Re: (OT)..... What Would You Do With $87 Billion Dollars??

[Brothermark]

> The money should have been spent on protecting our
> borders in the first place.

That woudln't have got rid of saddam though would it?

[John LeBlanc]

"John LeBlanc" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Steven Sena" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Henry Ford one of the biggest cut throat capitalist pigs this country ever
> > produced...
>
> Capitalist pig? I'm curious to know, do you charge any money for the use of
your
> studio? If so, isn't that capitalism; investing in equipment, trading labor
for
> profit?
>
> God bless the capitalist pigs. Without them, socialist and communist assholes
> would have no one to complain about.
>
> John


Ah, screw it. I'm not participating any further in another stupid thread.

I personally believe a man can invest his time, energy, and capital and expect
to make whatever profit he can squeeze out of the market. The market, not being
stupid, will pay what it wants to and no more. There are enough examples of men
who, with nothing more than a good idea, went on the make millions that it's
hardly worth my wasting my time definding such a system.

Now, if that's a model that doesn't work for you, then Merry Christmas to you.
It works remarkably well for me.

John

[Steven Sena]

Oh come on John cheer up...
I thought what you had to say made some good points...
I truly believe in an honest open democracy.
I even think the American system could work too...

--
Steven Sena
XS Sound
www.xssound.com


"John LeBlanc" > wrote in message
...
> "John LeBlanc" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Steven Sena" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Henry Ford one of the biggest cut throat capitalist pigs this country
ever
> > > produced...
> >
> > Capitalist pig? I'm curious to know, do you charge any money for the use
of
> your
> > studio? If so, isn't that capitalism; investing in equipment, trading
labor
> for
> > profit?
> >
> > God bless the capitalist pigs. Without them, socialist and communist
assholes
> > would have no one to complain about.
> >
> > John
>
>
> Ah, screw it. I'm not participating any further in another stupid thread.
>
> I personally believe a man can invest his time, energy, and capital and
expect
> to make whatever profit he can squeeze out of the market. The market, not
being
> stupid, will pay what it wants to and no more. There are enough examples
of men
> who, with nothing more than a good idea, went on the make millions that
it's
> hardly worth my wasting my time definding such a system.
>
> Now, if that's a model that doesn't work for you, then Merry Christmas to
you.
> It works remarkably well for me.
>
> John
>
>

[R Krizman]

<< he war on poverty. LBJ started that one in 1964 and it's still unresolved,
which makes sense because he called it an "unconditional war".

Want to know why it's unresolved? Because you can't throw money at a problem
that isn't rooted in money. >><BR><BR>

I always thought that a lack of money had a lot to do with poverty.

-R

[ThePaulThomas]

"Steven Sena" > wrote in message >...
> Henry Ford one of the biggest cut throat capitalist pigs this country ever
> produced...
And I for one will be forever grateful that he was a capitalsit. It's
the reason that we can afford luxuries like automobiles and the
freedom that they bring. Henry Ford's real problem is that he was an
anti-semite, which I despise in anyone...

[nuke]

>What Would You Do With $87 Billion Dollars??

I'd blow some **** up and enjoy a cool frosty one watching it all go up in
smoke. It'd be major badass ****, man.




--
Dr. Nuketopia
Sorry, no e-Mail.
Spam forgeries have resulted in thousands of faked bounces to my address.

[LLLindblad]

What I can't understand about this is why should we be spending that kind of
money when the country has ****loads of oil that IT could be spending to
rebuilt ITS'SELF??

maybe <I> need to drink some more coffee.....

laters
tuna

[George Gleason]

"John LeBlanc" > wrote in message
...
> "John LeBlanc" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Steven Sena" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Henry Ford one of the biggest cut throat capitalist pigs this country
ever
> > > produced...
> >
> > Capitalist pig? I'm curious to know, do you charge any money for the use
of
> your
> > studio? If so, isn't that capitalism; investing in equipment, trading
labor
> for
> > profit?
> >
> > God bless the capitalist pigs. Without them, socialist and communist
assholes
> > would have no one to complain about.
> >
> > John
>
>
> Ah, screw it. I'm not participating any further in another stupid thread.
>
> I personally believe a man can invest his time, energy, and capital and
expect
> to make whatever profit he can squeeze out of the market. The market, not
being
> stupid, will pay what it wants to and no more. There are enough examples
of men
> who, with nothing more than a good idea, went on the make millions that
it's
> hardly worth my wasting my time definding such a system.
>
> Now, if that's a model that doesn't work for you, then Merry Christmas to
you.
> It works remarkably well for me.
>
> John
>
This logic bring your 20$ gallons of water during times when the normal
outlets are non-functioning, such as after a earthquake
there needs to be checks against runaway greed
greed is the ******* child of capitalism just as sloth is the *******
child of communisim
there is a great diffrence between chargeing what ever you want for a
luxury like a sound system VS denying people the ability to feed and house
themselves

philantropy is just giveing back what you never should have taken to begin
with
George(a capitalist at heart)

[William Sommerwerck]

> Seems kind of obvious now, but nobody bothered to tell Dubbya
> how foolish it is to try and bomb away all the anti-Americanism
> in the world. That's downright idiotic when you think about it.

It's NOT idiotic, if you believe that America is the New Jerusalem, that we are
specially blessed by God and have a divine mission to defeat evil (ie, anything
not consistent with Protestant-American values).

Dubbya and the fundamentalists are leading the US towards a global religious war
that could result in the destruction of our country (and others) and the deaths
of tens (if not hundreds) of millions of people.

You cannot GET them to understand this, because they already DO understand it.
It's part of their world view -- we are living in "the end of days," in which
all evil will finally be destroyed, as predicted in Revelations.

Evil is not a person, place, or thing. It is a belief -- and you cannot get rid
of the belief by getting rid of its believers.

Final gratuitous slap: Any President whose foreign policy is based on "We're
good -- they're bad" clearly knows nothing about the history of the world, and
is incompetent to make sensible decisions. He should be impeached for that
reason, alone.

[William Sommerwerck]

I would spend $87B on developing a hydrogen-delivery infrastructure in the US.

[BLCKOUT420]

$87 billion- enough to buy everyone on this board a roomful of neves.

[nmm]

On Sun, Sep 7, 2003 9:10 pm, Steven Sena >
wrote:
>Henry Ford one of the biggest cut throat capitalist pigs this country ever
>produced...
>




Ford's 1930s book was called "The Internationsl Jew - The Foremost Problem
in the World Today" and is often quoted by anti-semites.




---------------------------------------------------------
"Our Nations Must Come Together To Unite"
- George W Bush - Tampa FL . June 4th -2001
---------------------------------------------------------

[Your Add Here!]

I'd invest it in r&d for alternative (rather than oil) sources of energy.

[James Boyk]

John LeBlanc wrote: > ...Henry Ford... was asked by someone what
he'd do if he woke up the next morning and found all his riches
had disappeared. He said he'd have every penny of it back within
a year.


He may have *said* that; he may have even thought it; that doesn't mean it would
actually work out that way. And if it did, so what? You're surely not
subscribing to the idea that merely wanting to be well off can make one so. If
that were true, I assure you, I'd be rich beyond your wildest dreams.


Ford had extraordinary money-making ability. Most people do not; does that mean
they don't deserve fair pay for their labors?


You are right that you can't want something for someone more than they want it
for themselves, but clearly wrong about money solving nothing. It can solve an
awful lot for the country and a lot of individuals. We're the only developed
nation in the world without universal health care. (Yes, the health care in some
of those other countries isn't great; but at least they've got it. They've got
something to work on. We have 42,000,000 citizens with None, including 9,000,000
children.) Our infrastructure of roads, bridges, etc., is falling apart; and we
recently saw the condition of our electricity-distributing system.


We have lots of homeless, 1/3 of whom have *full-time* jobs and still can't
afford housing.


We have huge unemployment. In a previous era, the combination of large-scale
unemployment and a need for infrastructure repair led a creative president to
start a massive program including the CCC, WPA, etc. The program included
artists and writers, too; and we've been using the products of those programs
for two generations. (My son's high school in Santa Monica just spent $7 million
to renovate its auditorium, a WPA structure.) But instead of imitating that
famously successful Depression-era response, the current administration seems
interested in implementing only the Biblical injunction that "to those that have
shall be given; from those that have not, shall be taken away even that which
they have."


Result: Greater spread of wealth between rich and poor than ever in our history.
*Far* greater spread between those at top of corporations and ordinary employees
than ever before. Public health at risk from recurrence of TB (highly
contagious) in a population in which 1 of 8 people lacks health care. Schools a
disaster as too many teachers know nothing, yet there's no public will to
improve education. The education disaster is self-perpetuating; once 1/3 of
adults are functionally illiterate---the figure that's cited now---it becomes
much more difficult to have a politically responsive and responsible populace.
Whatever is responsible, we are certainly allowing unheard-of illegalities and
misbehavior on the highest levels of government.



James Boyk

[P Stamler]

Just for reference on the "failure" of the War on Poverty: If you look at the
stats for the percentage (and absolute number) of poor people in America, it
starts out the 1960s at a surprisingly high level. Beginning in 1965, when the
War on Poverty began, the numbers and percentage go way down, to less than half
what they were beforehand -- and this in a time when "poverty" was being more
generously defined in order to include as many people as possible in the
program. And the numbers *stay* down through the Johnson, Nixon, Ford and
Carter administrations, with a few wiggles such as the 1973 oil crisis; they
don't begin going up again until the first Reagan administration recession in
1981.

Just thought those data might be useful.

Peace,
Paul

[P Stamler]

For $87 billion, you could get Windows to work. Maybe.

Peace,
Paul

[Charles Thomas]

In article >,
(ThePaulThomas) wrote:

> And I for one will be forever grateful that he was a capitalsit. It's
> the reason that we can afford luxuries like automobiles and the
> freedom that they bring. Henry Ford's real problem is that he was an
> anti-semite, which I despise in anyone...

The fact that he exploited and tossed aside his workers like fodder, and
fathered an archetype for a system that encourages no skills training
and sees workers as expendable cogs in a blind and dumb machine... that
doesn't bother you?

How about all those American jobs moving to other countries? You can
thank Henry Ford for the paradigm that's resulted in that.

Henry Ford's mentality is the same one that results in sweat shops where
kids are working 80 hours a week for pennies a day.

If making a ****-load of money off the blood of workers doesn't bother
you a bit, I'm sure Henry Ford's your man.

[knud]

>I am amazed at the number of people who think a pocket full of cash would
>solve
>> every problem they have. It never occurs to most of these people that the
>lack
>> of money in their pocket is not the problem, but just a symptom of a
>bigger
>> problem found in the grey matter between their ears.

This could only come from the mouth of someone withoout money problems.


blahblah

[Kurt Albershardt]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
>
> if you believe that America is the New Jerusalem, that we are
> specially blessed by God and have a divine mission to defeat evil (ie, anything
> not consistent with Protestant-American values).
>
> Dubbya and the fundamentalists are leading the US towards a global religious war
> that could result in the destruction of our country (and others) and the deaths
> of tens (if not hundreds) of millions of people.
>
> You cannot GET them to understand this, because they already DO understand it.
> It's part of their world view -- we are living in "the end of days," in which
> all evil will finally be destroyed, as predicted in Revelations.


See http://www.newamericancentury.org/ for the details (in their own
words) and http://www.pnac.info/ for the counterinfo.

[Kurt Albershardt]

curtis mathewson wrote:
>
> I believe you can find many of the answers to most if not all of the
> answers regarding the who,what, and why is really behind the so
> called" war on terror" at http://seattle.indymedia.org
>
> Click on the audio clips section and download(MP3) the lecture by
> William Rivers.Hope this helps.-curtis


http://seattle.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=31940&group=webcast

[Kurt Albershardt]

Steve wrote:
>
> We will be dead from old age before a hydrogen-delivery infrastructure
> exists.

Speak for yourself, pal. I plan on being around for awhile and I think
the profit opportunity is big enough that someone will find a way.

http://www.milleniumcell.com/ is close already.

[James Boyk]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
> I would spend $87B on developing a hydrogen-delivery infrastructure in the US.


Hydrogen??? But it's not a fuel; not available naturally; it's just an
energy-transfer medium, like batteries; and my understanding is that it requires
more energy to make the hydrogen available than the hydrogen carries. Therefore
it's a net loser for society.


Always happy to learn better, but I think this is pretty well established.


James Boyk

[Rob Adelman]

R Krizman wrote:


>
> Money certainly won't solve everything, but it is by definition pretty much the
> solution to poverty.

Take the 87 billion and divey it up for the 250 million people in the
US. That will give us a whopping $348 each. I guess the solution
requires a lot more than 87 billion.

[Rob Adelman]

James Boyk wrote:


> Hydrogen??? But it's not a fuel; not available naturally; it's just an
> energy-transfer medium, like batteries; and my understanding is that it
> requires more energy to make the hydrogen available than the hydrogen
> carries. Therefore it's a net loser for society.

The money would be better spent on solar panels and wind generators.
Current technologies that could be expanded immediately and make a dent
in our fuel requirements and emissions reduction.

-Rob

[James Boyk]

Bill Thompson wrote:
> But it seems like they didn't think about what to do afterwards, and
> that really worries me.


This is *news* to you about the current administration? In what area *have* they
shown foresight?


James Boyk

[Charles Thomas]

In article >, "nmm" >
wrote:

> How does that quote go; "Give a Man a Fish, and Feed him for a Day, Teach
> him to Fish and feed him for a Lifetime"

"Teach a man to create an artificial shortage of fish, and he'll eat
steak."

CT

[Justin Ulysses Morse]

Artie Turner > wrote:

> Are you kidding? Don't you read the papers or watch TV?

Well, okay, good point. None of the Reagan-era bulldogs with their
hands up his ass had much to say on the subject, anyway. If only
Dubbya followed rec.audio.pro, we could have straightened this whole
thing out from the beginning.

ulysses

[Justin Ulysses Morse]

William Sommerwerck > wrote:

> It's NOT idiotic, if you believe that America is the New Jerusalem,
> that we are specially blessed by God and have a divine mission to
> defeat evil (ie, anything not consistent with Protestant-American
> values).

Great, so we have s lunstic running the country instead of an imbicile.
How comforting!

ulysses

[Justin Ulysses Morse]

William Sommerwerck > wrote:

> I would spend $87B on developing a hydrogen-delivery infrastructure in the US.


I think Iran and North Korea are working on that right now.

ulysses

[Dave Martin]

"nmm" > wrote in message
...

> How does that quote go; "Give a Man a Fish, and Feed him for a Day, Teach
> him to Fish and feed him for a Lifetime"
>
Teach a man to fish and he'll always be taking off work when they're biting.

[Dave Collins]

In article >,
James Boyk > wrote:


>
> Hydrogen??? But it's not a fuel; not available naturally; it's just an
> energy-transfer medium, like batteries; and my understanding is that it
> requires more energy to make the hydrogen available than the hydrogen carries.
> Therefore it's a net loser for society.

Yes, that's all true. And it gets worse. Exergy!

http://www.tinaja.com/glib/energfun.pdf

Please don't tell me you can get H2 from splitting H20, either! Only
for subs or high-school science class.....

DC

[nmm]

On Mon, Sep 8, 2003 1:13 pm, R Krizman > wrote:
><< >I am amazed at the number of people who think a pocket full of cash
>would
>>solve
>>> every problem they have. It never occurs to most of these people that
the
>>lack
>>> of money in their pocket is not the problem, but just a symptom of a
>>bigger
>>> problem found in the grey matter between their ears.
> >>
>
>Money certainly won't solve everything, but it is by definition pretty
much
>the
>solution to poverty.
>
>-R
>
How does that quote go; "Give a Man a Fish, and Feed him for a Day, Teach
him to Fish and feed him for a Lifetime"

[Roger W. Norman]

As far as religious war, check out
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34469. Seems that Bin Laden
is sneaking up on being the Islamic Messiah, which certainly goes right
along with your perception.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
Purchase your copy of the Fifth of RAP CD set at www.recaudiopro.net.
See how far $20 really goes.




"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
...
> > Seems kind of obvious now, but nobody bothered to tell Dubbya
> > how foolish it is to try and bomb away all the anti-Americanism
> > in the world. That's downright idiotic when you think about it.
>
> It's NOT idiotic, if you believe that America is the New Jerusalem, that
we are
> specially blessed by God and have a divine mission to defeat evil (ie,
anything
> not consistent with Protestant-American values).
>
> Dubbya and the fundamentalists are leading the US towards a global
religious war
> that could result in the destruction of our country (and others) and the
deaths
> of tens (if not hundreds) of millions of people.
>
> You cannot GET them to understand this, because they already DO understand
it.
> It's part of their world view -- we are living in "the end of days," in
which
> all evil will finally be destroyed, as predicted in Revelations.
>
> Evil is not a person, place, or thing. It is a belief -- and you cannot
get rid
> of the belief by getting rid of its believers.
>
> Final gratuitous slap: Any President whose foreign policy is based on
"We're
> good -- they're bad" clearly knows nothing about the history of the world,
and
> is incompetent to make sensible decisions. He should be impeached for that
> reason, alone.
>

[William Sommerwerck]

Sorry, but that's incorrect. Or at least incomplete.

You can't have vehicles powered by molecular hydrogen if you don't have some way
to generate, distribute, and store that hydrogen.

Molecular hydrogen CAN be generated at relatively low cost from non-hydrocarbon
sources, thus gradually helping wean us off the teat of cheap Middle-East oil.

Solar energy would be an excellent way to do this, as it is indefinitely
self-renewing, thus (potentially) having a low amortized cost.


James Boyk wrote...

> William Sommerwerck wrote...

>> I would spend $87B on developing a hydrogen-delivery
>> infrastructure in the US.

> Hydrogen??? But it's not a fuel; not available naturally; it's just an
> energy-transfer medium, like batteries; and my understanding is
> that it requires more energy to make the hydrogen available than
> the hydrogen carries. Therefore it's a net loser for society.

> Always happy to learn better, but I think this is pretty well established.

[Rob Adelman]

nmm wrote:

>
> I've been reading some mixed stuff about Dr Howard Dean..


I've heard him talking. I've heard his "message". I don't like him.

[LeBaron & Alrich]

Gary Koliger > wrote:

> redirect the money now made by organised crime into the US economy

Much of it's in there already. Big laundry winds up paradeing as equity.

--
ha

[Johnston West]

"John LeBlanc" > wrote in message

> Just out of curiosity, how do you suppose spending 87 billion dollars here in
> the USA would have kept that kid alive?

Actually it's about $150 Billion. $87 Billion that he's extorting from
us, plus the $70 Billion that he's already ****ed away..... but who's
counting huh?

> Who's fault is it he's dead? The federal government? Please >

Ah.... yeah? I think it's this Administration that put him in "Harm's
Way". But he joined up so it's ultimately his responsibility. BIG
mistake..... Sorry for being sentimental, but he was a good kid and
people around the neighorhood are upset.

< "........you can't throw money at a problem >

You're making my point for me John. This 'war' won't be won by
throwing billions of dollars at it. It's a sad missed opportunity to
spend that money here and tell Sadam to eat sand. As they say.....
"Living Well is the Best Revenge."

> In the autobiography of Henry Ford, he was asked by someone what he'd do
if he woke up the next morning and found all his riches had
disappeared.
He said he'd have every penny of it back within a year.
Chew on that one a while. >

Sorry John. Not impressed. Making money isn't really that special.
Just squirrels gathering more nuts..... Showing some humanity is much
more impressive. Henry Ford was an asshole, and all his money couldn't
buy him a good reputation.

Chew on that John

J_West

[LeBaron & Alrich]

Kurt Albershardt > wrote:

> The R&D is actually going rather well already. $87B would buy enough PV
> panels (even at current prices) to alleviate a nice percentage of our
> current issues.

What about our voltage issues?

--
ha

[Les Cargill]

LeBaron & Alrich wrote:
>
> Kurt Albershardt > wrote:
>
> > The R&D is actually going rather well already. $87B would buy enough PV
> > panels (even at current prices) to alleviate a nice percentage of our
> > current issues.
>
> What about our voltage issues?
>

There's some resistance to those.

> --
> ha


--
Les Cargill

[William Sommerwerck]

Les Cargill wrote...

> LeBaron & Alrich wrote:

>> Kurt Albershardt > wrote:

>>> The R&D is actually going rather well already. $87B would buy enough
>>> PV panels (even at current prices) to alleviate a nice percentage of our
>>> current issues.

>> What about our voltage issues?

> There's some resistance to those.

Not to mention a lot of reluctance from the oil and gas companies, who are
offering impedance to the development of alternative energy.

I think we've run out of terms, but anyone is welcome to try.

