
distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is
proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in
a free market.

***Here I argue that there exists no free market. Therefore, the
definition is of academic interest only.

(2) an economic system based on private ownership of capital

***In this case Germany, Sweden. Canada, etc definitely qualify as
capitalist. Ever hear of stock exchanges in Sweden? Germany? Canada?
What do you think they trade there? Same thing that gets traded at the
NYSE. But, once again, let's not fool ourselves into believing that
there is a free market. At least not so long as there are only a
handful of oil corps (as just one example) around the globe.

Cheers,
frtzw906
++++++++++++++

Tovarich Weiser says:
==============
In socialism, there is no reward for hard work, and the fruits of your
labor are taken from you by the government and are distributed to
others without your input or approval, and without compensation for
your work. All persons in a socialist regime are required (in theory)
to give their all with no expectation of reward for the benefit
of the proletariat.
==============

What in hell are you talking about?!

frtzw906

Melissa wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi Michael Daly,

On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 20:32:55 GMT, you wrote:

The Tinkering One:

I see them as two sides of the same coin, you don't have a
political system without an economic system. They are joined at
the hip. You can't deal with one, without dealing with the other.
Though I can understand your fine line distinction.

Mike:

There are democratic socialist countries, totalitarian capitalist
regimes and everything in between. The choice of an economic
system does not dictate the political system.

Well said. Here in the grand ole US of A, our political
debate/discussion is often driven by, and caters to, the lowest
common denominator, so that issues that are, in reality, not so
simple can be seen as simple black or white propositions.
Unfortunately, this results in an all too often painfully over
simplistic world view, and even more unfortunately, our often
simplistic "solutions" cause more worldwide harm than good (here as
well; not just for others around the world).

Because of the worldwide scope of US "power", it is never enough to
say that either "we deserve what we get", or that it shouldn't matter
to others around the world what we here decide to do with "our own"
politics. If we were a small and quiet nation without such delusions
of grandeur that we do indeed seem to hold so dear, it might no be so
important to the rest of the world what we do, but this is not the
case.

In general, I see US politics as being particularly solipsistic in
nature, and this, in my view, is never a good thing. Add to that the
very "patriotic/nationalistic" nature of much of US political/social
culture, and most "American's" comprehensive ignorance of the rest of
the world, and "we" are indeed a very dangerous nation. :-(

I've said my bit here, and don't really wish to get more involved
with
this thread, but I would like to thank Mike, Wilko, and frtzw906
("BCITORGB") for their persistence in trying to carry on this
discussion with their well reasoned arguments; above and beyond the
level of discussion usually found here in the USA. :-)

- --
Melissa

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iD8DBQFCDnB+KgHVMc6ouYMRAgxqAKCNuQmCDbE4jHn+3CM4D4 FkzP4HGwCfVobV
Ri4fmAl9hwjtbc8zvTtTmok=
=hfDk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Dear Melissa, you don't think you can come in to this frackus, and not
get involved with this thread do you. You have been very helpful to me
in the past, and I certainly want to express my appreciation, however
there are no free passes that I have heard about. Especially if you're
going to use those big words around us simple black and white types,
that are just oozing with Patriotic/nationalistic pride. Then you
cuddle up with the boys from up north and across the sea. She must be
from out on the right coast!

But being from the right coast and being enlightened that she is not
the only individual in the real world of the right coast (now that is
reality), maybe you can point me to a Totalitarian capitalistic
country. Especially since you complimented Mike D. on being "well
said", you must know of a defining example.

If you can answer that for me I will give you a pass on the rest of
what you said. "The Tinkering One", TnT

Weiser says:
==========
If you twits would quit letting terrorists in, we might not have to.
===========

I know it is painful to be reminded of this but: the 9-11 guys trained
in the USA... it seems you twits let them in.

frtzw906
=======

weiser:
=======
Well, first, it's an extremely recent thing.
========

not so recent: the first time i crossed borders in europe without being
stopped was 1972

frtzw906

weiser says:
==========
you just fail to understand socialism
=========

you confuse socialism with communism

frtzw906

weiser says:
===========
as the proletariat has no voice whatsoever in their government
or in the selection of government officials.
==============

germany? holland? sweden? uk? canada? surely you jest.

frtzw906

weiser:
========
In a capitalistic health care system such as the US, you can obtain the
best
health care in the world, if you can afford it..
==========

who was it that said something to the effect: "all men are created
equal...." except, of course, when it comes to healthcare

frtzw906