[Kurt Albershardt]

Analogeezer wrote:
>
> Well part of the problem is selection...kind of like if the only
> choices we had in compressors were an Alesis 3630 and an ART Levelar"
>
> Gee last time we had the Shrub, "I invented the internet" Gore, and
> "Everything is dangerous and Evil" Nader. I think I'd rather vote for
> Charlie Manson than those three clowns...

Anybody catch Gen. Wesley Clark on Bill Maher last week?

[Kurt Albershardt]

James Boyk wrote:
>
> the current administration? In what area *have* they shown foresight?

In understanding the intricate details of manipulating the Florida
election system?

In understanding how to transfer large sums of money from California
ratepayers to the coffers of their largest contributors?

Well, you get the idea...

[Kurt Albershardt]

Roger W. Norman wrote:
>
> > Anybody catch Gen. Wesley Clark on Bill Maher last week?
>
> Missed it, but it should be on tomorrow night again. Clark was just on
> Hardball and dealing out some good analysis. I asked Col. Hackworth what he
> thought of Clark and he basically said he was a good soldier and manager,
> but wouldn't go so far as to say he'd make a good president.

Seemed to me like one of the more reasonable and rational voices I've
heard in this pre-pre election runup. Someone who actually thinks about
the issues and isn't just playing an emotion card.




> east as if it had something to do with Al Qaeda. And when conservative
> Republicans start calling for Bush's impeachment (a commentary in WND.com
> today) it makes me feel like Bush may not get re-elected, if the Dems can
> just field a qualified candidate. Kerry is about the only one that seems to
> have a history of sticking to his guns, although he did vote to give Bush
> the right to use the military without a declaration of war from Congress.
> It does seem to me that people with military experience that do public
> service have a better understanding of just what the Constitution is all
> about.

And his background makes him digestible to a large swath of non-thinking
middle Amerika--the group which doesn't want to take time to understand
the issues and to whom critical thinking is a foreign concept. If we
don't get them, or at least a good chunk of them onboard, we don't have
a prayer.

[Roger W. Norman]

Missed it, but it should be on tomorrow night again. Clark was just on
Hardball and dealing out some good analysis. I asked Col. Hackworth what he
thought of Clark and he basically said he was a good soldier and manager,
but wouldn't go so far as to say he'd make a good president. Still, he
knows war and how to wage them and doesn't hold truck with this hidden
agenda (ain't so hidden now is it?) of trying the sweep through the middle
east as if it had something to do with Al Qaeda. And when conservative
Republicans start calling for Bush's impeachment (a commentary in WND.com
today) it makes me feel like Bush may not get re-elected, if the Dems can
just field a qualified candidate. Kerry is about the only one that seems to
have a history of sticking to his guns, although he did vote to give Bush
the right to use the military without a declaration of war from Congress.
It does seem to me that people with military experience that do public
service have a better understanding of just what the Constitution is all
about.
--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
Purchase your copy of the Fifth of RAP CD set at www.recaudiopro.net.
See how far $20 really goes.




"Kurt Albershardt" > wrote in message
...
> Analogeezer wrote:
> >
> > Well part of the problem is selection...kind of like if the only
> > choices we had in compressors were an Alesis 3630 and an ART Levelar"
> >
> > Gee last time we had the Shrub, "I invented the internet" Gore, and
> > "Everything is dangerous and Evil" Nader. I think I'd rather vote for
> > Charlie Manson than those three clowns...
>
> Anybody catch Gen. Wesley Clark on Bill Maher last week?
>
>

[ScotFraser]

With $87 billion we could turn our next door neighbors Mexico into a first
world nation, & no American soldiers would be killed in the undertaking.


Scott Fraser

[Chris Hornbeck]

On Mon, 08 Sep 2003 08:53:13 -0700, James Boyk
> wrote:

> The education disaster is self-perpetuating; once 1/3 of
>adults are functionally illiterate---the figure that's cited now---it becomes
>much more difficult to have a politically responsive and responsible populace.

But who wants a politically responsive and responsible populace? When
we can have a manipulatable consumer base and an all-volunteer
military force, boat-rockers are not welcome.

Chris Hornbeck

[Justin Ulysses Morse]

nmm > wrote:
> How does that quote go; "Give a Man a Fish, and Feed him for a Day, Teach
> him to Fish and feed him for a Lifetime"

"Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish
and you get rid of him for the weekend."

ulysses

[Bob Cain]

"Roger W. Norman" wrote:
>
> As far as religious war, check out
> http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34469. Seems that Bin Laden
> is sneaking up on being the Islamic Messiah, which certainly goes right
> along with your perception.

Had the U.S. deliberately set out to establish him as al
Madhi with full understanding of the prophecy, its timing
and its fulfillment, it could not have done a better job.
The only way Bin Laden could possibly avoid the mantel,
assuming that he still lives and that he lives long enough,
is to very actively deny it and that ain't likely.

The importance of the figure and the passion the belief in
its embodiment will elicit in all branches of Islam and in
any place it is practiced just can't be overstated.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

[Blind Joni]

>Want to know why it's unresolved? Because you can't throw money at a problem
>that isn't rooted in money. You can't want something for someone more than
>they
>want it for themselves. You can't make people want to take responsibility.
>You
>can't make people want to take the first step to fix their problems

AMEN!!!


John A. Chiara
SOS Recording Studio
Live Sound Inc.
Albany, NY
www.sosrecording.net
518-449-1637

[Blind Joni]

>I'd rather spend that money on R&D for oil alternatives
>such as hydrogen or electrically powered cars, more
>and safer nuclear power plants, cleaner coal use, etc.
>

and you don't think this stuff is going on as we type? Just as you can't force
someone to help themselves you can't force a population to accept technology is
isn't ready to.


John A. Chiara
SOS Recording Studio
Live Sound Inc.
Albany, NY
www.sosrecording.net
518-449-1637

[Blind Joni]

>Just for reference on the "failure" of the War on Poverty: If you look at the
>stats for the percentage (and absolute number) of poor people in America, it
>starts out the 1960s at a surprisingly high level. Beginning in 1965, when
>the
>War on Poverty began, the numbers and percentage go way down, to less than
>half
>what they were beforehand -- and this in a time when "poverty" was being more
>generously defined in order to include as many people as possible in the
>program

So this means that the government giving people money makes them not poor
anymore? Please explain this some.


John A. Chiara
SOS Recording Studio
Live Sound Inc.
Albany, NY
www.sosrecording.net
518-449-1637

[Blind Joni]

>I am amazed at the number of people who think a pocket full of cash would
>>solve
>>> every problem they have. It never occurs to most of these people that the
>>lack
>>> of money in their pocket is not the problem, but just a symptom of a
>>bigger
>>> problem found in the grey matter between their ears.
>
> This could only come from the mouth of someone withoout money problems.
>
>
>blahblah

He's trying to shed light on WHY someone has money problems...people are
responsible for themselves..supposedly..unless unable to be...not unwilling to
be.
How are someones money problems someone elses problem?..specifically.




John A. Chiara
SOS Recording Studio
Live Sound Inc.
Albany, NY
www.sosrecording.net
518-449-1637

[Blind Joni]

>The fact that he exploited and tossed aside his workers like fodder, and
>fathered an archetype for a system that encourages no skills training
>and sees workers as expendable cogs in a blind and dumb machine... that
>doesn't bother you?

It bothers me and I don't see very much of it anymore..he was one of the
first..did we expect him to get everything right?

>How about all those American jobs moving to other countries? You can
>thank Henry Ford for the paradigm that's resulted in that.

Those countries are doing the same thing we did..growing and hopefully
learning.

>Henry Ford's mentality is the same one that results in sweat shops where
>kids are working 80 hours a week for pennies a day.

Well..mass production of any kind in it's infancy will probably yield this for
a period of time. I guess pennies a day is better than none if that's the only
choice.

This is the same kind of perspective that would have us deny China and other
growing countries the ability to develope industry; and therefore jobs, because
burning coal causes too much pollution. We had the chance to grow and excel but
others can't? I would just like to know how better to go about it without
dictating.


John A. Chiara
SOS Recording Studio
Live Sound Inc.
Albany, NY
www.sosrecording.net
518-449-1637

[Blind Joni]

>It's NOT idiotic, if you believe that America is the New Jerusalem, that we
>are
>specially blessed by God and have a divine mission to defeat evil (ie,
>anything
>not consistent with Protestant-American values).

Isn't this the way the "terrorists" view us?
And you fight this How?

>Dubbya and the fundamentalists are leading the US towards a global religious
>war
>that could result in the destruction of our country (and others) and the
>deaths
>of tens (if not hundreds) of millions of people.

Meaning attack by terrorists again? Wasn't this already happening for years?


>Evil is not a person, place, or thing. It is a belief -- and you cannot get
>rid
>of the belief by getting rid of its believers.

Yet this is just what the terrorists are trying to do..we should clue them in.

>Final gratuitous slap: Any President whose foreign policy is based on "We're
>good -- they're bad" clearly knows nothing about the history of the world

Can you explain this a little..I admit I'm no history buff but can you give an
example of a similar situation and the proper response?
Thanks,

John A. Chiara
SOS Recording Studio
Live Sound Inc.
Albany, NY
www.sosrecording.net
518-449-1637

[Blind Joni]

>Speak for yourself, pal. I plan on being around for awhile and I think
>the profit opportunity is big enough that someone will find a way.
>
>http://www.milleniumcell.com/ is close already.
>
>

At least you know what stock to buy!!


John A. Chiara
SOS Recording Studio
Live Sound Inc.
Albany, NY
www.sosrecording.net
518-449-1637

[Blind Joni]

>He may have *said* that; he may have even thought it; that doesn't mean it
>would
>actually work out that way. And if it did, so what? You're surely not
>subscribing to the idea that merely wanting to be well off can make one so.
>If
>that were true, I assure you, I'd be rich beyond your wildest dreams.

It's about a way of "being" not how much you want something. Many have it down
so that it works..most of us don't..and that's our responsibility.


>We're the only developed
>nation in the world without universal health care. (Yes, the health care in
>some
>of those other countries isn't great; but at least they've got it. They've
>got
>something to work on. We have 42,000,000 citizens with None, including
>9,000,000
>children.)

First..you're talking about health care "insurance coverage"..not health care.
I am one of those 42 million and choose to be at my own peril. We have ..in
most areas..the BEST "Health care" in the world. Insurance coverage for
everyday events is the reason for the problem in the first place. How much
would car insurance cost if it had to pay for oil changes and new
tires..sheesh!!

>We have lots of homeless, 1/3 of whom have *full-time* jobs and still can't
>afford housing.

And we fix this how??

>We have huge unemployment.

6% = HUGE..got it.

> Public health at risk from recurrence of TB (highly
>contagious) in a population in which 1 of 8 people lacks health care.

"Insurance coverage"

>Schools a
>disaster as too many teachers know nothing, yet there's no public will to
>improve education. The education disaster is self-perpetuating; once 1/3 of
>adults are functionally illiterate---the figure that's cited now---it becomes
>
>much more difficult to have a politically responsive and responsible
>populace.

I agree..see it everyday..just wondering what the government can do to fix it.


>Whatever is responsible, we are certainly allowing unheard-of illegalities
>and
>misbehavior on the highest levels of government.
>

I agree.


John A. Chiara
SOS Recording Studio
Live Sound Inc.
Albany, NY
www.sosrecording.net
518-449-1637

[Blind Joni]

>Sorry John. Not impressed. Making money isn't really that special.
>Just squirrels gathering more nuts..... Showing some humanity is much
>more impressive. Henry Ford was an asshole, and all his money couldn't
>buy him a good reputation.

But these attributes are not mutually exclusive!! There are plenty of good
companies..find out who they are are patronize them whenever possible. If we
start condemning evryone from the past with a less that stellar world views and
habits we may all have to live on deserted islands or be guilty of partaking in
forbidden fruit.


John A. Chiara
SOS Recording Studio
Live Sound Inc.
Albany, NY
www.sosrecording.net
518-449-1637

[Joel Embry]

So because research is already going on to find
a cure for cancer, that's a reason not to spend
more on it?? What logic....

Electric cars are already being accepted as well
as nuclear power. Hydrogen fuel, if it's successful
(cheap and accessible enough), will not be forced
on people, they will most likely readily accept it,
at least on some scale.

Joel


"Blind Joni" > wrote in message
...
> >I'd rather spend that money on R&D for oil alternatives
> >such as hydrogen or electrically powered cars, more
> >and safer nuclear power plants, cleaner coal use, etc.
> >
>
> and you don't think this stuff is going on as we type? Just as you can't
force
> someone to help themselves you can't force a population to accept
technology is
> isn't ready to.
>
>
> John A. Chiara
> SOS Recording Studio
> Live Sound Inc.
> Albany, NY
> www.sosrecording.net
> 518-449-1637

[Joel Embry]

> How about all those American jobs moving to other countries? You can
> thank Henry Ford for the paradigm that's resulted in that.

This is because we can not compete because of labor unions artificially
inflating wages in the US for UNSKILLED workers. Since when did the
guy tightening lug nuts in an automotive plant become middle class?
Don't need a degree, just know someone working at the big 3 already
and you're in, with little chance of getting fired no matter what you do
or how unproductive you are. Sounds like communism to me...

Joel

[Blind Joni]

>This is because we can not compete because of labor unions artificially
>inflating wages in the US for UNSKILLED workers. Since when did the
>guy tightening lug nuts in an automotive plant become middle class?
>Don't need a degree, just know someone working at the big 3 already
>and you're in, with little chance of getting fired no matter what you do
>or how unproductive you are. Sounds like communism to me...
>

Actually this sounds about right. As with many things in this country we have
artificially inflated segments of the economy to a point where the rest cannot
keep up.


John A. Chiara
SOS Recording Studio
Live Sound Inc.
Albany, NY
www.sosrecording.net
518-449-1637

[Joel Embry]

> >Electric cars are already being accepted as well
> >as nuclear power. Hydrogen fuel, if it's successful
> >(cheap and accessible enough), will not be forced
> >on people, they will most likely readily accept it,
>
> We're not building ANY nuclear plants in the USA.

Yeah, I did hear that one hasn't been built in quite a few
years. Makes you wonder about the safety of all those
"old" reactors.

>.and you gotta plug in the
> cars and this would be a good place for a solar station type enterprise.

The Honda Civic Hybrid does not have to be plugged in. True it still uses
some
gas but much less than the same car with only a gasoline engine.

Joel


>
>
> John A. Chiara
> SOS Recording Studio
> Live Sound Inc.
> Albany, NY
> www.sosrecording.net
> 518-449-1637

[Justin Ulysses Morse]

Blind Joni > wrote:

> So this means that the government giving people money makes them not poor
> anymore? Please explain this some.

I hope this example isn't too esoteric for you: The government pays
for the construction and staffing of a building where young people are
sent to be taught communication, analytic, and social skills that will
prepare them for a more productive and self-sufficient place in the
workforce and in society as a whole. Ideally, this Orwellian
institution teaches these kids how to make their own way, so they don't
end up a burden on the system through government assistance or
incarceration. Just how well it works is dependent in large part on
the resources (financial and otherwise) devoted to this far-fetched
plan.

Do you think it could work, or is this just throwing money at a problem
that's not rooted in money?

ulysses

[P Stamler]

>So this means that the government giving people money makes them not poor
>anymore? Please explain this some.

The Johnson-era "War on Poverty" was much different than a simple expansion of
welfare. It involved job-training programs, which included teaching people
skills involved in holding a job, as well as tackling the so-called "culture of
poverty". There were plenty of imperfections in the whole scheme, and it was
seriously underfunded thanks to the other war going on at the time, Viet Nam.
But if you look at the stats, for all its failings, the LBJ War on Poverty
really made a dent in the problem, raising millions of people from destitution
into at least a stable working-class life.
Millions? Yes. Here are some numbers (culled from the Statistical Abstract,
1980, which I happen to have handy): In 1960 there were 39.9 million people
living below the poverty level, or 22.2% of the population. In 1965, the first
year the Great Society programs were implemented, the number was 33.2 million,
or 17.3%. By 1969. the first year of the Nixon administration, it was down to
24.1 million, or 12.1%. It hovered around that figure through the Nixon, Ford
and Carter administrations, reaching its low point in 1973, where 23 million
were considered poor (11.1%).

It was a shock to me to realize that at the end of the Eisenhower
administration, 22.2% of the nation was living in poverty. The War on Poverty,
in no small measure, reduced that by half, taking ten million people off the
poverty rolls while the population increased. And that's no small
accomplishment.

Peace,
Paul

[P Stamler]

>It does seem to me that people with military experience that do public
>service have a better understanding of just what the Constitution is all
>about.

Oh, that might be a bit of an over-generalization, if you pardon the
expression. After all, into that category you can put Curtis Lemay on the one
hand and Dwight Eisenhower on the other.

Peace,
Paul

[P Stamler]

>How does that quote go; "Give a Man a Fish, and Feed him for a Day, Teach
>him to Fish and feed him for a Lifetime"

No; it's "Give a man a fish, and he will eat for a day. Teach him to use the
internet, and he won't bother you for weeks."

Peace,
Paul

[John LeBlanc]

I know I said I wasn't going to participate any further, but I changed my mind.
Congratulations, Justin, your post below proves a point I made earlier:

"Justin Ulysses Morse" > wrote in message
...
> Blind Joni > wrote:
>
> > So this means that the government giving people money makes them not poor
> > anymore? Please explain this some.
>
> I hope this example isn't too esoteric for you: The government pays
> for the construction and staffing of a building where young people are
> sent to be taught communication, analytic, and social skills that will
> prepare them for a more productive and self-sufficient place in the
> workforce and in society as a whole. Ideally, this Orwellian
> institution teaches these kids how to make their own way, so they don't
> end up a burden on the system through government assistance or
> incarceration. Just how well it works is dependent in large part on
> the resources (financial and otherwise) devoted to this far-fetched
> plan.


What a great ****ing idea! Ever hear of Job Corps? http://www.jobcorps.org/
Problem is, your brilliant idea is not dependent on the resources thrown at it;
it is totally dependent on people actually showing up to your Orwellian
institution to learn a trade and let the federal government help them get a job.
And they will. At ****ing gunpoint.

You don't get it.

We have public schools some kids won't attend. We have trade schools some kids
won't attend. We already have federally funded job training they won't attend.
Sure, some show up, most don't. Why? Because you can't make people want to
better themselves if they don't want to. It doesn't work.

No, it doesn't make any sense to me either why a person will be handed a chance
at straightening out their situation and refuse to accept it. But it happens in
every city of this nation every day. Why do you suppose that is? (Hint: they
don't want to.)

I am so amused by the numbers of people who really believe you can throw money
at poverty and fix the problem. Forty years later, what do we have? More
homeless, illiterate poor people. But we're throwing a ****pot of money at the
problem, yet we still have the problem.

Know what is the definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and over
again expecting a different outcome.

Poverty isn't caused by lack of money in the same way a sneeze isn't a cold. The
lack of money is a symptom of the way a person thinks, his mindset. Untie that
knot and you can fix the problem. Here's an idea that can't be as stupid as
throwing money at the problem (which is already demonstrated to be a collossal
failure): force everyone to listen to Earl Nightingale's "Lead the Field" five
times in a row.

In New Orleans I've witnessed the same thing I have here in Houston: Vietnamese
families come to this country with nothing -- and I mean nothing -- not even
able to speak the English language. Yet, a couple of years later you see some of
these people owning their own grocery store, prospering, contributing. Now how
the **** does something like that happen? Hint: they want it more than life
itself to succeed, and they find a way to get it done. Because it can be done
when you have a burning desire to succeed. Without the desire, it cannot happen.

It's funny, really. If George W. Bush trotted into r.a.p. and began
pontificating about how best to engineer a session, he'd be run out on a rail.
Yet so many of you armchair presidents and assorted statesmen think you can put
on your asshat and know better how to run this country, think you have Bush all
figgered out. Apparently using your Superman x-ray vision glasses you see right
through that conservative ****-the-poor pay-off-our-supporters facade. Where
were you clear thinkers when Clinton was ****ing this nation in much the same
way he was ****ing Ms. Lewinsky? Or does that not count because he was a liberal
Democrat? Or it doesn't count because the jobless ratings were low while he was
****ing on the chance to get bin Laden on a silver platter, all the while
gutting the military and departments that provide security for this nation so
that minor irritations like 9/11 won't happen?

A shame this world is going to hell in a handbasket and we have, right here in
r.a.p. (or substitute some other newsgroup, it happens everywhere) the sum total
of the crystal clear thinking and incredibly well informed genius necessary to
fix it. Equally a shame that you have better intel and insight on world affairs
than the Oval Office, and the confidence in your conviction that the rest of the
world can go to hell, we'll spend our 87 billion right here in the USA. Hey,
some of you brilliant liberal thinkers wanted a "global community". Welcome to
the new world, gentleman, where your tax dollars get spread far and wide. Why
bitch about it now?

While you're spending your life energy hating your strawman Bush -- and every
other Republican fantasy your liberal brethren and most every college has
managed to get you to believe -- bitching and moaning and making all sorts of
unqualified, unsubstantiated accusations that fit your view of things, if you
believe the world is really ****ed up and you've got all the answers, don't tell
us about the labor pains, show us the baby.

John

[nmm]

On Mon, Sep 8, 2003 10:30 pm, Blind Joni > wrote:
>>I do think we can hold the administration accountable for so
>>transparently taking ALL of our money, and then some, and handing it
>>out to a small group of friends.
>
>I think we could all go along with better acountability.
>I work with a lot of young rap artists from 2nd generation welfare
families
>and
>I often wonder who's brilliant idea it was to encourage the lifestyle I
come
>in
>contact with daily..short sited, greedy, impatient, disloyal,
irresponsible,
>undependable, violent liars with children from multiple partners..talk
about
>frustrating and hopeless. I guess it all goes back into the economy in
some
>way.

Wasn't that the CIA operation Overlord, under Director John Deutch, that
was caught selling drugs in South Central LA? Combined with the Media
Images of Success being Shallow Materialism, and Foolish male Bravado.

There was some Rap band a few years ago that were rapping on top of
"Everyday People" by Sly and teh Family Stone, and the lyrics were about
taking someone out cause they disrespected the singer.

Looking at teh original song to the 90s version, really shows the shift in
ideals.

[nmm]

On Mon, Sep 8, 2003 10:48 pm, Blind Joni > wrote:

>>Henry Ford's mentality is the same one that results in sweat shops where
>>kids are working 80 hours a week for pennies a day.
>
>Well..mass production of any kind in it's infancy will probably yield this
for
>a period of time. I guess pennies a day is better than none if that's the
only
>choice.
>
>This is the same kind of perspective that would have us deny China and
>other
>growing countries the ability to develope industry; and therefore jobs,
>because
>burning coal causes too much pollution. We had the chance to grow and
>excel but
>others can't? I would just like to know how better to go about it without
>dictating.


You have to move the profits from the non working sectors to the working
sectors.
The National Council of Churches website lists companies that exploit 3rd
world labour.

Saying we should support China's "ability to develope industry" ignores
that guy who was standing in front of a tank in Tienaman Square a few years
ago. ( was he eventually crushed?)
Now that China has such trade deals with Walmart, the largest employer in
America, we ignore their human rights abuses, their records on labour
abuses etc?

Letting the third world destroy their enviorment isn't really helping
anyone. I know thereare a lot of Brasilian Forrestry Workers who hate the
enviormentalist movement. They told Sting to get lost on one of his trips
there/. But they are being short sighted wanting food on the table tomorrow
and not endless weeekends of fishing.


---------------------------------------------------------
"Our Nations Must Come Together To Unite"
- George W Bush - Tampa FL . June 4th -2001
---------------------------------------------------------

[nmm]

On Tue, Sep 9, 2003 12:40 am, Joel Embry >
wrote:
>The Honda Civic Hybrid does not have to be plugged in. True it still uses
>some
>gas but much less than the same car with only a gasoline engine.
>
>Joel
>



I looked at getting a Honda Insight.. The insurance was $3,000 a year up
from the $800 a year i pay for my RX-7 wich is a lot faster and more
dangerous.
They are being subverted one way or another


---------------------------------------------------------
"You Teach A Child To Read, And He Or Her Will Be Able To Pass A Literacy
Test"
- George W Bush - Townsend Tn . Feb 21rst -2001
---------------------------------------------------------

[Chris Hornbeck]

On Tue, 9 Sep 2003 04:57:44 -0500, "John LeBlanc"
> wrote:


> Clinton ... was
>****ing on the chance to get bin Laden on a silver platter,

Other rantage snipped, but this is a piece of history that
should not be allowed to be re-written. While Clinton was
president, the CIA had predators actively looking for Osama
bin Laden, with shoot to kill orders. This quietly ended
after the change of administration.

>9/11

Two years later, why don't we have him?


Chris Hornbeck

[LeBaron & Alrich]

Justin Ulysses Morse > wrote:

> Blind Joni > wrote:

> > So this means that the government giving people money makes them not poor
> > anymore? Please explain this some.

> I hope this example isn't too esoteric for you: The government pays
> for the construction and staffing of a building where young people are
> sent to be taught communication, analytic, and social skills that will
> prepare them for a more productive and self-sufficient place in the
> workforce and in society as a whole. Ideally, this Orwellian
> institution teaches these kids how to make their own way, so they don't
> end up a burden on the system through government assistance or
> incarceration. Just how well it works is dependent in large part on
> the resources (financial and otherwise) devoted to this far-fetched
> plan.

> Do you think it could work, or is this just throwing money at a problem
> that's not rooted in money?

So you're saying that adding $87B to the education budget and _actually
sending it into the education system instead of just talking about it_
might help the US?

--
ha

[John LeBlanc]

"Chris Hornbeck" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 9 Sep 2003 04:57:44 -0500, "John LeBlanc"
> > wrote:
>
>
> > Clinton ... was
> >****ing on the chance to get bin Laden on a silver platter,
>
> Other rantage snipped, but this is a piece of history that
> should not be allowed to be re-written. While Clinton was
> president, the CIA had predators actively looking for Osama
> bin Laden, with shoot to kill orders. This quietly ended
> after the change of administration.

Really? Please present your proof of this allegation.

Meanwhile, I assume you are calling Bill Clinton a liar when, February 15, 2002,
in a public speech to the Long Island Association, Clinton admitted he spurned a
Sudanese offer to hand over bin Laden. (If you chose to disbelieve Clinton
himself -- which is perfectly understandable -- Sandy Berger admits the offer
was made.) The fact is, Bashir offered to arrest and extradite bin Laden -- or
at least baby sit him -- and provide intel on Hamas, Islamic Jihad and
Hezbollah. Clinton ignored the offer.

Feel free to make yourself more informed:
http://www.nationalreview.com/ijaz/ijaz042903.asp

By the way, audio tape of the speech Clinton made to the Long Island Association
backing up Ijaz's claims is available if you wish to review it yourself. Or not.
I know how some people feel about facts that interfere with their version of
history.


> >9/11
>
> Two years later, why don't we have him?

Because bin Laden is either dead or hasn't been captured. Those would be my two
guesses. What's yours?

John

[Blind Joni]

>Now that China has such trade deals with Walmart, the largest employer in
>America, we ignore their human rights abuses, their records on labour
>abuses etc?

I just wonder..do we have a right or even a way to do anything about China's
polocies..really


?>Letting the third world destroy their enviorment isn't really helping
>anyone. I know thereare a lot of Brasilian Forrestry Workers who hate the
>enviormentalist movement.<

Again, I wonder..do we have a choice to "let" them do anything? Should we
develope alternative energy sources..if and when possible..and make them wait
until we get it to a level we consider safe? It would seem many more would
suffer and die in the meantime. It seems very confusing to me.





John A. Chiara
SOS Recording Studio
Live Sound Inc.
Albany, NY
www.sosrecording.net
518-449-1637

[Blind Joni]

>The Honda Civic Hybrid does not have to be plugged in. True it still uses
>some
>gas but much less than the same car with only a gasoline engine.
>

Yeah, I passed one on the highway yesterday..I thought he was parked!! :)


John A. Chiara
SOS Recording Studio
Live Sound Inc.
Albany, NY
www.sosrecording.net
518-449-1637

[Artie Turner]

John LeBlanc wrote:

> Meanwhile, I assume you are calling Bill Clinton a liar when, February 15, 2002,
> in a public speech to the Long Island Association, Clinton admitted he spurned a
> Sudanese offer to hand over bin Laden.

And you also assume the Sudanese could actually deliver Bin Laden.


> Feel free to make yourself more informed:
> http://www.nationalreview.com/ijaz/ijaz042903.asp

Yeah, there's nothing partisan in the NRO...

[nmm]

On Tue, Sep 9, 2003 10:38 am, Chris Hornbeck
> wrote:
>On Tue, 9 Sep 2003 04:57:44 -0500, "John LeBlanc"
> wrote:
>
>
>> Clinton ... was
>>****ing on the chance to get bin Laden on a silver platter,
>
>Other rantage snipped, but this is a piece of history that
>should not be allowed to be re-written. While Clinton was
>president, the CIA had predators actively looking for Osama
>bin Laden, with shoot to kill orders. This quietly ended
>after the change of administration.
>
>>9/11
>
>Two years later, why don't we have him?
>
>
>Chris Hornbeck
>

Because Bechtel is in Bed with the Bin Ladens, check out their website most
of it is damage control for their Bin Laden connections.

Without Osama The Son of the Snake would have a nil chance of stealing a
2nd term.




---------------------------------------------------------
"Our Nations Must Come Together To Unite"
- George W Bush - Tampa FL . June 4th -2001
---------------------------------------------------------

[LeBaron & Alrich]

Chris Hornbeck > wrote:

> > wrote:

> > Clinton ... was
> >****ing on the chance to get bin Laden on a silver platter,

> Other rantage snipped, but this is a piece of history that
> should not be allowed to be re-written. While Clinton was
> president, the CIA had predators actively looking for Osama
> bin Laden, with shoot to kill orders. This quietly ended
> after the change of administration.

> >9/11

> Two years later, why don't we have him?

Because we don't want him; he's too good for business.

--
ha

[George Gleason]

"Steve" > wrote in message
om...
> "George Gleason" > wrote in message

>
> First you have to have some "American business" to fix your bridge.
> Your bridge is NOT a federal issue. It is a County issue. And if you
> can't find someone to fix your bridge do it yourself. Start a business
> and contract with your County to fix it. First get a business license,
> invest in equipment, hire a couple of skilled union workers. Then
> you're going to have to get workers comp insurance, vehical insurance,
> and business insurance, rent a building, get a line of credit, and
> get a telephone. Your bridge repair business insurance is probably
> never going to be issued because you have no track record or they just
> might not be writing new policies at this time. Just in case they do
> offer a policy, the premiums will be so high that you won't get the
> bid. Then you'll be out of business because you can't afford to work
> that cheap. Your employees will apply for unemployment insurance
> (which you pay) and claim stress problems for a workmans comp claim (
> they lost their job).
>
> Why should I have to pay for a City, County, State, or Federal
> ineffficiancies? Unproductive workers? Fiscal waste? You pay for it
> and I pay for it. Your bridge would be fixed if government wasn't so
> top heavy. This is pure waste and should be cut off. It all starts at
> the local level. 87 billiion dollars for a war is nothing and all you
> seem to want is a bridge fixed. The money is in your own back yard.
> Go find it. The bitch that your bridge can't be fixed is "dubbya's"
> fault is just plain funny..........you guys are definately in the
> entertainment business.
>
> PS: Buy two or three fire extinguishers and smoke alarms. Put a plan
> together for your family if there is a fire. (God forbid)
>
> Steve

ROTFLMAO
good line of crap steve
george

[Kurt Albershardt]

John LeBlanc wrote:
>
> Apparently using your Superman x-ray vision glasses you see right
> through that conservative ****-the-poor pay-off-our-supporters facade.

True conservatives are not the issue here. What we now know as neocons
are a different matter entirely.



> Where
> were you clear thinkers when Clinton was ****ing this nation in much the same
> way he was ****ing Ms. Lewinsky? Or does that not count because he was a liberal
> Democrat? Or it doesn't count because the jobless ratings were low while he was
> ****ing on the chance to get bin Laden on a silver platter, all the while
> gutting the military and departments that provide security for this nation so
> that minor irritations like 9/11 won't happen?

That started well before Clinton, and continued well into Bush 43--until
9/11 when the spending on certain line items was catapulted into the
stratosphere. Note that soldiers' families are still on AFDC and
Medicare while the "head of the household" is on deployment.

Please read Robert Baer's excellent "See No Evil" for a CIA ground
operative's view of the 1980's and 1990's Middle East terror game. No
political agenda (either side) just the cold hard facts as he and his
co-workers saw them, and damning to both sides of the aisle.

[John LeBlanc]

"Artie Turner" > wrote in message
. ..
> John LeBlanc wrote:
>
> > Meanwhile, I assume you are calling Bill Clinton a liar when, February 15,
2002,
> > in a public speech to the Long Island Association, Clinton admitted he
spurned a
> > Sudanese offer to hand over bin Laden.
>
> And you also assume the Sudanese could actually deliver Bin Laden.

And you assume they could not?



> > Feel free to make yourself more informed:
> > http://www.nationalreview.com/ijaz/ijaz042903.asp
>
> Yeah, there's nothing partisan in the NRO...

Partisanship is part of life. If you think partisanship and honesty are mutually
exclusive, I suppose than means you are apolitical and read no newspapers, and
watch no news on television.

As for the National Review, and this story in particular, Ijaz has made a strong
case and Bill Clinton confirmed it. That's the topic. Disagree with any of this?
State your case and provide your evidence.

John

[ScotFraser]

<< First..you're talking about health care "insurance coverage"..not health
care.>>

It equals the same thing in practice. Those without insurance can't afford the
care. Same difference.

<<We have ..in
most areas..the BEST "Health care" in the world.>>

One can only assume from a statement like this that you've never accessed
health care in any other part of the world. The US is most definitely NOT at
the top of the heap.

>We have lots of homeless, 1/3 of whom have *full-time* jobs and still can't
>afford housing.>>

<<And we fix this how??>>

Livable wage requirements would be a start.

>We have huge unemployment.

6% = HUGE..got it.>>

Yes it IS huge. With our population that means millions. It's the highest it
has been since the depression, which btw was around 10% unemployment.

>Schools a
>disaster ...>

<<I agree..see it everyday..just wondering what the government can do to fix
it.>>

The government can, if it sees the value of education, insure that every
American child gets a state of the art education, because I really don't think
the billionaires are going to use their tax break millions to make sure America
is educated.


Scott Fraser

[ScotFraser]

<< We as sound professionals, musicians,
entertainers, and the like, are notoriously vocal about the shortcomings of
elected officials in the US, but in general, are also notoriously lazy on
voting day. >>

I've voted in every election I've been eligible to vote in, except one for some
community college superintendent position.


Scott Fraser

[ScotFraser]

<<
My support is behing Lyndon LaRouche... He makes the most sense.. >>

That dinosaur is still here? "Appears" to make sense but is one of the most
extreme nutcases around.

Scott Fraser

[ScotFraser]

<< And I can't imagine why the other UNSC countries would take us
seriously when we ask them to give us money and send some of their boys
to come sit in the hornet's nest we stirred up against their protests. >>

Hopefully they're all smart enough to tell the US to **** off when the question
comes up.


Scott Fraser

[P Stamler]

>
>>The Honda Civic Hybrid does not have to be plugged in. True it still uses
>>some
>>gas but much less than the same car with only a gasoline engine.
>>
>
>Yeah, I passed one on the highway yesterday..I thought he was parked!! :)

The Honda does have the reputation of being severely underpowered. The Toyota
hybrid, however, has a good deal more pep.

Peace,
Paul

[ScotFraser]

<< This is because we can not compete because of labor unions artificially
inflating wages in the US for UNSKILLED workers. Since when did the
guy tightening lug nuts in an automotive plant become middle class?>>

I guess you think society would be better off with this guy & his kids living
in his car on the edge of town because you think he's worth $3.75 an hour.

<<Don't need a degree, just know someone working at the big 3 already
and you're in, with little chance of getting fired no matter what you do
or how unproductive you are. Sounds like communism to me...>>

Sounds like you haven't a clue about what you're saying.

Scott Fraser

[R Krizman]

<< Where
were you clear thinkers when Clinton was ****ing this nation in much the same
way he was ****ing Ms. Lewinsky? Or does that not count because he was a
liberal
Democrat? >>


The difference is this:

When Clinton lied, nobody died.

Enjoyed the rant, by the way. Is this what I'm missing on talk radio?

-R

[P Stamler]

Someday you should go to a factory or other business enterprise that has just
advertised that it is hiring, and see the hundreds, sometimes thousands of
people who mob the place to turn in job applications. "These people just won't
work" is another bit of folklore that's belied by the facts.

Peace,
Paul

[John LeBlanc]

"ScotFraser" > wrote in message
...

> >We have huge unemployment.
>
> 6% = HUGE..got it.>>
>
> Yes it IS huge. With our population that means millions. It's the highest it
> has been since the depression, which btw was around 10% unemployment.

Actually, that's not accurate.

When President Carter turned over the reigns to President Reagan, unemployment
hit 9.7%. It took two years for Reagan to turn that around, and from there it
steadily went down until a 7.5% spike in 1992.

That's straight from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, http://www.bls.gov

John

[P Stamler]

>> I think we've run out of terms, but anyone is welcome to try.
>>
>
>Hmm... let me meditate on that one. Ohhhhhhmmmmmmmm.

Ow -- that hertz.

Peace,
Paul

[ScotFraser]

<< You don't get it.
We have public schools some kids won't attend. We have trade schools some kids
won't attend. We already have federally funded job training they won't attend.
Sure, some show up, most don't. Why? Because you can't make people want to
better themselves if they don't want to. It doesn't work. >>

This is such simplistic bull**** it hardly commands the respect of a reply.
This is how the priveleged class has always looked at the poor & minorities, as
sluggards too lazy to better themselves. The truth, as is always the case with
truth, is considerably more complex, but a critical investigation doesn't suit
the shallow mind. Suffice to say, for every instance of an individual not
choosing self betterment there are equal numbers who are denied the
opportunities at self improvement, due to racial discrimination, lack of
economic resources, lack of transportation, lack of child care, simply put,
lack. Blaming the poor for their poverty is convenient, simplistic & typical of
the arrogance of the selfish.


Scott Fraser

[John LeBlanc]

"P Stamler" > wrote in message
...
> Someday you should go to a factory or other business enterprise that has just
> advertised that it is hiring, and see the hundreds, sometimes thousands of
> people who mob the place to turn in job applications. "These people just won't
> work" is another bit of folklore that's belied by the facts.


Paul, with all due respect, I'd rather you read what I actually said. I'm
careful to use words like "most" and "some" because I know there are people who
want to work, but cannot find jobs that match their skill set. When that
happens, a person _can_ get training in some other area that does have jobs more
easily obtainable. He may not want to, but he can. Once again, it's a matter of
choice and willingness to bite the bullet.

John

[Steve O'Neill]

> 6% = HUGE..got it.

-12 dBFS

[Rob Adelman]

ScotFraser wrote:

> << Electric cars are already being accepted as well
> as nuclear power. >>

Electric cars are not being sold anymore as the oil companies have
bought up the patents for the batteries. I kid you not.

[nmm]

On Tue, Sep 9, 2003 11:50 am, Blind Joni >
wrote:
>>Now that China has such trade deals with Walmart, the largest
employer
>in
>>America, we ignore their human rights abuses, their records on
labour
>>abuses etc?
>
>I just wonder..do we have a right or even a way to do anything about
China's
>polocies..really
>

Ethically you are right, It;s not our place to tell, but is it in you
to support a regime like that.
You are what you support through your purchases. So it all comes back
to an individual's decisions, what type of world that they surround
themselves with



>
>?>Letting the third world destroy their enviorment isn't really
helping
>>anyone. I know thereare a lot of Brasilian Forrestry Workers who
hate the
>>enviormentalist movement.<
>
>Again, I wonder..do we have a choice to "let" them do anything?

Curb our demands for hardwood lumber and Beef farming.
Gerard Durrel described how farming of indigenous animals without
altering their surroundings has less enviormental impact.

North Americans could be eating Buffalo and Moose meat as much as
Beef.
Yes this is radicle but who are we to change anything.
Also I've seen Buffalo Meat for sale regularly at the Atlanta
farmers' market. Moose burgers are pretty good, I could get used to
them.


>Should we
>develope alternative energy sources..if and when possible..and make
them
>wait
>until we get it to a level we consider safe? It would seem many more
would
>suffer and die in the meantime. It seems very confusing to me.
>

When the aparthied boycotts of South Africa were going on many said
that it would be the workers and low income people that would suffer
the most. Especially countries that were doing a lot of bussiness with
the regime ( Israel USA, UK) The proponents of the boycotts said It
will have to get worse before it gets better. Apparently it got
better.

There is also the facts that the energy cartels are now both political
parties in America. Gore; Occidental Petroleum, and Bush
Texaco-Chevron. They really have no intrest in changing things that
much.

A small windmill on every 2nd hydro poll could generate 60% of the
electricity for a major city

Ethanol can replace gasoline, Biodeisel can replace deisel. with
little change to the infrastructure.

$87 Billion spent on schools in the middle-east could replace the
Saudi Fundementalist Wahabi schools





---------------------------------------------------------
"I'm also not very analytical. You know I don't spend a lot of time
thinking about myself, about why I do things." =DC-GWB,Aboard Air
Force One, June 4, 2003
---------------------------------------------------------

[Cossie]

"P Stamler" > wrote in message
...
> >> I think we've run out of terms, but anyone is welcome to try.
> >>
> >
> >Hmm... let me meditate on that one. Ohhhhhhmmmmmmmm.
>
> Ow -- that hertz.
>

You think THAT hertz? Let's amp it up a little!

The dynamics of the situation are complex, but I'll try to condense(r) it
for you. (Okay, THAT was reaching)

It's like hitting your thumb with a hammer. The amount that it hertz is
dependent upon the frequency of times the thumb is compressed. Of course,
that's still better than a thumb that's been cut-off. And a hi-cut is
better than a low-cut. As usual though, if it's not too serious you can fix
it with a patch.

In any case, you'll get over it. It's just a phase. :-)

Bill Balmer
what were we talking about?

[Artie Turner]

John LeBlanc wrote:

> Partisanship is part of life. If you think partisanship and honesty are mutually
> exclusive, I suppose than means you are apolitical and read no newspapers, and
> watch no news on television.

No, and partisanship and honesty are not synonymous, either. I consume
as much news as my nausea threshold allows, and it's pretty clear that
Republican and Democrat leaders alike have treated the Bin Ladens with
kid gloves for a number of inexplicable reason$. Stories about the Bin
Ladens leaving the US uninterviewed by US intel immediately after 9/11
are in the news again this week. How did National Review spin that one?
>
> As for the National Review, and this story in particular, Ijaz has made a strong
> case and Bill Clinton confirmed it. That's the topic. Disagree with any of this?
> State your case and provide your evidence.

Ascribe whatever motives you wish to the Clinton admin's treatment of
Bin Laden. Make them stick.

If you're looking for the "blame Clinton" mindset, it's not hard to find
- National Review, Weekly Standard, Fox News, the usual suspects.

Artie
>
> John
>
>

[John LeBlanc]

"Artie Turner" > wrote in message
. ..
> John LeBlanc wrote:
> >
> > As for the National Review, and this story in particular, Ijaz has made a
strong
> > case and Bill Clinton confirmed it. That's the topic. Disagree with any of
this?
> > State your case and provide your evidence.
>
> Ascribe whatever motives you wish to the Clinton admin's treatment of
> Bin Laden. Make them stick.

Thanks for clarifying.


> If you're looking for the "blame Clinton" mindset, it's not hard to find
> - National Review, Weekly Standard, Fox News, the usual suspects.

Well, Artie, what's the pont in swapping lists? But if I were a betting man --
and I'm not, but if I were -- I'd bet the "blame Bush" list would be
significantly longer than any you could come up with for the "blame Clinton"
mindset.

We men and our ****ing contests. <g>

John

[James Boyk]

Steve O'Neill wrote:
>> 6% = ... -12 dBFS


I hate to be pedantic, especially about something that was a joke, but 6% (OK,
6.25%) is -24dBFS.


James Boyk

[Steve O'Neill]

I thought about that. WORKforce, manPOWER. 10log (.06).

James Boyk wrote:
> Steve O'Neill wrote:
>
>>> 6% = ... -12 dBFS
>
>
>
> I hate to be pedantic, especially about something that was a joke, but
> 6% (OK, 6.25%) is -24dBFS.
>
>
> James Boyk
>

[LeBaron & Alrich]

Cossie > wrote:

> You think THAT hertz? Let's amp it up a little!

> The dynamics of the situation are complex, but I'll try to condense(r) it
> for you. (Okay, THAT was reaching)

> It's like hitting your thumb with a hammer. The amount that it hertz is
> dependent upon the frequency of times the thumb is compressed. Of course,
> that's still better than a thumb that's been cut-off. And a hi-cut is
> better than a low-cut. As usual though, if it's not too serious you can fix
> it with a patch.

> In any case, you'll get over it. It's just a phase. :-)

Wow, you're really wired today!

--
ha

[[email protected]]

On 2003-09-09 (BlindJoni) said:
>I think we could all go along with better acountability.
>I work with a lot of young rap artists from 2nd generation welfare
>families and I often wonder who's brilliant idea it was to
>encourage the lifestyle I come in contact with daily..short sited,
>greedy, impatient, disloyal, irresponsible, undependable, violent
>liars with children from multiple partners..talk about frustrating
>and hopeless. I guess it all goes back into the economy in some way.

OF course it does. All them social workers and prison guard gotta
have jobs ya know. Along with this, all those second generation
welfare families still consume, and since they're poorly educated they
don't rock the boat too much ya know, they just mindlessly consume.
yOu can bet they've all got 200 channels of bull**** including the pay
channels and they don't watch any of them wehre current events and
public policy are discussed.

I see them every day. My lady and I manage five apartment buildings
in the inner city. tWO thirds of our tenants are functionally
illiterate; the other third find this place a stepping stone to
somewhere better as they have jobs.

NO easy answers here, but 87 billion to rebuild a country we shouldn't
ahve destroyed in the first place is reaching a bit. wE need a better
quality of politician in this country, what we're getting for choices
at the national level sucks!

rEgards,



Richard Webb
Electric Spider Productions
REplace anything before the @ symbol with elspider for real email

--



Don't waive your rights while waving your flag.

[Kurt Albershardt]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
> All I have to say is that there is nothing like being taken to the hospital
> with blood gushing out of your arm and being told that you'll have to go
> to another hospital because your insurance is not good enough to make you
> realize just how godawful health care in this country really is.
>
> I mean, when Cuba has better health care than typical American cities,
> something is wrong.

I'll preface this by saying it's not an endorsement of the Cuban system
as a whole (not by any means,) but if you look at Cuba's infant
mortality rate and the literacy rate and you compare it with their per
capita GDP, it's a bit of an eye opener.

[nmm]

On Tue, Sep 9, 2003 12:29 pm, Kurt Albershardt > wrote:
>nmm wrote:
>>
>> There was some Rap band a few years ago that were rapping on top of
>> "Everyday People" by Sly and teh Family Stone, and the lyrics were about
>> taking someone out cause they disrespected the singer.
>>
>> Looking at teh original song to the 90s version, really shows the shift
in
>> ideals.
>
>
>And just to counter, check out some of the truly excellent lyrics from
>Disposable Heroes Of Hiphoprisy.
>

Right back at ya with

How do their sales and radio / video play compare with Mystical, TuPac,
P_Diddy and all the gold chain sporting Benz driving hip hop "stars" that
endorse the lifestyle we speak of.

KRS1 and Public Enemy too, they just aren't being pushed as a product /
market ./ image/ the way that other hip hop acts are.. You aren't supposed
to think..

[nmm]

On Tue, Sep 9, 2003 12:37 pm, ScotFraser > wrote:
><<
> My support is behind Lyndon LaRouche... He makes the most sense.. >>
>
>That dinosaur is still here? "Appears" to make sense but is one of the
most
>extreme nutcases around.
>
>Scott Fraser
>



Yeah and they put him in prison for four years too Freedom in America.

I just started listening to his show on wwcr recently so He is new to me.
He is running for the democratic nomination. Also he seems to have a lot
of International support.

wouldn't write him off as an 'extreme nutcase' . Kamakazee Candidate
maybe; a snowballs chance in hell of winning , or even getting press.
But he has a lot to say that noone else is touching.



---------------------------------------------------------
"Our Nations Must Come Together To Unite"
- George W Bush - Tampa FL . June 4th -2001
---------------------------------------------------------

[nmm]

On Tue, Sep 9, 2003 12:54 pm, James Boyk > wrote:
>Blind Joni wrote:
>> ...We have ..in most areas..the BEST "Health care" in the world.
>
>
>I'm no expert in this; but my impression is that while superb care exists
in
>the
>USA, by most measures of national health we do not have close to the best
>care.

According to the Health Care Olympics that teh show "TV Nation" ran the USA
came in a distant third behind Cuba, and Canada.

The show wasn't allowed to air in that form.. I forget if it was Fox or
the other network TV nation was on. They made the producers FIX the
results so Canada won..

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >, nmm > wrote:
>
> wouldn't write him off as an 'extreme nutcase' . Kamakazee Candidate
>maybe; a snowballs chance in hell of winning , or even getting press.
> But he has a lot to say that noone else is touching.

He is most definitely an extreme nutcase, and that's part of the problem.
He does have a lot to say, and he'll make sense for a few pages and then
something totally loonie will come out of his mouth. The problem is that
this now marginalizes most of the good points that he has.

Admittedly you can say the same thing about some mainstream politicians on
both sides of the aisle too.

His advocacy of nuclear fusion research has almost singlehandedly resulted
in fusion research now getting categorized as a loonie idea among the
political set due to his association with it. This is bad, because nuclear
fusion technology may well have a real future.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[ScotFraser]

<< Or does that not count because he was a
liberal
Democrat? >> >>

Oh Clinton is a liberal Democrat? I see. Hilarious. That would explain why he
appropriated the Republican agenda & passed it as his own. Do you really have
any clue as to what political liberalism is?
Didn't think so.

Scott Fraser

[Ben Bradley]

In rec.audio.pro, "William Sommerwerck" > wrote:

>Les Cargill wrote...
>
>> LeBaron & Alrich wrote:
>
>>> Kurt Albershardt > wrote:
>
>>>> The R&D is actually going rather well already. $87B would buy enough
>>>> PV panels (even at current prices) to alleviate a nice percentage of our
>>>> current issues.
>
>>> What about our voltage issues?
>
>> There's some resistance to those.
>
>Not to mention a lot of reluctance from the oil and gas companies, who are
>offering impedance to the development of alternative energy.
>
>I think we've run out of terms, but anyone is welcome to try.

Won't a balanced power transformer solve all the world's problems?

[Rob Adelman]

ScotFraser wrote:

>
> Electric cars are not being sold anymore as the oil companies have
> bought up the patents for the batteries. I kid you not. >>
>
>
> Obviously I didn't write the quote you ascribe to me, but I wonder how one can
> patent technology that has been in common use for many generations?

The battery technology is what makes or breaks the electric car
proposition. To have enough power to go the distance and speed you need,
they could weigh tons. The way I understand it was some new patented
battery designs that they were using and there is some sort of hold up
<g>. My brother has an electric Rav 4 and he says that is the deal. He
was leasing it but he bought it out before it was too late and says you
can't get em anymore or the GM EV1. There are some companies still
building electric cars but they are very expensive. The Toyota was only
a bit more than it's gas counterpart.

[Rob Adelman]

ScotFraser wrote:

> << Or does that not count because he was a
> liberal
> Democrat? >> >>
>
> Oh Clinton is a liberal Democrat? I see. Hilarious. That would explain why he
> appropriated the Republican agenda & passed it as his own. Do you really have
> any clue as to what political liberalism is?
> Didn't think so.

Thats true. You have to be close to the middle to be popular. Reagan was
popular because he (pretended) to be close to the middle as well.

[Rob Adelman]

Ben Bradley wrote:


> Won't a balanced power transformer solve all the world's problems?


Wouldn't help Exxon much..

[ralph gibbons]

(ScotFraser) wrote in message >...
> <<
> My support is behing Lyndon LaRouche... He makes the most sense.. >>
>
> That dinosaur is still here? "Appears" to make sense but is one of the most
> extreme nutcases around.

Yes, Anthony. Such men are dangerous. Stick with what you know,
candidates like George W. Bush, or Al Gore, candidates who make no
effort whatsoever to make sense.

[nmm]

On Tue, Sep 9, 2003 5:39 pm, Scott Dorsey > wrote:
>In article >, nmm > wrote:
>>
>> wouldn't write him off as an 'extreme nutcase' . Kamakazee Candidate
>>maybe; a snowballs chance in hell of winning , or even getting press.
>> But he has a lot to say that noone else is touching.
>
>He is most definitely an extreme nutcase, and that's part of the problem.
>He does have a lot to say, and he'll make sense for a few pages and then
>something totally loonie will come out of his mouth. The problem is that
>this now marginalizes most of the good points that he has.
>

I haven't run accross this yet, but I'm new to the Larouche movement..
Seems like he has a lot of international "Larouchies" working for him.

I did see some nasty things the Anti-Defamation League has written about
him, but looking at their website they seem to be extremist nustcases too;
so who to believe.


>Admittedly you can say the same thing about some mainstream politicians
>on both sides of the aisle too.
>
>His advocacy of nuclear fusion research has almost singlehandedly resulted
>in fusion research now getting categorized as a loonie idea among the
>political set due to his association with it. This is bad, because
nuclear
>fusion technology may well have a real future.
>--scott


Ontario Power Generation had an experimental/ research fusion reactor
that is supposed to be online at Darlington plant sometime soon . I think
there is some web information on it somewhere. Since OPG got bought by some
British consortium in the Privatisation craze a few years ago .. it would
seem strange that they would be doing any R&D into something that will have
no payoff.


I haven't heard the Larouche Fusion talk yet.. I'll go have a look for it
on the site.


I wonder if $87 Billion in R&D for Fusion would have got us somewhere.

[James Boyk]

Rob Adelman wrote:
> My brother has an electric Rav 4.... He was leasing it but
he bought it out before it was too late and says you can't get em
anymore or the GM EV1.



I'm quite sure I read that GM never sold the EV1. As a matter of policy, they
only leased them.


James Boyk

[Joel Embry]

Is that the second generation Prius or the first? I want to buy either
the Honda Civic or the Toyota Prius.

I hear they are working on a hybrid SUV of all things.

Joel


"squeeziechum" > wrote in message
.. .
> Well folks, I own a Prius (1 yr old this week), so that makes me a bit of
an
> expert here. It and the Civic hybrid have equivalent & fine acceleration,
> but they are not sports cars and should not be compared to sports cars. I
> have never been lacking for power and I usually leave other cars way
behind
> when I take off at the light. Why? First, they don't know that I'm
racing
> them ; ^ ) and second, electric motors have their best torque at the zero
> mph. The torque is so good in fact, that I have heard of other Prius
owners
> racing stock smogathon cars up long steep hills and beating them by a wide
> margin. Those same gas huffers would easily be able to whip by a hybrid
on
> a level road.
>
> Don't forget their design goal was to create an eco-sedan with reasonable
> comfort and features. They succeeded spectacularly.
>
> Phil / Houston
> "nmm" > wrote in message
...
> > On Tue, Sep 9, 2003 12:45 pm, P Stamler > wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>The Honda Civic Hybrid does not have to be plugged in. True it still
> > uses
> > >>>some
> > >>>gas but much less than the same car with only a gasoline engine.
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>Yeah, I passed one on the highway yesterday..I thought he was parked!!
> :)
> > >
> > >The Honda does have the reputation of being severely underpowered. The
> > >Toyota
> > >hybrid, however, has a good deal more pep.
> > >
> > >Peace,
> > >Paul
> > >
> >
> > the one Larry David's Wife made him buy?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

[Blind Joni]

> And with 42 million uninsured, the average level
>of care that our citizens *receive* is not remotely on the level of the best
>care that is *offered*.

Probably true if you define care the right way. You can define preventative
broadly enough to make it seem like a lot of people are under served..then
again many don't think free visits to the family doctor 12 times a year is
necessary especially when tax dollars are paying for it..and I believe Medicade
in NY state allows 12 visits/year/recipient.
I haven't been to the doctor 12 times in 48 years. It works both ways I think.


John A. Chiara
SOS Recording Studio
Live Sound Inc.
Albany, NY
www.sosrecording.net
518-449-1637

[Blind Joni]

>All I have to say is that there is nothing like being taken to the hospital
>with blood gushing out of your arm and being told that you'll have to go
>to another hospital because your insurance is not good enough to make you
>realize just how godawful health care in this country really is.

I'm not picking here but to examine the language a little...reading your quote
I would deduce that the problem is an insurance problem...no?
John A. Chiara
SOS Recording Studio
Live Sound Inc.
Albany, NY
www.sosrecording.net
518-449-1637

[Blind Joni]

>His advocacy of nuclear fusion research has almost singlehandedly resulted
>in fusion research now getting categorized as a loonie idea among the
>political set due to his association with it. This is bad, because nuclear
>fusion technology may well have a real future.
>--scott

This is too bad indeed..as I believe that Fusion IS the future.


John A. Chiara
SOS Recording Studio
Live Sound Inc.
Albany, NY
www.sosrecording.net
518-449-1637

[Blind Joni]

Scott, thanks again for some things I can chew on. I am again approaching this
logically by what was actually stated.

><< First..you're talking about health care "insurance coverage"..not health
>care.>>
>
>It equals the same thing in practice. Those without insurance can't afford
>the
>care. Same difference.

Possible analogy?
Does having car insurance affect the ability of the body shop to repair a
fender?

><<We have ..in
>most areas..the BEST "Health care" in the world.>>
>
>One can only assume from a statement like this that you've never accessed
>health care in any other part of the world. The US is most definitely NOT at
>the top of the heap.

I will take your word for this.


>>We have huge unemployment.
>
>6% = HUGE..got it.>>
>
>Yes it IS huge. With our population that means millions. It's the highest it
>has been since the depression, which btw was around 10% unemployment.

I believe that this is much less than many European countries..not that it
matters really.
And I know that 6% of 260+ million is indeed millions.

>>Schools a
>>disaster ...>
>
><<I agree..see it everyday..just wondering what the government can do to fix
>it.>>
>
>The government can, if it sees the value of education, insure that every
>American child gets a state of the art education, because I really don't
>think
>the billionaires are going to use their tax break millions to make sure
>America
>is educated.

First, I believe that the "government" sees the value of education...how can
they "insure" what you ask. I agree it would be the way to go but parents can't
"insure" their own kids will act responsibility..how the hell you gonna
"control" what millions of people want?
I wish it would come to pass but seriously..on what planet in which dimension
can you see this happening? I'm sure each of us know people personally that
would **** up this proposal.




John A. Chiara
SOS Recording Studio
Live Sound Inc.
Albany, NY
www.sosrecording.net
518-449-1637

[Blind Joni]

>> 6% = HUGE..got it.
>
>-12 dBFS

LOL!
John A. Chiara
SOS Recording Studio
Live Sound Inc.
Albany, NY
www.sosrecording.net
518-449-1637

[Blind Joni]

>My brother has an electric Rav 4

Saw one of these this week..how is it to drive?

John A. Chiara
SOS Recording Studio
Live Sound Inc.
Albany, NY
www.sosrecording.net
518-449-1637

[Blind Joni]

><< This is because we can not compete because of labor unions artificially
>inflating wages in the US for UNSKILLED workers. Since when did the
>guy tightening lug nuts in an automotive plant become middle class?>>
>
>I guess you think society would be better off with this guy & his kids living
>in his car on the edge of town because you think he's worth $3.75 an hour.

I think his point was that by negotiating a wage that he considers inflated,
the worker has no reason to become more skilled..unless of course he WANTED to
but we all seem to have let this slip out of the discussion.I think you can
only MAKE someone want something..if they are not naturally inclined to do
so... is by making it worth their time and effort


John A. Chiara
SOS Recording Studio
Live Sound Inc.
Albany, NY
www.sosrecording.net
518-449-1637

[Blind Joni]

>People are in too much of a hurry these days. Thats the trouble with all
>them young whippersnappers..

I haven't snapped a whip in years..although I watched a juggler guy at my gym
snapping one the other day..he hurt his hearing when he snapped too close.


John A. Chiara
SOS Recording Studio
Live Sound Inc.
Albany, NY
www.sosrecording.net
518-449-1637

[Blind Joni]

>The truth, as is always the case with
>truth, is considerably more complex, but a critical investigation doesn't
>suit
>the shallow mind. Suffice to say, for every instance of an individual not
>choosing self betterment there are equal numbers who are denied the
>opportunities at self improvement, due to racial discrimination, lack of
>economic resources, lack of transportation, lack of child care, simply put,
>lack. Blaming the poor for their poverty is convenient, simplistic & typical
>of
>the arrogance of the selfish.

And who or what decides how we fix all these things..again assuming that it's
possible..which of course we cannot know. I would hope all injustice could be
eliminated but I need a context in which all these things can be remedied.


John A. Chiara
SOS Recording Studio
Live Sound Inc.
Albany, NY
www.sosrecording.net
518-449-1637

[Blind Joni]

>Ethically you are right, It;s not our place to tell, but is it in you
>to support a regime like that.
>You are what you support through your purchases. So it all comes back
>to an individual's decisions, what type of world that they surround
>themselves with

One of the side effects of our lifestyle is that we are busy. And back to
China..are THEY going to be globally conscious when it comes to expanding
industry to feed billions. I don't think so ..and for this reason alone many
arguments about global economics and environment would appear moot. Sad but
true.


John A. Chiara
SOS Recording Studio
Live Sound Inc.
Albany, NY
www.sosrecording.net
518-449-1637

[James Boyk]

> I'm not picking here but to examine the language a little...reading your quote
> I would deduce that the problem is an insurance problem...no?


Isn't the problem rather that the insurance companies control medical care?


James Boyk

[James Boyk]

> ...I believe that Fusion IS the future.


With no controlled fusion having ever been demonstrated that comes even remotely
close to generating net energy? Dream on!


James Boyk

[Justin Ulysses Morse]

Joel Embry > wrote:

> I hear they are working on a hybrid SUV of all things.

I think it's a very good idea. If people insist on buying ridiculously
oversized and wasteful FTWs (to use the term coined by somebody here)
then they might as well be the most efficient ridiculously oversized
and wasteful FTWs possible. Sure, it would make more sense to slap
consumers in the head and make them quit buying such idiotic products,
but that's harder to do than making a more fuel-efficient vehicle.

There was a report on NPR the other day about San Diego (I think)
trying to get ethanol-burning cars into use. They interviewed one
consumer who said he was happy to own the Ethanol-burning Ford
Explorer. He was glad to be doing his part to help the environment. I
don't know if the interviewer slapped him or not.

ulysses

[nmm]

On Tue, Sep 9, 2003 11:48 pm, Rob Adelman
> wrote:
>
>
>LeBaron & Alrich wrote:
>
>>>To have enough power to go the distance and speed you need,
>>>they could weigh tons.
>>
>>
>> Prius has about 1000 lbs. of batteries aboard.
>
>But that is a hybrid, with a gas engine. A true electric needs much more
>storage capacity.
>
>

Except for the Peirce Arrow that Tesla put the electric motor in that ran
off ambient electricity.

I've only read accounts of this.. there are no schematics for what he did.

[Scott Dorsey]

Blind Joni > wrote:
>>All I have to say is that there is nothing like being taken to the hospital
>>with blood gushing out of your arm and being told that you'll have to go
>>to another hospital because your insurance is not good enough to make you
>>realize just how godawful health care in this country really is.
>
>I'm not picking here but to examine the language a little...reading your quote
>I would deduce that the problem is an insurance problem...no?

In great part, yes. But high quality care that people can't actually get
isn't high quality care at all. And a lot of that has to do with the insane
legal costs in the health care industry, but certainly not all of it.

My town no longer has any obstetricians... you have go to out of town to
deliver a baby. Just cost too much for them to keep their doors open.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[James Boyk]

>> James Boyk wrote: With no controlled fusion having ever been
demonstrated that comes even remotely close to generating net
energy? Dream on!


Scott Dorsey wrote: > What about the sun?


Hardly "controlled," eh?


James Boyk

[Tom Paterson]

>From: James Boyk

>Scott Dorsey wrote: > What about the sun?
>
>
>Hardly "controlled," eh?

Sounds like a good job for the Republicans. --Tom Paterson

[LeBaron & Alrich]

Scott Dorsey > wrote:

> James Boyk > wrote:
> >> ...I believe that Fusion IS the future.

> >With no controlled fusion having ever been demonstrated that comes even
> >remotely close to generating net energy? Dream on!

> What about the sun?

Every time I try to plug in the cord my wristwaatch gets fried.

--
ha

[ScotFraser]

<< Possible analogy?
Does having car insurance affect the ability of the body shop to repair a
fender?>>

Incorrect analogy. Having car insurance affects the likelihood of a car owner
getting the dent fixed. The body shop doesn't have the problem. Neither does
the Mayo clinic have a problem performing a heart transplant. Your not having
health insurance, however, does affect your ability to have a heart transplant.

<<I believe that this is much less than many European countries..not that it
matters really.>>

They have huge unemployment as well. The point is, 6% unemployment is not
indicative of a healthy economy. 2% to 3% is generally considered functionally
full employment in a healthy economy.

<<First, I believe that the "government" sees the value of education..>>

If we are equating the term "Government" with the current administration, I
would vigorously disagree with the above statement. Regardless of what is said
about "No child left behind" the result of the Republican agenda is a massive
defunding of education.

<<.how can
they "insure" what you ask.>>

That one's very easy. One can insure that the cost of an education doesn't
prevent anybody desiring education from obtaining it.

<< I agree it would be the way to go but parents can't
"insure" their own kids will act responsibility..how the hell you gonna
"control" what millions of people want?>>

I'm not talking about any sort of control of what people want. I'm saying
people who DO want college education can get college education if society
believes education is important. If society believes education is only for the
upper half of the economic spectrum, then we have what we have today, i.e. a
society of ill-educated voters who are underequipped to deal with current
complexities.

<<I wish it would come to pass but seriously..on what planet in which dimension
can you see this happening? I'm sure each of us know people personally that
would **** up this proposal. >>

All you do is make sure that those who want to educate themselves can afford
college. This is really very easy.


Scott Fraser

[Steve]

Well, here is the score so far......these people may qualify for a
chat room.

27 blindjoni
14 kurtalbershartd
13 nmm
10 scott frasier
10 johnLeblanc
10 PStaimler
9 RobAdleman
8 Joel (something)
8 LeBaron&Alrich
7 William Sommerwerch
------
116 Posts

I love you guys, but this subject was done within the first 10 posts.
Refrain, don't reprise, reprise, reprise, reprise..........for freakin
ever.

Numbers and spelling are approximate...........

Steve

[Charles Thomas]

In article >,
(Scott Dorsey) wrote:

> This is bad, because nuclear
> fusion technology may well have a real future.

It actually has a pretty impressive present since it's what's running
the Sun.

CT

[William Sommerwerck]

I'd think liberals would be more interested in controlling things!

>>> What about the sun?

>> Hardly "controlled," eh?

> Sounds like a good job for the Republicans.

[John LeBlanc]

"Steve" > wrote in message
om...
> Well, here is the score so far......these people may qualify for a
> chat room.

You actually wasted time out of your life to count these things up? Hey, Steve,
we'll keep a seat warm for you. <g>

John

[Charles Thomas]

In article >,
"William Sommerwerck" > wrote:

> I'd think liberals would be more interested in controlling things!

Basically confirming my hypothesis (I actually wrote it all out once on
a spreadsheet, it was very complex) that liberals and conservatives have
very different ideas about what those words mean.

CT

[James Boyk]

Charles Thomas wrote:
> ... (I actually wrote it all out once on a spreadsheet,
it was very complex) that liberals and conservatives have
very different ideas about what those words mean.


I've discovered a remarkable book which may interest participants. It's by Prof.
George Lakoff, and is called "Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives
Think, Second Edition. (See
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/hfs.cgi/00/14819.ctl .)


I've just begun reading it, so I'm not endorsing it (or the reverse); but I can
say that the first three pages have revolutionized my view of the subject (as
happened w/ the first 3 of "The Enigma of Japanese Power," by Karel van
Wolferen, some years ago); and that it looks like the first thing I've seen that
will actually cast Light on the subject instead of adding to the bonfire.


Publisher's blurb (and by the way, "cognitive science" is real science. It must
be: my son's majoring in it--and history--at Lakoff's school!):


In this classic text, the first full-scale application of cognitive science to
politics, George Lakoff analyzes the unconscious and rhetorical worldviews of
liberals and conservatives, discovering radically different but remarkably
consistent conceptions of morality on both the left and right. For this new
edition, Lakoff adds a preface and an afterword extending his observations to
major ideological conflicts since the book's original publication, from the
impeachment of Bill Clinton to the 2000 presidential election and its aftermath.


"[An] unusual mix of judicious scholarship, tendentious journalism and
inflammatory wake-up call."--Editors' Recommendation, San Francisco Chronicle


"Lakoff, the cognitive linguist, understands 'how' you understand. In Moral
Politics, [he] deftly applies that seemingly arcane understanding to the heart
of American politics. . . . His commitment is strong and deep, but his language
is far from the rhetoric usually associated with political partisanship. . . .
Even those who disagree with him will profit deeply from encountering his
challenging ideas." --Paul Rosenberg, Christian Science Monitor


Table of Contents

Preface
Acknowledgments

Part I: Introduction
1. The Minds and Politics
2. The Worldview Problem for American Politics

Part II: Moral Conceptual Systems
3. Experiential Morality
4. Keeping the Moral Books
5. Strict Father Morality
6. Nurturant Parent Morality

Part III: From Family-Based Morality to Politics
7. Why We Need a New Understanding of American Politics
8. The Nature of the Model
9. Moral Categories in Politics

Part IV: The Hard Issues
10. Social Programs and Taxes
11. Crime and the Death Penalty
12. Regulation and the Environment
13. The Culture Wars: From Affirmative Action to the Arts
14. Two Models of Christianity
15. Abortion
16. How Can You Love Your Country and Hate Your Government?

Part V: Summing Up
17. Varieties of Liberals and Conservatives
18. Pathologies, Stereotypes, and Distortions
19. Can There Be a Politics without Family Values?

Part VI: Who's Right? And How Can You Tell?
20. Nonideological Reasons for Being a Liberal
21. Raising Real Children
22. The Human Mind
23. Basic Humanity

Epilogue: Problems for Public Discourse
Afterword
References
Index


The University of Chicago Press

[Charles Thomas]

In article >,
James Boyk > wrote:

> Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives
> Think

Wow. The table of contents is almost identical to the categories on the
spreadsheet I was talking about.

CT

[Ben Bradley]

Scott wrote:

>His advocacy of nuclear fusion research has almost singlehandedly resulted
>in fusion research now getting categorized as a loonie idea among the
>political set due to his association with it. This is bad, because nuclear
>fusion technology may well have a real future.

I haven't followed what LaRouche has been saying, but if I
accidentally hear him (or any politician, whether mainstream or flake)
state an opinion on something like fusion, it won't sway my opinion
either way. I'm sorry to hear that something that might be good gets
discredited just because he endorses it.

>--scott

In rec.audio.pro, James Boyk > wrote:

>> ...I believe that Fusion IS the future.
>
>
>With no controlled fusion having ever been demonstrated that comes even remotely
>close to generating net energy? Dream on!

Fusion research has been going on for 30 to 40 years (wasn't there
supposed to be fusion plants in the '70's or '80's or so?), and I'm
sure the total research money spent is many billions. Making
controlled fusion practical for electric power generation appears to
be a substantially harder problem than believed/predicted. Will it
ever be practical?
I'm sure the research has generated some neat spin-offs, perhaps
even enough to cover the investments, but that wasn't the point...

>James Boyk

[Tom Paterson]

>From: "William Sommerwerck"

>I'd think liberals would be more interested >in controlling things!

Homeland Security is a liberal agenda item?

Hey, speaking of control, did you notice how the Conservative Media hushed up
the Neil Bush divorce? He admitted to having sexual intercourse "outside the
marriage". Now there's a notable loss of control! --TP

[Twist Turner]

I'd build a house out of Pultecs :-)





http://www.vintagemicsales.com

[nmm]

On Wed, Sep 10, 2003 4:22 pm, Tom Paterson
> wrote:
>>From: "William Sommerwerck"
>
>>I'd think liberals would be more interested >in controlling things!
>
>Homeland Security is a liberal agenda item?
>
>Hey, speaking of control, did you notice how the Conservative Media hushed
>up
>the Neil Bush divorce? He admitted to having sexual intercourse "outside
>the
>marriage". Now there's a notable loss of control! --TP



Neil Savings and Loan Bush?

Him and Marvin fly way under the rader most of the time


---------------------------------------------------------
"You Teach A Child To Read, And He Or Her Will Be Able To Pass A Literacy
Test"
- George W Bush - Townsend Tn . Feb 21rst -2001
---------------------------------------------------------

[Chris Hornbeck]

On 10 Sep 2003 03:34:48 GMT, (Blind Joni) wrote:

> I believe that Fusion IS the future.

A big follower of r.a.p. political threads, old Dr. Strangelove
himself, Edward Teller, in a blatant attempt to take things even
further off topic, died today.

On Mars, flags are flying at half-mast.


Chris Hornbeck

[Blind Joni]

>I love you guys, but this subject was done within the first 10 posts.
>Refrain, don't reprise, reprise, reprise, reprise..........for freakin
>ever.
>

Hey, I'm at the top of the list. Actually I don't engage in political exchanges
any more in person. I have jumped into this one to help me with some studying
I've been doing about the use of language in debates and arguements and I found
some interesting leaps of logic and cases of someone reading a response and
reacting emotionally and responding to their interpretation of the post instead
of what was actually written..something we all of course do all the time..but
still interesting.




John A. Chiara
SOS Recording Studio
Live Sound Inc.
Albany, NY
www.sosrecording.net
518-449-1637

[Blind Joni]

>My town no longer has any obstetricians... you have go to out of town to
>deliver a baby. Just cost too much for them to keep their doors open.

This seems to be an insurance problem also.

John A. Chiara
SOS Recording Studio
Live Sound Inc.
Albany, NY
www.sosrecording.net
518-449-1637

[Scott Dorsey]

Blind Joni > wrote:
>>My town no longer has any obstetricians... you have go to out of town to
>>deliver a baby. Just cost too much for them to keep their doors open.
>
>This seems to be an insurance problem also.

Nahh, the insurance problem is -caused- by a litigation problem. In this
case, anyway. Courts award plenty of money to spurious claims, insurance
rates rise for everyone, people leave the field. Sort of like what happened
to the general aviation industry....
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[LeBaron & Alrich]

P Stamler > wrote:

> Ah yes, Lyndon LaRouche. He used to accuse Queen Elizabeth of being a dope
> pusher. Nuff said.

Ol' Lyndon's share of the wimmen vote is likely to be a pretty miniscule
little thing.

--
ha

[Les Cargill]

LeBaron & Alrich wrote:
>
> Scott Dorsey > wrote:
>
> > James Boyk > wrote:
> > >> ...I believe that Fusion IS the future.
>
> > >With no controlled fusion having ever been demonstrated that comes even
> > >remotely close to generating net energy? Dream on!
>
> > What about the sun?
>
> Every time I try to plug in the cord my wristwaatch gets fried.
>
> --
> ha

Gotta getta Monster cable cord, then. Gennywine oxegyn free.

--
Les Cargill

[Les Cargill]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
>
> The Sun is not controlled fusion.
>
> >> With no controlled fusion having ever been demonstrated that
> >> comes even remotely close to generating net energy? Dream on!
>
> > What about the sun?

It's contained, by gravity. There are two possible interpretations
of "controlled" here - contrained, and managed. It's constrained.

--
Les Cargill

[Les Cargill]

P Stamler wrote:
>
> Ah yes, Lyndon LaRouche. He used to accuse Queen Elizabeth of being a dope
> pusher. Nuff said.
>
> Peace,
> Paul

That's the problem with LaRouche. He always got the time frames wrong.

The British Empire did indeed insist on opium imports into
China at one point.

--
Les Cargill

[Les Cargill]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
> Blind Joni > wrote:
> >>My town no longer has any obstetricians... you have go to out of town to
> >>deliver a baby. Just cost too much for them to keep their doors open.
> >
> >This seems to be an insurance problem also.
>
> Nahh, the insurance problem is -caused- by a litigation problem. In this
> case, anyway. Courts award plenty of money to spurious claims, insurance
> rates rise for everyone, people leave the field. Sort of like what happened
> to the general aviation industry....
> --scott
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

No, insurance ( specifically Blue Cross ) happened in 1948 when there
was a wage freeze on to hold down postwar inflation. People offered
Blue Cross in lieu of money, and it became A Natural Right.

Once you get insurance, there evinces an iron trianlge effect -
the doctors pass on cost to the insurance companies, the
insurance companies on to the premium payers, who then
bring in lawyers at select points to chaoticize things.

I've seen the Canadian system, and it's probably destiny,
but who knows what happens in Canada when it hits the fan.

Some blame the management, some the employees, but most of
all young man you've got industrial disease.

--
Les Cargill

[Scott Dorsey]

Les Cargill > wrote:
>
>I've seen the Canadian system, and it's probably destiny,
>but who knows what happens in Canada when it hits the fan.

In Canada, and to a lesser extent the UK, there is the general feeling that
health care is a limited resource that needs to be carefully allocated and
rationed so the people who need it get it. It's got a lot of problems as well,
but it at least provides a minimum standard of care for everyone. And health
care is also one of those things where if you catch problems early it turns
out to be much less expensive than if you catch them late, so universal care
can be a win for some segment of the population just in that things get caught
earlier.

I'm not saying this is necessarily a good solution, and it's got some
real problems, but claiming that the health care in the US is the best in
the world is pretty clearly not a valid thing to do.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Glenn Dowdy]

"Les Cargill" > wrote in message
...
> P Stamler wrote:
> >
> > Ah yes, Lyndon LaRouche. He used to accuse Queen Elizabeth of being a
dope
> > pusher. Nuff said.
> >
> > Peace,
> > Paul
>
> That's the problem with LaRouche. He always got the time frames wrong.
>
> The British Empire did indeed insist on opium imports into
> China at one point.
>
It did reverse the trade imbalance and gave the British that barren rock
called Hong Kong.

Glenn D.

[ScotFraser]

<< the way you explained it makes it seem like a good analogy.
Car insurance = likelihood of getting fender fixed
Health Insurance = likelihood of getting heart transplant
EXCEPT..that in most states/counties..whatever..you cannot be refused life
saving medical treatment ..Taylor Law I think. I see a lot of dented fenders
around here.>>

You lost me in the linear logic quest with this. Whose point are you trying to
make?

<<Do any countries have this low a rate?>>

I don't know. Given the current economic downturn, maybe none. This existed in
the US just a few years ago.


<<Don't student loans already do a part of this. >>

What, allow every single person who desires a college education to afford one?
I don't think so. Is every low income student eligible for such loans?

<<I would rather have the
prospective student on the hook for the tab than taxpayers. If the student
can't or won't take on the debt of investing in his/herself why would someone
else want to? To make sure someone can afford something we have to either
control costs or agree to pay whatever it costs...who would agree to this?>>

A society that values education as something that benefits all of society would
foot the bill. A society that sees education merely as a career move for the
individual would not.

Scott Fraser

[Charles Thomas]

In article >,
(ralph gibbons) wrote:

> Why do guys like you, who know nothing whatsoever about LaRouche, feel
> compelled to enter into these debates? If LaRouche interests you, you
> could actually learn something truthful at
> http://www.LaRoucheIn2004.net


No offense, but someone's self-promoting and completely biased website
is hardly the place I'd turn to learn the "truth" about anything.

CT

[P Stamler]

>He can always stuff a ballot box.
>
>Oh wait. Wrong Lyndon.

Right -- that was Landslide Lyndon, who won his first election by -- hey, 87
votes. See, we're on-topic after all.

Four score and seven billion ago...

Peace,
Paul

[[email protected]]

On 2003-09-11 (ScottDorsey) said:
>In Canada, and to a lesser extent the UK, there is the general
>feeling that health care is a limited resource that needs to be
>carefully allocated and rationed so the people who need it get it.
>It's got a lot of problems as well, but it at least provides a
>minimum standard of care for everyone. And health care is also
>one of those things where if you catch problems early it turns out
>to be much less expensive than if you catch them late, so universal
>care can be a win for some segment of the population just in that
>things get caught earlier. I'm not saying this is necessarily a
>good solution, and it's got some real problems, but claiming that
>the health care in the US is the best in the world is pretty
>clearly not a valid thing to do. --

Surely not. oUr main problem with our supposed best health care
system is it's all driven by dollars thanks to the insurance company
vultures. Hollistic approaches are pooh poohed and everything's
driven toward the profits for the surgeons and the drug companies
supposedly, but really for the profits for the insurances companies.
After all if general health care is reasonably priced many wouldn't
worry about being uninsured.

A case in point: My lady is diabetic. IT seems that I can buy her
insulin for less money without using her so-called prescription policy
provided her by her employers. tHe hospitalization part of her plan
appears to be pretty reasonable (we'll see when we see how much of the
bill they pay for her recent hospital stay.)

I'm one of the "uninsured' by choice. what plans I've seen that would
cover me don't cover me adequately. oN an annual visit for a physical
they'd end up paying virtually nothing. IF I do get sick
prescriptions aren't covered, yet my premiums would be roughly $700
annually. Quite a joke if you ask me. Btw it's equivalent to
medicare's part B. NIce to know what mom and pop get unless they were
part of one of the big unions or something similar that provides them
a better benefit in their retirement years.

Early detection and hollistic approaches to health care should be the
norm and would be if we didn't have the insurance companies wanting to
drive up the costs of everything so as to keep the wheels turning and
the cash boxes going cha ching.

REgards,



Richard Webb
Electric Spider Productions
REplace anything before the @ symbol with elspider for real email

--

[P Stamler]

>> Ah yes, Lyndon LaRouche. He used to accuse Queen Elizabeth of being a dope
>> pusher. Nuff said.
>
>Actually, that line was concocted by Mark Nykanen of NBC-TV (formerly
>of "High Times" magazine).
>
>Why do guys like you, who know nothing whatsoever about LaRouche, feel
>compelled to enter into these debates? If LaRouche interests you, you
>could actually learn something truthful at
>http://www.LaRoucheIn2004.net

Then why were representatives of LaRouche pushing precisely that position in
the 1980s? And to the question, "Did you hear them do it?" -- yes, I did, on
KMOX radio in St. Louis. Representatives of one of LaRouche's organizations
were explicitly saying that Queen Elizabeth was organizing and sponsoring dope
peddling in America, and that was the source of many of our major problems. I
am not making this up; they said it, I heard it. On, let it be noted, a major
station, then and now the ratings leader in the St. Louis market. (Also then
and now a miserably bad station, but that's another issue.)

This is the same Lyndon LaRouche who, under the name Lyn Marcus, said he was a
flaming leftie back in the early 70s, and said that if you didn't like
Beethoven you were a fascist, and that anyone who claimed to like both
Beethoven and the Beatles was either a liar or a CIA agent. I'm not making this
up either.

Peace,
Paul

[LeBaron & Alrich]

P Stamler > wrote:

> This is the same Lyndon LaRouche who, under the name Lyn Marcus, said he
> was a flaming leftie back in the early 70s, and said that if you didn't
> like Beethoven you were a fascist, and that anyone who claimed to like
> both Beethoven and the Beatles was either a liar or a CIA agent. I'm not
> making this up either.

It's not like he's completely out of his so-called mind or anything.

People are getting so used to hearing totally nuts **** that they've
lost track of where is terra firma.

--
ha

[[email protected]]

On 2003-09-11 said:
>> >I've seen the Canadian system, and it's probably destiny,
>> >but who knows what happens in Canada when it hits the fan.
>> In Canada, and to a lesser extent the UK, there is the general
>feeling that
>> health care is a limited resource that needs to be carefully
>>allocated and rationed so the people who need it get it.
>Yep - my understanding is that a 70 year old in the UK will NOT be
>eligible for a heart transplant, no matter how much they may need
>it. It's considered to bee too much money for too little return.
Your understanding is right on the mark from what I've been told. I
can agree with that. HOwever when a 30 year old diabetic doesn't get
hte care he or she needs that's a whole different ballgame. A heart
transplant for a 70 year old? where's the payoff? STill it beats
kids who don't have even rudiments of health care as in proper
monitoring of their health to alleviate possible problems before they
become major.

YEs this is a libertarian saying this to you. THe system we have now
obviously isn't working for many but a few large companies who profit
mightily. YEs I know that some countries who do better than we pay
for this through higher taxes on many commidities and services,
gasoline included folks. sTill if you're going to hold yourself out
as a place where everybody has acces to good health care then you've
gotta put the money where the mouth is or shut the F*** up!





Richard Webb
Electric Spider Productions
REplace anything before the @ symbol with elspider for real email

--



Braille: support true literacy for the blind!

[Blind Joni]

><<I would rather have the
>prospective student on the hook for the tab than taxpayers. If the student
>can't or won't take on the debt of investing in his/herself why would someone
>else want to? To make sure someone can afford something we have to either
>control costs or agree to pay whatever it costs...who would agree to this?>>
>
>A society that values education as something that benefits all of society
>would
>foot the bill. A society that sees education merely as a career move for the
>individual would not.

AHA..getting clearer now. It seems that this may be a little bit of a "not
seeing the forest for the trees" perspective. We want "society" to pay for an
"individuals" education but the motivation is a "proposed" better benefit to
society. The rub seems to be that I don't know ANYONE who seeks an education to
better society. This perspective would seem to have to include the "society"
having a say over what the individual studies to best benefit society..if it
was to be what anyone would see to be a properly managed system.
....and how do we decide who decides?
Seems really complicated.


John A. Chiara
SOS Recording Studio
Live Sound Inc.
Albany, NY
www.sosrecording.net
518-449-1637

[William Sommerwerck]

> ...early detection, in some specific diseases, has recently
> been found to help not at all. And "holistic" approaches are
> valuable in some regards, not in others. Double-blind testing
> is the only way to find out...

Do you know what you just said?

Oh, vey -- are you gonna be in trouble with AK, et al.

[John LeBlanc]

"Blind Joni" > wrote in message
...

> AHA..getting clearer now. It seems that this may be a little bit of a "not
> seeing the forest for the trees" perspective. We want "society" to pay for an
> "individuals" education but the motivation is a "proposed" better benefit to
> society. The rub seems to be that I don't know ANYONE who seeks an education
to
> better society. This perspective would seem to have to include the "society"
> having a say over what the individual studies to best benefit society..if it
> was to be what anyone would see to be a properly managed system.
> ...and how do we decide who decides?
> Seems really complicated.


Doesn't seem complicated to me.

This country was built on, and our Constitution speaks of personal freedoms,
personal initiatives, and personal achievements. Certainly those pursuits were
(and are) constrained to a degree by societal pressure/expectations, but not
dictated by them. Nor should they be dictated by them.

John

[James Boyk]

>>Double-blind testing is the only way to find out...


William Sommerwerck wrote: > Do you know what you just said?



Huh? But I've never said a word against double-blind testing....

James Boyk

[ScotFraser]

<< We want "society" to pay for an
"individuals" education but the motivation is a "proposed" better benefit to
society. The rub seems to be that I don't know ANYONE who seeks an education to
better society. >>

The individual may not be motivated to improve society but the effect of a well
educated populace is unmistakable.

<<This perspective would seem to have to include the "society"
having a say over what the individual studies to best benefit society..if it
was to be what anyone would see to be a properly managed system.
....and how do we decide who decides?
Seems really complicated.>>

I don't think so at all. We already have educational requirements in place,
thus does someone who obtains a degree also have a liberal dose of general
knowledge.

Scott Fraser

[[email protected]]

On 2003-09-11 (BlindJoni) said:
>>foot the bill. A society that sees education merely as a career
>>move for the individual would not.
>AHA..getting clearer now. It seems that this may be a little bit of
>a "not seeing the forest for the trees" perspective. We want
>"society" to pay for an "individuals" education but the motivation
>is a "proposed" better benefit to society. The rub seems to be that
>I don't know ANYONE who seeks an education to better society. This
>perspective would seem to have to include the "society" having a
>say over what the individual studies to best benefit society..if it
>was to be what anyone would see to be a properly managed system. ...
>.and how do we decide who decides? Seems really complicated.
Um, on this later I see it every day in rehab for the "disabled" at
least in rehab agencies for the blind. IF the guy wants to go into
rehab work or some other profession that they like rehab will foot the
bill. IF the applicant might wish to study to be a chemist or
physicist or even a physician however rehab might ask him/her if
happiness couldn't be achieved by this person becoming a vendor or
something. THIs person might make a lousy vendor of sandwiches for
federal employees but might have the temperament to succeed in his
chosen field.

THis isn't as prevalent in rehab as it was a couple decades ago, but
it was a big bone of contention within the community for quite a few
years. Choice should always be left with the individual with guidance
from professionals to help one make intelligent choices of course.

A society that makes the educational choices for a person and then
finds him or her ill suited to a career in the chosen field of
endeavor doesn't serve itself well. Example: YOu don't want me in
social work. I have little sympathy, in fact will tell folks that
you'll find it in the dictionary between **** and Syphilis. YEt I'm a
fairly decent sound guy and a decent musician.

We have to remember that among those in our society who don't choose
to better themselves by education and other tools there is a prevalent
lack of mentoring or guidance. THe parents have no skills as mentors
and the schools are under staffed and under funded enough that no real
mentoring or motivation takes place for many of these folks. That's
why you and I witness second and third generation welfare families
with no moral judgment and little idea of what really makes for a
better way to live. THere's no cohesive family unit; alliances and
teamwork are temporary things as fleeting as the wind through the
trees. YOur friend and compadre of today might stab you in the back
tomorrow if it would seem to benefit him. YOur dad---what dad? YOur
mom---same difference. School? THey're too busy playing cops to
worry about whether you actually show up motivated to learn anything.

There's a young man who lives up the street from me who made a
mistake. HE dropped out of school for one year. HE smartened up and
went back. COunsellors and others said this young man was bright
enough to do anything he wanted to do in life. HE's decided he wants
to finish school and become a mechanical engineer. HOwever this is
his senior year and he's 18. SUddenly the school system is telling
him he can't finish because he's of the age of majority and they have
too many other bodies need to fill those seats. I think he got it
settled because school has started around here and I don't see him on
the corner when I go across the street to get lunch, but I was
prepared to go to some people and see if we could network him into any
kind of program that would actually help him finish preparing for
further education.

THis man's the exception to those we see a lot of, but I can point to
more in my neighborhood. I just got to know this man personally over
the last year and a half that I've lived here.

Regards,




Richard Webb
Electric Spider Productions
REplace anything before the @ symbol with elspider for real email

--

[ralph gibbons]

Charles Thomas > wrote in message >...
> In article >,
> (ralph gibbons) wrote:
>
> > Why do guys like you, who know nothing whatsoever about LaRouche, feel
> > compelled to enter into these debates? If LaRouche interests you, you
> > could actually learn something truthful at
> > http://www.LaRoucheIn2004.net
>
>
> No offense, but someone's self-promoting and completely biased website
> is hardly the place I'd turn to learn the "truth" about anything.

No offense taken. My point is, if it came from that person's web site,
it most likely is an accurate reflection of that person's opinions and
proposals. If it came from somewhere else, Caveat emptor!

[James Boyk]

At this time I cannot reveal what I would do with the $87B. Give me the money
and see for yourselves, okay?


James Boyk

[shawn]

ScotFraser wrote:
> << We want "society" to pay for an
> "individuals" education but the motivation is a "proposed" better
> benefit to society. The rub seems to be that I don't know ANYONE who
> seeks an education to better society. >>
>
> The individual may not be motivated to improve society but the effect
> of a well educated populace is unmistakable.

What is the unmistakable effect of a well-educated populace?

[shawn]

wrote:
> A society that makes the educational choices for a person and then
> finds him or her ill suited to a career in the chosen field of
> endeavor doesn't serve itself well. Example: YOu don't want me in
> social work. I have little sympathy, in fact will tell folks that
> you'll find it in the dictionary between **** and Syphilis.

That actually might be a useful characteristic in some social work.

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >, nmm > wrote:
>
>I heard on the CBN News today that the Bush admin has found $74 Million
>for "Abstinance Education"
>
>$74 MIllion? Where will that go to? Really where ...Is there a Youth Anti
>Sex Ministry out there now? Next to the Ministry of Homeland Security, or
>the Monistry of Morality.

I will pledge not to have sex for a whole month for a mere $10 million.
Where do I send my grant application?
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[nmm]

On Fri, Sep 12, 2003 3:23 am, James Boyk
> wrote:
>At this time I cannot reveal what I would do with the $87B. Give me the
>money
>and see for yourselves, okay?
>
>
>James Boyk
>
>

I heard on the CBN News today that the Bush admin has found $74 Million
for "Abstinance Education"

$74 MIllion? Where will that go to? Really where ...Is there a Youth Anti
Sex Ministry out there now? Next to the Ministry of Homeland Security, or
the Monistry of Morality.

[nmm]

On Fri, Sep 12, 2003 1:52 am, ralph gibbons
> wrote:
>Charles Thomas > wrote
>in message >...
>> In article >,
>> (ralph gibbons) wrote:
>>
>> > Why do guys like you, who know nothing whatsoever about LaRouche, feel
>> > compelled to enter into these debates? If LaRouche interests you, you
>> > could actually learn something truthful at
>> > http://www.LaRoucheIn2004.net
>>
>>
>> No offense, but someone's self-promoting and completely biased website
>> is hardly the place I'd turn to learn the "truth" about anything.
>
>No offense taken. My point is, if it came from that person's web site,
>it most likely is an accurate reflection of that person's opinions and
>proposals. If it came from somewhere else, Caveat emptor!
>

On Thu, Sep 11, 2003 1:26 pm, ? wrote:
>P Stamler > wrote:
>
>> This is the same Lyndon LaRouche who, under the name Lyn Marcus, said he
>> was a flaming leftie back in the early 70s, and said that if you didn't
>> like Beethoven you were a fascist, and that anyone who claimed to like
>> both Beethoven and the Beatles was either a liar or a CIA agent. I'm not
>> making this up either.
>
>It's not like he's completely out of his so-called mind or anything.
>
>People are getting so used to hearing totally nuts **** that they've
>lost track of where is terra firma.
>
>--
>ha


There is a lot of disinformation used against the Larouche people. Anyone
tied to the "Socialist Workers of America Party", is systematically
persecuted by Government. The best examples of this are HUAC, and
COINTELPRO.

Look at what law enforcement did to Fred Hampton.

Larouche has been accused , more substantialy than just 'nutcase' calls, of
being a 'communist', 'neo-nazi', 'anti-semite'.Just gojng from what i can
find on the net, none of these accusations have any validity. Even the
antidefamation league's website simply name calls with refrence.

Lyn Marcus? This seems like pure disinnformation with a "legal back-door".
ie: we didn't say you said that we said Lyn Marcus said that, and implied
that you were him. It's a good trick.

Since Larouche is being shut out of the debates.. The only coverage of his
views at the recent African American League's recent Demoratic Candidates'
debate, was mention on PBS of shouts from the audiance.The Same way they
wouldn't let Nader debate Bush and Gore..

You won't see the Larouche view on mainstream media.. and the small part
you do see is very twisted by that media.

[LeBaron & Alrich]

shawn > wrote:

> ScotFraser wrote:
> > << We want "society" to pay for an
> > "individuals" education but the motivation is a "proposed" better
> > benefit to society. The rub seems to be that I don't know ANYONE who
> > seeks an education to better society. >>
> >
> > The individual may not be motivated to improve society but the effect
> > of a well educated populace is unmistakable.
>
> What is the unmistakable effect of a well-educated populace?

The ability to perceive societal morality (not religious morality),
comprehend complex issues, develop new goodies both material and
intellectual - in short, the advancement of the capabilities of the
species.

--
hank alrich * secret mountain
audio recording * music production * sound reinforcement
"If laughter is the best medicine let's take a double dose"

[P Stamler]

>I will pledge not to have sex for a whole month for a mere $10 million.
>Where do I send my grant application?

I notice on your application that you specified February. And people still
doubt the utility of an education!

Peace,
Paul

[mourningman]

John LeBlanc wrote:

> "Chris Hornbeck" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Tue, 9 Sep 2003 04:57:44 -0500, "John LeBlanc"
> > > wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Clinton ... was
> > >****ing on the chance to get bin Laden on a silver platter,
> >
> > Other rantage snipped, but this is a piece of history that
> > should not be allowed to be re-written. While Clinton was
> > president, the CIA had predators actively looking for Osama
> > bin Laden, with shoot to kill orders. This quietly ended
> > after the change of administration.
>
> Really? Please present your proof of this allegation.
>
> Meanwhile, I assume you are calling Bill Clinton a liar when, February 15, 2002,
> in a public speech to the Long Island Association, Clinton admitted he spurned a
> Sudanese offer to hand over bin Laden. (If you chose to disbelieve Clinton
> himself -- which is perfectly understandable -- Sandy Berger admits the offer
> was made.) The fact is, Bashir offered to arrest and extradite bin Laden -- or
> at least baby sit him -- and provide intel on Hamas, Islamic Jihad and
> Hezbollah. Clinton ignored the offer.
>
> Feel free to make yourself more informed:
> http://www.nationalreview.com/ijaz/ijaz042903.asp
>
> By the way, audio tape of the speech Clinton made to the Long Island Association
> backing up Ijaz's claims is available if you wish to review it yourself. Or not.
> I know how some people feel about facts that interfere with their version of
> history.
>
> > >9/11
> >
> > Two years later, why don't we have him?
>
> Because bin Laden is either dead or hasn't been captured. Those would be my two
> guesses. What's yours?
>
> John

I have read The National Review... it is just propaganda. You really need to look
into the quality of your sources... not doing so really undermines your credibility.

Ratt

[John LeBlanc]

"mourningman" > wrote in message
...

> I have read The National Review... it is just propaganda. You really need to
look
> into the quality of your sources... not doing so really undermines your
credibility.

Ha! I never presumed I had any credibility with anyone who didn't know me. <g>
But I understand what you're saying.

If I posted a link to a website like the New York Times or the Washington Post
that had the same information, you're suggesting that would make my point more
valid? That's sort of screwy, don't you think? Either a thing is factual or it
is not. The NR article -- which was an opinion piece to begin with -- was
written by the man who attempted to broker the deal.

John

[Justin Ulysses Morse]

John LeBlanc > wrote:

> "mourningman" > wrote:
>
> > I have read The National Review... it is just propaganda. You
> > really need to look into the quality of your sources... not doing
> > so really undermines your credibility.

> If I posted a link to a website like the New York Times or the Washington Post
> that had the same information, you're suggesting that would make my point more
> valid? That's sort of screwy, don't you think? Either a thing is factual or it
> is not. The NR article -- which was an opinion piece to begin with -- was
> written by the man who attempted to broker the deal.

It's not screwy at all. The New York Times has a reputation as a
credible news agency, and they have a vested interest in maintaining
that reputation. While I don't think any news source is entirely
without bias or agenda, the Times at least makes a visible effort. To
quote a source who has demonstrated a lack of concern for truth (Fox
News, for example) or a source that is an admittedly partisan platform
(The National Review, for example) brings into question every fact and
every analysis of fact presented.

There's a website out there somewhere that makes a rather convincing
argument that 9/11 was perpetrated by Israelis pretending to be Arabs.
The only problem is that all of their sources are just OTHER extremist
whacko conspiracy theory websites. Since none of their "facts" are
verifiable by a credible source, all of their "logic" is shot to hell.


ulysses

[Les Cargill]

James Boyk wrote:
>
> At this time I cannot reveal what I would do with the $87B. Give me the money
> and see for yourselves, okay?
>
> James Boyk

I bet it involves a really good piano, though.

--
Les Cargill

[Les Cargill]

ryanm wrote:
>
> "LeBaron & Alrich" > wrote in message
> .. .
> >
> > The ability to perceive societal morality (not religious morality),
> > comprehend complex issues, develop new goodies both material and
> > intellectual - in short, the advancement of the capabilities of the
> > species.
> >
> You left out "develop new weapons and ways to destroy ourselves - in
> short, the advancement of ways to destroy ourselves at an accelerating
> rate".
>
> ryanm

MAD worked. Very well.

--
Les Cargill

[ryanm]

"LeBaron & Alrich" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> The ability to perceive societal morality (not religious morality),
> comprehend complex issues, develop new goodies both material and
> intellectual - in short, the advancement of the capabilities of the
> species.
>
You left out "develop new weapons and ways to destroy ourselves - in
short, the advancement of ways to destroy ourselves at an accelerating
rate".

ryanm

[nmm]

On Fri, Sep 12, 2003 6:41 pm, Les Cargill
> wrote:
>nmm wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 12, 2003 3:23 am, James Boyk
>> > wrote:
>> >At this time I cannot reveal what I would do with the $87B. Give me the
>> >money
>> >and see for yourselves, okay?
>> >
>> >
>> >James Boyk
>> >
>> >
>>
>> I heard on the CBN News today that the Bush admin has found $74 Million
>> for "Abstinance Education"
>>
>> $74 MIllion? Where will that go to? Really where ...Is there a Youth
Anti
>> Sex Ministry out there now? Next to the Ministry of Homeland Security,
>or
>> the Monistry of Morality.
>>
>>
>
>I imagine it'll go to ad spots. You don't think teen pregnancy is a
problem? It
>is.
>
>--
>Les Cargill
>

Statistically it was on the decline until teh present Admin decided to cut
family planning and birth control education. Now they throw $74 Million at
"Abstinance Education".. I wonder what ad agencey will be getting that
money and what ties they have to the Bush family.


---------------------------------------------------------
"You Teach A Child To Read, And He Or Her Will Be Able To Pass A Literacy
Test"
- George W Bush - Townsend Tn . Feb 21rst -2001
---------------------------------------------------------

[John LeBlanc]

"Justin Ulysses Morse" > wrote in message
...

> It's not screwy at all. The New York Times has a reputation as a
> credible news agency, and they have a vested interest in maintaining
> that reputation. While I don't think any news source is entirely
> without bias or agenda, the Times at least makes a visible effort.

After seeing how many corrections the Times had to run , but only after the
Jayson Affair called to attention to them, I hear "New York Times" and I think
"National Enquirer." But I do understand the point you are making.

And, as I stated, the piece I pointed to was an opinion piece. The facts found
therein were corroberated by Clinton.


> The only problem is that all of their sources are just OTHER extremist
> whacko conspiracy theory websites. Since none of their "facts" are
> verifiable by a credible source, all of their "logic" is shot to hell.

Sounds like a description of much of this thread, doesn't it? <g>

John

[John LeBlanc]

"LeBaron & Alrich" > wrote in message
. ..

> Now if you spent $74M on contraceptives and handed 'em out to teens who
> are gonna be bonking anyway, you might actually have some effect on the
> frequency of teenage pregnancies.

This presumes they're all going to be bonking in the first place. Some bonk,
some don't. So now we implictly state it's okay to have sex with someone you are
not married to, so long as you wear a condom? So we can push the kids who don't
bonk into the bonker column? I disagree with that.


> But it's easier to pretend we can talk them out of ****ing. Yeah, right.

Yes, you can talk them out of ****ing. Granted, these days it takes an
extraordinary amount of time and energy, but it's certainly possible. In my
opinion, it's worth the effort.

Sure, it's easier to tell 'em, "Here. Now go ahead and **** since you're
protected against STDs and pregnancy." Except what they need to be protected
from is ****ing up their emotional lives doing something they are emotionally
too young to be doing in the first place. The little lady gets the Oprah
magazine and one issue I read through had an article that interviewed a lot of
girls who had sex before getting married. The sad fact is, most all of them
regret doing it and wished their parents spent more time with them talking about
sex.

Sorry, I don't believe in handing out contraceptives or clean needles. I don't
believe it's a step in the right direction to first say "I give up. Do what you
want to do, but at least do it safely."

John

[steve]

Could have saved a bundle by recycling Nancy's "Just say no" campaign


>
> I heard on the CBN News today that the Bush admin has found $74 Million
> for "Abstinance Education"
>
> $74 MIllion? Where will that go to? Really where ...Is there a Youth Anti
> Sex Ministry out there now? Next to the Ministry of Homeland Security, or
> the Monistry of Morality.
>
>

[James Boyk]

John LeBlanc wrote: > Yes, you can talk them out of ****ing.
Granted, these days it takes an extraordinary amount of time
and energy, but it's certainly possible.



The word "can" is used above in a way I don't understand. Something like 1/3 of
girls and a substantially higher percentage of boys have had intercourse before
graduating from high school. Nothing is going to stop the force that has powered
millions of years of evolution. No program that anyone is actually going to
implement, or could conceivably afford, is going to have any significant effect
on that, where "significant" means meaningful in reducing transmission of sexual
diseases or the demands on society to take care of young single women who have
no training at being mothers, or anything else.


I heard on shortwave a few years ago (I listen every evening for a bit, and very
salutary it is, too) a program from Radio Netherlands about sex education in
that country. They have the lowest rate of unwanted teen pregnancy. They have
the lowest rate of STDs (sexually transmitted diseases). They have the *highest*
rate in the world of condom use at first intercourse. The reason, in their
opinion, is that they do thorough and realistic sex education. The lady in
charge of it was interviewed and said approximately, "We teach our children that
this is one of life's great pleasures but it also carries responsibilities. We
teach them how to exercise their responsibilities." The training was explicit,
thorough and went on over a period of years. I immediately wanted to move there
so my then 12-year-old son could have the benefit of it.


This lady also said that while people come from countries all over the world to
study the Dutch program of sex education, they all said something like, "This is
wonderful. It would never be accepted back home." So we in the USA are not alone
in this particular insanity, though we may have our own particular historical
reasons for it.


What a tragedy, and I'm not using that word lightly.


James Boyk

[James Boyk]

Les Cargill wrote:

>>At this time I cannot reveal what I would do with the $87B. Give me the money
>>and see for yourselves, okay?


> I bet it involves a really good piano, though.


No fair; you peeked!


James Boyk

[LeBaron & Alrich]

John LeBlanc > wrote:

> "LeBaron & Alrich" > wrote in message
> . ..

> > Now if you spent $74M on contraceptives and handed 'em out to teens who
> > are gonna be bonking anyway, you might actually have some effect on the
> > frequency of teenage pregnancies.

> This presumes they're all going to be bonking in the first place. Some
> bonk, some don't. So now we implictly state it's okay to have sex with
> someone you are not married to, so long as you wear a condom? So we can
> push the kids who don't bonk into the bonker column? I disagree with that.

I didn't think I was saying they _all_ are going to be bonkers; there
always have been bonkers and non-bonkers.

And it's not a given that it's a bad thing for unmarried people to have
sex with each other. Right there is an area of personal and/or religious
belief, and research over many decades has shown that despite the prim
and proper appearance of many, when the meat starts to heat about half
the folks are bonkers one way or another, many of them married people
bonking other married people to whom they themselves are not married.

This is not an area of human behavior subject to rational control. I
don't think pretending otherwise is in the best interest of individuals
who risk pregnancy or of society at large. Our personal version of
morality may call for lots of impractical stuff. Better to admit the
animal side and pass out the preventatives.

> > But it's easier to pretend we can talk them out of ****ing. Yeah, right.

> Yes, you can talk them out of ****ing. Granted, these days it takes an
> extraordinary amount of time and energy, but it's certainly possible. In
> my opinion, it's worth the effort.

The success of talking them out of it falls down to this: there are a
few sitting on the bonk/don't bonk fence that we can influence not to
bonk. There are those who are not going to bonk. And there are those who
are going to bonk, nevermind our talking to them. _Those_ are the ones
to whom we need to get contraceptives, because those are the ones who
are at risk of pregnancy. We can help just by being somewhat practical
about this, instead of being moralists in chilly pursuit of our ideals,
ideals which are not shared by the society as a whole.

> Sure, it's easier to tell 'em, "Here. Now go ahead and **** since you're
> protected against STDs and pregnancy." Except what they need to be
> protected from is ****ing up their emotional lives doing something they
> are emotionally too young to be doing in the first place. The little lady
> gets the Oprah magazine and one issue I read through had an article that
> interviewed a lot of girls who had sex before getting married. The sad
> fact is, most all of them regret doing it and wished their parents spent
> more time with them talking about sex.

I don't think it's about what's easy; I think it's about what can work
to help some people. I don't mind helping people. And I know plenty of
folks who are mentally, emotionally and physically happy who started
****ing pretty early and have led productive, reasonably happy and
nicely adjusted family lives.

I hope you're not citing Oprah's magazine as some kind of science
project. <g> It's an article intended to let readers feel warm and
fuzzy, do the Oprah thing, and nod pleasantly all 'round the room in
casual agreement with an implied morality that is ignored by a
sufficient number of people to make its imposition at large highly
impractical.

> Sorry, I don't believe in handing out contraceptives or clean needles. I
> don't believe it's a step in the right direction to first say "I give up.
> Do what you want to do, but at least do it safely."

The cost to society of dirty needles vastly exceeds the cost of
dispensing clean needles; we're not going to get somebody out of a mess
just by letting them get AIDs or hepatitis. I have several friends who
went through some really bad times and managed to survive with the help
of their friends. You might be surprised at the positions of
responsibility they now hold. Their contributions reflect what many
might be able to give if they but live through their troubles.

If you want it in financial terms, it's cheaper to give them needles
than it is to take care of them when the "cost" of dirty needles comes
home to roost. It's cheaper to bear the cost of contraceptives to help
prevent those who are going to engage in sexual intercourse from getting
pregnant than it is to bear the cost of caring for the children they are
unable to support.

Trying to impose any particular vision of morality upon a society at
large results in a society like the Ayatollah appreciates. I'd be kind
of surprised if you really wanted to go there.

--
hank alrich * secret mountain
audio recording * music production * sound reinforcement
"If laughter is the best medicine let's take a double dose"

[Chris Hornbeck]

On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 23:40:09 GMT, Les Cargill
> wrote:

>I bet it involves a really good piano, though.

Holy crap! That's a million $87,000 pianos. Pretty soon
we'll be talking about real money.


Chris
"They set an ambush for their own lives."
Proverbs 1:18

[P Stamler]

>>I bet it involves a really good piano, though.
>
>Holy crap! That's a million $87,000 pianos. Pretty soon
>we'll be talking about real money.

And *real* loud music.

Peace,
Paul

[P Stamler]

An awful lot of teen pregnancies result from kids who *think* they're going to
abstain, who *intend* to abstain, and then one night, well, one thing leads to
another, as it does with this sexy species and in kids whose
long-term-judgement cells haven't really developed yet. And bingo, a baby's on
the way.

The urge to reproduce is a very powerful one (cause the folks who didn't have
it didn't pass it on...duh). We're *built* to make babies; DNA's way of making
more DNA. And the best un-laid plans of mice and teenagers once in a while get
swept away. Preach all you want. Cajole all you want. They'll get pregnant.
(And STDs.)

Or teach them that we're sexual creatures, and owe it to each other to
acknowledge that and carry that rubber along -- just in case. Because it's
often the "good kids" that make babies when you least expect it, and it's been
thus for a very long time.

"Some say it's Thomas's
Some say it's Shay's
But nobody expected it
With Annie's quiet ways."
- Scottish folk song

Peace,
Paul

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >,
Chris Hornbeck > wrote:
>On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 23:40:09 GMT, Les Cargill
> wrote:
>
>>I bet it involves a really good piano, though.
>
>Holy crap! That's a million $87,000 pianos. Pretty soon
>we'll be talking about real money.

You could get that nuclear piano, from the "5000 Fingers of Dr. T." maybe.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[LeBaron & Alrich]

Les Cargill > wrote:

> > Now if you spent $74M on contraceptives and handed 'em out to teens who
> > are gonna be bonking anyway, you might actually have some effect on the
> > frequency of teenage pregnancies.

> Might not, either. It's not like there aren't avenues for kids
> to obtain birth control at reasonable levels of hassle.

Right, but in lots of cases stigmation follows <g> and youngsters can't
go there; it's precisely our puritanical approach to sexuality that
creates this discomfort, and we're too scared to change our "minds"
about that. Witness James Boyk's wonderful post about this. We're a
bunch of public prudes whoring and porning in private.

> > But it's easier to pretend we can talk them out of ****ing. Yeah, right.

> This'll have no effect at all, but you know who's spending it, so
> that's what'll happen.

Yep, just put the car in reverse and step on it.

> You'd think people were a little more enlightened since Margaret Sanger
> was under fire, but people prove remarkably resistant to enlightenment.

Are we back to the value of an increasingly educated populace?

--
hank alrich * secret mountain
audio recording * music production * sound reinforcement
"If laughter is the best medicine let's take a double dose"

[Chris Hornbeck]

On 13 Sep 2003 06:34:36 GMT, (P Stamler) wrote:

>The urge to reproduce is a very powerful one (cause the folks who didn't have
>it didn't pass it on...duh). We're *built* to make babies; DNA's way of making
>more DNA.

Other folks who appreciate Richard Dawkins will also like
Colin Tudge, FWIW.


Chris Hornbeck

[Blind Joni]

> Now if you spent $74M on contraceptives and handed 'em out to teens who
>> are gonna be bonking anyway, you might actually have some effect on the
>> frequency of teenage pregnancies.
>>
>
>Might not, either. It's not like there aren't avenues for kids
>to obtain birth control at reasonable levels of hassle.

This requires a certain degree of responsibility..which I think we all agree is
a good thing.

>> But it's easier to pretend we can talk them out of ****ing. Yeah, right.
>>

I think we need to define the "we" in this statement. I know plenty of families
that have success in this area. Calls for some regular involvement but it does
work for some.


John A. Chiara
SOS Recording Studio
Live Sound Inc.
Albany, NY
www.sosrecording.net
518-449-1637

[Kurt Albershardt]

Les Cargill wrote:
> nmm wrote:
>
>
>> I heard on the CBN News today that the Bush admin has found $74 Million
>> for "Abstinance Education"
>>
>> $74 MIllion? Where will that go to? Really where ...Is there a Youth Anti
>> Sex Ministry out there now? Next to the Ministry of Homeland Security, or
>> the Monistry of Morality.
>
>
>
> I imagine it'll go to ad spots. You don't think teen pregnancy is a problem?
> It is.


It's a HUGE problem here in the US. IMO we need to study our Northern
European friends' approach to the problem which seems to be working much
better than what we've been doing at home.

[Kurt Albershardt]

John LeBlanc wrote:
>
>> But it's easier to pretend we can talk them out of ****ing. Yeah, right.
>
>
> Yes, you can talk them out of ****ing. Granted, these days it takes an
> extraordinary amount of time and energy, but it's certainly possible. In my
> opinion, it's worth the effort.

That particular talking is up to the parents IMO.




> Sorry, I don't believe in handing out contraceptives or clean needles. I don't
> believe it's a step in the right direction to first say "I give up. Do what you
> want to do, but at least do it safely."

Holland calls this a "harm minimization" policy. The avearge age of a
hard drug addict has been going up in Holland for a long time now. The
average age of a hard drug addict in the US during the same period has
been going down.

Draw your own conclusions.

[P Stamler]

>Other folks who appreciate Richard Dawkins will also like
>Colin Tudge, FWIW

Indeed; "The Time Before History" is a delightful read. In the same vein, check
out Richard Fortey's "Life".

Peace,
Paul

[Rick Powell]

(Scott Dorsey) wrote in message >...
> Les Cargill > wrote:
> >
> >I imagine it'll go to ad spots. You don't think teen pregnancy is a problem? It
> >is.
>
> It's a problem, and it's much too serious a problem to be fixed with a few
> PSAs urging abstinance. Or even affected, let alone fixed.
> --scott

When I was a teenager, my main problem with abstinence was that it wasn't by choice!

RP

[Chris Hornbeck]

On 13 Sep 2003 17:38:18 GMT, (P Stamler) wrote:

> In the same vein, check out Richard Fortey's "Life".

Thanks Paul. Went straight to the downtown library and found
a copy.

It may have suffered overexposure on the radio, but Michael
Pollan's "The Botany of Desire" also has a lot that applies
to this topic.

Chris Hornbeck

[Kurt Albershardt]

Chris Hornbeck wrote:

> On 13 Sep 2003 17:38:18 GMT, (P Stamler) wrote:
>
>
>> In the same vein, check out Richard Fortey's "Life".
>
> Thanks Paul. Went straight to the downtown library and found
> a copy.
>
> It may have suffered overexposure on the radio, but Michael
> Pollan's "The Botany of Desire" also has a lot that applies
> to this topic.

A fun and thought-provoking read--reminded me of some Alan Watts talks
at times.

[ryanm]

"Rob Adelman" > wrote in message
...
>
> Seems to me the morning after pill makes a lot of sense. Just that it
> needs to be in a big glass case with a hamer. Emergency use only.
>
I don't remember who originally suggested it, but adding a (temporary)
sterilizing agent to beer would all but solve the problem. ; )

ryanm

[John LeBlanc]

"Anonymous Sender" ]> wrote in message
acolo.com...

> Professor Jennings: Would you like to smoke some pot?
> Pinto: I won't go schitzo, will I?
> Professor Jennings: There's a distinct possibility.


Jennings: Teaching is just a way to pay the bills until I finish my novel.
Boon: How long you been workin' on it?
Jennings: Four and a half years.
Pinto: It must be very good.
Jennings: It's a piece of ****. Would anyone like to smoke some pot?

[John LeBlanc]

"ryanm" > wrote in message
...

> Abstinence is a good position for *parents* to take, it's a ridiculous
> position for the government to take.

If it stops at the concept of "abstinance" then I agree. (And it often does.)
People do things because the pleasure they derive is greater than the pain of
not doing it. (People avoid things for the same reasons.) You can't preach
abstinance. You teach consequences for actions.

> The government preaching abstinence is just as ridiculous as the
> government's drug policy being "Just Say No". How many ex-junkies have you
> met who said they were sitting there, looking at a huge pile of coke when
> Nancy Reagan came on the TV and said "Just Say No", and they suddenly
> realized how foolish they had been? It just doesn't happen that way.

I wasn't ever a fan of "Just Say No" either. We took this position: People do
drugs and drink because it makes them feel good. And here are the consequences
of doing drugs and drinking..." Also, it helps to take trips to the bad section
of town that best demonstrates the point.

Kids make decisions the way adults do. They consider the information they have.
Not that we expect them to make the best decision, but you can bet it's going to
be a bad one without all the facts.


> It's
> not the government's job to teach responsibility, that's a parent's job. The
> government should be teaching safety and prevention. If you set emotion
> aside for a moment and really think about it, it's pretty obvious.

I thought I'd already made it pretty clear I agree 110% with the first part of
that concept. But I'd add the second part is also the parents job more than it
is the government's job. I am not comfortable with the idea of "the government"
deciding how to appropriately teach prevention, especially when the prevailing
perspective disagrees so wildly with my own.

I don't care what anyone thinks, it is far harder to rear children these days
than ever before. Just doing an adequate job is not much different than doing no
job at all.

John

[Justin Ulysses Morse]

Les Cargill > wrote:

> > I heard on the CBN News today that the Bush admin has found $74 Million
> > for "Abstinance Education"
> >
> > $74 MIllion? Where will that go to? Really where ...Is there a Youth Anti
> > Sex Ministry out there now? Next to the Ministry of Homeland Security, or
> > the Monistry of Morality.
> >
> I imagine it'll go to ad spots. You don't think teen pregnancy is a problem? It
> is.

Sure, it's a problem exacerbated by obtuse prudes who think teenagers
won't notice their own genitals if you don't mention them. Only
problem is, at that age the genitals are talking way louder than the
preachers and teachers. $74 million worth of condoms and birth control
pills with accurate instructional information will prevent about 74
million times as many pregancies as any amount of "abstinance
education."


ulysses

[John LeBlanc]

"Justin Ulysses Morse" > wrote in message
...
> John LeBlanc > wrote:
>
> > This presumes they're all going to be bonking in the first place.
>
> Well of course. They're teenagers. That's what they do.

I guess this statement explains the rest of your post. There's not enough
foundation between us to continue any sort of worthwhile discussion. I respect
your right to hold whatever opinions you wish; I happen to disgree with you.

John

[John LeBlanc]

Aw, **** that. I'm going to comment anyway.


"Justin Ulysses Morse" > wrote in message
...

> Why the hell not? Because your backwards little moral code says a
> monster will torture them for all eternity if they do? Here in the
> real world, we have the medical technology to prevent all STDs and
> unplanned preganancies. They only thing we're lacking is the
> dissemination of information and materials. There's no reason every
> teenager on the planet shouldn't be able to have all the safe sex (with
> other teenagers) that they want.

No, Justin. They should not have sex because they are not emotionally equipped
to deal with the consequences of their actions, plain and simple. People should
count the costs before taking on something. I've found that "ready, aim, fire"
is not a particularly successful strategy for life.

The concept of "consequences" apparently is something that really differentiates
the way you and I deal with this subject. I'm more concerned with the long-term
consequences and you're focusing on getting your rocks off. If that works for
you, swell. But there's no need to be a dick about the fact I disagree.


> Sex by itself doesn't have to **** up anybody's emotional life. It's
> the guilt trip that does the damage. With or without the sex.

If your opinion about sex is that it's just a physical act that has no lasting
emotional consequences, merry christmas to you. I happen to believe you're wrong
about that, but whatever works for you Justin. Your reaction to the spiritual
aspect of this reminds me a lot of the outrageously left-field behavior former
Scientologists exhibit. I've seen the same behavior from people raised in strict
religious homes who go off to college and get "enlightenment."

If you hold the belief that just because you can have sex, you should have sex
and that's alright, knock yourself out. If you look around at the consequences
of that way of thinking and still believe you're right, then that's fine with me
too.

But if the best you can do for your side of the argument is ridicule my
religious beliefs as the core of the "problem", I suppose I'll have to just
conceed to you. Unassailable logic like yours can't be reckoned with.

John

[John LeBlanc]

"Justin Ulysses Morse" > wrote in message
...

> So you agree that our president's delusion of being called upon by god
> to fulfill biblical prophesy is a threat to the future of mankind?

I know of no facts that point to our president being delusional about being
called upon by God to fulfill Biblical prophesy.

What I do see, though, is a man acting in what he and his cabinet members around
him believe to be in the best interests of the country first, and the world
second -- which is precisely his responsibility. I trust that President Bush has
at his fingertips far more, and more accurate intel than you do, Justin.

John

[LeBaron & Alrich]

John LeBlanc wrote:

> No, Justin. They should not have sex because they are not emotionally equipped
> to deal with the consequences of their actions, plain and simple.

The reality of how all this is handled in several northern European
countries contradicts this view. For some strange reason their teenagers
are emotionally equipped to deal with having sexual intercourse. Perhaps
it has more to do with our own cultural views of human sexuality and
lingering religious "morality" that puts our own youth in jeopardy.

--
hank alrich * secret mountain
audio recording * music production * sound reinforcement
"If laughter is the best medicine let's take a double dose"

[Kurt Albershardt]

Justin Ulysses Morse wrote:
>
> I'm annoyed at the amount of hassle involved in
> finding decent contraception on short notice, especially late at night
> when the topic tends to come up. Most 24-hour stores keep all the
> contraceptives locked behind bullet-proof glass (because it's such
> dangerous stuff, I guess). Add to that the unnecessary embarassment
> and fear of being caught imposed on the average teen by the silly
> puritanical anti-sexual stance of our various societies, and you can
> see why kids are often unprepared when the time comes. Sure, they
> might have access to handfuls of them when they DON'T need them, but
> what are they going to do, keep them in their pockets til laundry day?

Damn, did THAT bring back a few memories ;>

[Kurt Albershardt]

John LeBlanc wrote:
>
> They should not have sex because they are not emotionally equipped
> to deal with the consequences of their actions, plain and simple. People should
> count the costs before taking on something.

They probably shouldn't fire weapons, use power tools, ride motorcycles,
drive cars, or engange in a host of other potentially life-destroying
activities either--but they do. Should we require parental permission
for wearing helmets in an attempt to discourage kids from riding
motorcycles?



> The concept of "consequences" apparently is something that really differentiates
> the way you and I deal with this subject. I'm more concerned with the long-term
> consequences and you're focusing on getting your rocks off. If that works for
> you, swell. But there's no need to be a dick about the fact I disagree.

I looks to me more like he's trying to be realistic about what really
goes on out there. Your opinion is certainly valid for application to
your own family, but as a societal policy, it's been a complete flop.
The numbers in this case are glaringly clear, and the Northern Europeans
are doing a much, much better job than the US is.

[Blind Joni]

>Here in the
>real world, we have the medical technology to prevent all STDs and
>unplanned preganancies. They only thing we're lacking is the
>dissemination of information and materials. There's no reason every
>teenager on the planet shouldn't be able to have all the safe sex (with
>other teenagers) that they want.

Actually I believe many studies are showing that there are all kinds of
negative results from this behavior. I perticipated in it..and I agree.

>So we can push the kids who don't bonk into the bonker column?
>
>In what solar system do adolescents need to be "pushed?"
>

Young girls.

>Why? So you can pretend your magic genie in the sky will be pleased
>with them? So they will be spared the guilt and worry inflicted on
>them by your archaic moral code? Why not just spare them the bull****,
>and let them have the sex? They'll be happier in the long run.
>

I get it that your not into the faith aspect of this. This code has been around
for a long time but not long enough for humans to have evolved beyond it's
relavence.


John A. Chiara
SOS Recording Studio
Live Sound Inc.
Albany, NY
www.sosrecording.net
518-449-1637

[Blind Joni]

>I'm an adult, and I'm annoyed at the amount of hassle involved in
>finding decent contraception on short notice, especially late at night
>when the topic tends to come up.

So your saying that even as an adult it's possible to not be prepared or
responsible in this situation

> Add to that the unnecessary embarassment
>and fear of being caught imposed on the average teen by the silly
>puritanical anti-sexual stance of our various societies, and you can
>see why kids are often unprepared when the time comes.

This is your opinion..of course.

> Sure, they
>might have access to handfuls of them when they DON'T need them, but
>what are they going to do, keep them in their pockets til laundry day?

If it's so important to kids to have sex..why isn't it important to be
prepared?..because they're KIDS!! They don't have the wisdom to understand
things the way an adult hopefully does. And you stated above that even an adult
isn't always on top of the situation.
John A. Chiara
SOS Recording Studio
Live Sound Inc.
Albany, NY
www.sosrecording.net
518-449-1637

[Blind Joni]

>So you agree that our president's delusion of being called upon by god
>to fulfill biblical prophesy is a threat to the future of mankind?
>

Since we can't know if this is true or not..why is it so threatening to hear?



John A. Chiara
SOS Recording Studio
Live Sound Inc.
Albany, NY
www.sosrecording.net
518-449-1637

[Blind Joni]

>I've seen the same behavior from people raised in strict
>religious homes who go off to college and get "enlightenment."

GREAT example..I know more than a few women with that history. One rather close
to me fled her home at 17 to have sex. She's now 34..4 kids..divorced twice and
living back at home with the mother she left..because her second husband is a
conspiracy nut who kidnapped her and her kids and was incorrectly charged..out
of the pshyc ward in a year and a half and staklking her ..wanting to kill
her...She's just delerious with joy.
John A. Chiara
SOS Recording Studio
Live Sound Inc.
Albany, NY
www.sosrecording.net
518-449-1637

[Blind Joni]

>What scary to me is that I've become convinced that he doesn't. Or, perhaps
>worse, that he does, but he ignores it.
>

At least we have elections every 4 years.




John A. Chiara
SOS Recording Studio
Live Sound Inc.
Albany, NY
www.sosrecording.net
518-449-1637

[Blind Joni]

>Perhaps
>it has more to do with our own cultural views of human sexuality and
>lingering religious "morality" that puts our own youth in jeopardy.
>

Religious 'Morality" really doesn't jeapordize anyone. Those who follow it get
the results ..those that don't..don't. Free choice is still the rule I believe.


John A. Chiara
SOS Recording Studio
Live Sound Inc.
Albany, NY
www.sosrecording.net
518-449-1637

[John LeBlanc]

"LeBaron & Alrich" > wrote in message
. ..
> John LeBlanc wrote:
>
> > No, Justin. They should not have sex because they are not emotionally
equipped
> > to deal with the consequences of their actions, plain and simple.
>
> The reality of how all this is handled in several northern European
> countries contradicts this view. For some strange reason their teenagers
> are emotionally equipped to deal with having sexual intercourse. Perhaps
> it has more to do with our own cultural views of human sexuality and
> lingering religious "morality" that puts our own youth in jeopardy.


I have no doubt in my mind whatsoever that existing morality and cultural
opinions have everything to do with it. Without existing majority opinions on
what is and is not moral, all sorts of human behavior that is currently either
illegal or at least frowned upon, would prevail.

As our nation's morality has declined (in comparison to what was considered
moral and immoral previously), we've seen an increase in cultural problems.
There is enough history in this world about what happens to a powerful nation at
the hands of immorality that I wonder who bothers to study history anymore. I do
not consider us an "enlightened" society.

Teenage sex is in no-man's land right now. That, in my opinion, isn't a great
thing, but at least it is still up for debate.

John

[Blind Joni]

> Should we require parental permission
>for wearing helmets in an attempt to discourage kids from riding
>motorcycles?

You take a test and get a license to be able to drive a motor cycle

..>I looks to me more like he's trying to be realistic about what really
>goes on out there. Your opinion is certainly valid for application to
>your own family, but as a societal policy, it's been a complete flop.
>The numbers in this case are glaringly clear, and the Northern Europeans
>are doing a much, much better job than the US is.
>

John's point..I believe..is lamenting the fact that the "families" make up
society..it doesn't exist on it's own. that's why most government sponsered
programs aimed at changing peoples behavior fail..the necessary infrastructure
is gone when the family becomes resigned and gives up. I don't think there is
any societal problem that would not benefit from stronger families. Those who
insist on strong family values probably look on those that don't as lazy or
uncaring..and I seem to see evidence for this view all the time.

John A. Chiara
SOS Recording Studio
Live Sound Inc.
Albany, NY
www.sosrecording.net
518-449-1637

[John LeBlanc]

"Kurt Albershardt" > wrote in message
...

> They probably shouldn't fire weapons, use power tools, ride motorcycles,
> drive cars, or engange in a host of other potentially life-destroying
> activities either--but they do. Should we require parental permission
> for wearing helmets in an attempt to discourage kids from riding
> motorcycles?

I don't think that's the appropriate question to ask. The appropriate question
should be, "Should they be riding a motorcycle." If the answer is yes, then ask
shoudl they wear a helmet.


> I looks to me more like he's trying to be realistic about what really
> goes on out there. Your opinion is certainly valid for application to
> your own family, but as a societal policy, it's been a complete flop.
> The numbers in this case are glaringly clear, and the Northern Europeans
> are doing a much, much better job than the US is.

I never for one second expected anyone to accept my opinion as the way to run
their own lives. At the same time, I'd expect the same consideration in return.

John

[Blind Joni]

>Sure, it's a problem exacerbated by obtuse prudes who think teenagers
>won't notice their own genitals if you don't mention them. Only
>problem is, at that age the genitals are talking way louder than the
>preachers and teachers

But compared to a generation ago a majority of media is aimed at sexual
behavior. If no effort is made to counter that we again are giving up.

>$74 million worth of condoms and birth control
>pills with accurate instructional information will prevent about 74
>million times as many pregancies as any amount of "abstinance
>education."
>
>

Again..pregnancy is a symptom among other consequences.


John A. Chiara
SOS Recording Studio
Live Sound Inc.
Albany, NY
www.sosrecording.net
518-449-1637

[Blind Joni]

>I think we need to define the "we" in this statement. I know plenty of
>families
>> that have success in this area. Calls for some regular involvement but it
>does
>> work for some.
>>
> Sure, but name two *governments* who have had any luck at it?
>
>ryanm

I'm not advocating the government do anything..but if we can hand out condoms
we can darn well teach abstinance...no?


John A. Chiara
SOS Recording Studio
Live Sound Inc.
Albany, NY
www.sosrecording.net
518-449-1637

[Kurt Albershardt]

Blind Joni wrote:
>
> Religious 'Morality" really doesn't jeapordize anyone.

Unless it's coupled with political and/or economic power and imposed on
others.

[Kurt Albershardt]

John LeBlanc wrote:
>
>> The reality of how all this is handled in several northern European
>> countries contradicts this view. For some strange reason their teenagers
>> are emotionally equipped to deal with having sexual intercourse. Perhaps
>> it has more to do with our own cultural views of human sexuality and
>> lingering religious "morality" that puts our own youth in jeopardy.
>
>
> I have no doubt in my mind whatsoever that existing morality and cultural
> opinions have everything to do with it. Without existing majority opinions on
> what is and is not moral, all sorts of human behavior that is currently either
> illegal or at least frowned upon, would prevail.
>
> As our nation's morality has declined (in comparison to what was considered
> moral and immoral previously), we've seen an increase in cultural problems.
> There is enough history in this world about what happens to a powerful nation at
> the hands of immorality that I wonder who bothers to study history anymore. I do
> not consider us an "enlightened" society.


The tough part is the definition of 'moral.'

My libertarian (small 'L') self says, "Any act performed by or between
one or more consenting adults which does not affect the person or
property of another is not a crime."

This sounds simplistic until you consider (a) 'the property of another'
includes the commons and (b) the point at which one becomes a consenting
adult is not well defined in our current society (and the root of a
whole truckload of our woes IMO.)

[Kurt Albershardt]

John LeBlanc wrote:
> "Kurt Albershardt" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
>> They probably shouldn't fire weapons, use power tools, ride motorcycles,
>> drive cars, or engange in a host of other potentially life-destroying
>> activities either--but they do. Should we require parental permission
>> for wearing helmets in an attempt to discourage kids from riding
>> motorcycles?
>
>
> I don't think that's the appropriate question to ask. The appropriate question
> should be, "Should they be riding a motorcycle." If the answer is yes, then ask
> should they wear a helmet.

Large portions of the target group in question already decided they were
going to ride a motorcycle as soon as they could get their hands on one,
and may well have been riding since they were 13 without telling anyone
who might object.

[John LeBlanc]

"Kurt Albershardt" > wrote in message
...
> Blind Joni wrote:
> >
> > Religious 'Morality" really doesn't jeapordize anyone.
>
> Unless it's coupled with political and/or economic power and imposed on
> others.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of
the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the
government for a redress of grievances. "

As for economic power, I'm not sure what you mean by that. Examples?

I know people who will go out of their way to do business with owners who
profess a certain religious belief. That's fine. I'm not one of them. And there
are people who will go out of their way to avoid doing business with those who
profess a certain religious belief. Fine. I'm not one of those, either. I find I
can get along with, and do business with, reasonable people. Unreasonable people
can go screw a hole in the wall as far as I am concerned.

I have no problem sharing the world with irreligious, or even anti-religious
people, so long as I am extended the same consideration. A person's belief or
disbelief in something doesn't make it so, and it sure doesn't threaten my
belief system in the least. But I do find it obnoxious when the anti-religious
crowd behaves as if I'm supposed to take **** from them. Something about the
lack of "equal rights for all" rubs me the wrong way.

John

[John LeBlanc]

"Kurt Albershardt" > wrote in message
...

> The tough part is the definition of 'moral.'

Agreed, 110%.


> My libertarian (small 'L') self says, "Any act performed by or between
> one or more consenting adults which does not affect the person or
> property of another is not a crime."
>
> This sounds simplistic until you consider (a) 'the property of another'
> includes the commons and (b) the point at which one becomes a consenting
> adult is not well defined in our current society (and the root of a
> whole truckload of our woes IMO.)

Another example: I don't care if three fourths of the people in this country
voluntarily chose to smoke cigarettes all day, every day until they all get lung
cancer. I saw a man I loved and respected suffer from lung cancer -- and that's
the best way to describe it: suffer -- whittle away from 6'2" 220lbs of solid
man down to a skeleton who's belly button damned near touched his spine by the
time he passed away in the hospital. You couldn't get me to smoke cigarettes if
you paid me.

But I don't think it's fair my tax dollars go to pay to take care of people who
screw themselves up that way.

You're right, that sounds simplistic because a lot of what passes for "any act
performed by or between one or more concenting adults" ends up not being just
between one or more concenting adults. It often drags society along with them
for the consequences portion of the program.

John

[John LeBlanc]

"Kurt Albershardt" > wrote in message
...
> John LeBlanc wrote:
> > "Kurt Albershardt" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >
> >> They probably shouldn't fire weapons, use power tools, ride motorcycles,
> >> drive cars, or engange in a host of other potentially life-destroying
> >> activities either--but they do. Should we require parental permission
> >> for wearing helmets in an attempt to discourage kids from riding
> >> motorcycles?
> >
> >
> > I don't think that's the appropriate question to ask. The appropriate
question
> > should be, "Should they be riding a motorcycle." If the answer is yes, then
ask
> > should they wear a helmet.
>
> Large portions of the target group in question already decided they were
> going to ride a motorcycle as soon as they could get their hands on one,
> and may well have been riding since they were 13 without telling anyone
> who might object.


But that doesn't answer the question of "Should they be riding the motorcycle",
does it? It just says some are already doing it.

There are lots of examples of human behavior that have been found to have
longterm negative consequences that have caused people to change their opinion
about who, and whether anyone should be engaging in that behavior. And some
people will go ahead and ignore that advice, often at their own peril.

In this nation, for all intents and purposes a fourteen year old is not
emotionally or intellectually capable of becoming a mother of a baby. As that is
a very real possibility of having sex, isn't the consequence of that behavior
great enough to disuade the behavior? If it is not, then sterilization is the
only bulletproof solution to avoid the consequence, but then that encroaches on
the rights of the fourteen year old, doesn't it.

We have lots of laws on the books that are there to protect children. One of
them deals with adults having sex with minors. Why do you suppose those laws are
on the books if it should be permissable for minors to engage in sexual
relations?

Don't you think handing out condoms to children, in light of the laws against
pre-adult sex, sends a mixed message to kids? Do you think the plethora of mixed
messages is contributing to some of the problems kids have these days?

John

[Glenn Booth]

Hi,

In message >, Dave Martin
> writes
>"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
>> Les Cargill > wrote:
>> >
>> >I've seen the Canadian system, and it's probably destiny,
>> >but who knows what happens in Canada when it hits the fan.
>>
>> In Canada, and to a lesser extent the UK, there is the general feeling
>that
>> health care is a limited resource that needs to be carefully allocated and
>> rationed so the people who need it get it.
>
>Yep - my understanding is that a 70 year old in the UK will NOT be eligible
>for a heart transplant, no matter how much they may need it. It's considered
>to bee too much money for too little return.

It's not always that simple. A previously fit, healthy and active 70
year old would be considered for a heart transplant here in the UK. An
overweight 70 year old smoker with an unhealthy lifestyle and a blood
pressure problem probably wouldn't. Largely, that's because the risks
would be too high in the latter case, but there is also a 'who needs it
most' argument to be considered. I personally know a 90 year old (then)
that was given a hip replacement on the NHS. The old cow is still going
strong!

One real problem in the UK is the 'postcode lottery' that arises because
some areas are 'rich' (i.e. they collect large amounts of money from
high earners through such means as housing taxes) and others are not -
the rich areas will often make available treatments that cannot be
offered a few miles away, so friends and neighbours get offered
radically different treatments for similar ailments, and thus the system
is understandably deemed unfair.

Honestly, given a choice I would (most of the time) choose treatment in
an NHS (state funded) hospital over treatment in a private hospital. The
training requirement, or lack of it, for private nurses is worrying in
the UK.

--
Regards,
Glenn Booth

[Kurt Albershardt]

John LeBlanc wrote:
> "Kurt Albershardt" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> Blind Joni wrote:
>>
>>> Religious 'Morality" really doesn't jeapordize anyone.
>>
>> Unless it's coupled with political and/or economic power and imposed on
>> others.
>
>
> "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
> prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of
> the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the
> government for a redress of grievances."

A wonderful and powerful statement that some in our current
administration would be well served to read again (carefully.)



> As for economic power, I'm not sure what you mean by that. Examples?

"We'll feed you (or not torture you or...) if you follow our rules."
The phrase "certain inalienable rights" comes to mind--often people are
for one reason or another denied those rights unless they subscribe to a
certain set of beliefs.



> I know people who will go out of their way to do business with owners who
> profess a certain religious belief. That's fine. I'm not one of them. And there
> are people who will go out of their way to avoid doing business with those who
> profess a certain religious belief. Fine. I'm not one of those, either. I find I
> can get along with, and do business with, reasonable people. Unreasonable people
> can go screw a hole in the wall as far as I am concerned.

We're in complete agreement there.



> I have no problem sharing the world with irreligious, or even anti-religious
> people, so long as I am extended the same consideration. A person's belief or
> disbelief in something doesn't make it so, and it sure doesn't threaten my
> belief system in the least. But I do find it obnoxious when the anti-religious
> crowd behaves as if I'm supposed to take **** from them. Something about the
> lack of "equal rights for all" rubs me the wrong way.

Please don't lump me in with the "anti-religious" crowd. I just believe
that someone's relationship with their God (or non-God or even
non-relationship) is their personal business. What kind of person it
makes them and usually (as a result) how they treat others is where the
rubber meets the road.

[Kurt Albershardt]

John LeBlanc wrote:

> "Kurt Albershardt" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
>> My libertarian (small 'L') self says, "Any act performed by or between
>> one or more consenting adults which does not affect the person or
>> property of another is not a crime."
>>
>> This sounds simplistic until you consider (a) 'the property of another'
>> includes the commons and (b) the point at which one becomes a consenting
>> adult is not well defined in our current society (and the root of a
>> whole truckload of our woes IMO.)
>
>
> Another example: I don't care if three fourths of the people in this country
> voluntarily chose to smoke cigarettes all day, every day until they all get lung
> cancer. I saw a man I loved and respected suffer from lung cancer -- and that's
> the best way to describe it: suffer -- whittle away from 6'2" 220lbs of solid
> man down to a skeleton who's belly button damned near touched his spine by the
> time he passed away in the hospital. You couldn't get me to smoke cigarettes if
> you paid me.
>
> But I don't think it's fair my tax dollars go to pay to take care of people who
> screw themselves up that way.

Also agreed (strongly.) Another example I like to use is helmet laws:
I don't think we should have helmet laws for adults because riders
should have the right to make a free choice regarding their own heads.
In exchange however, insurance companies and public medical care systems
should have the right (even obligation) to not use millions of dollars
of other people's money to treat head/neck injuries incurred by the
non-helmet-wearing riders who made that choice.





> You're right, that sounds simplistic because a lot of what passes for "any act
> performed by or between one or more concenting adults" ends up not being just
> between one or more concenting adults. It often drags society along with them
> for the consequences portion of the program.

IMO lack of responsibility for the outcome of one's actions is at the
root of a large number of our current societal woes.

[Kurt Albershardt]

John LeBlanc wrote:
>
> There are lots of examples of human behavior that have been found to have
> longterm negative consequences that have caused people to change their opinion
> about who, and whether anyone should be engaging in that behavior. And some
> people will go ahead and ignore that advice, often at their own peril.

And we have, IMO a definite right to perish if we so choose.



> In this nation, for all intents and purposes a fourteen year old is not
> emotionally or intellectually capable of becoming a mother of a baby. As that is
> a very real possibility of having sex, isn't the consequence of that behavior
> great enough to disuade the behavior? If it is not, then sterilization is the
> only bulletproof solution to avoid the consequence, but then that encroaches on
> the rights of the fourteen year old, doesn't it.

I heard about an engineer some years ago who invented an electronic baby
for his daughter. It cried, and spat, and shat, and all th rest,
requiring attention at randomly-timed intervals throughout the day (and
night.) He wanted her to see what it was really like to deal with a
baby. Went over so well the high school started sending all the kids
home with one for a couple days as part of their home ec program. Hard
to understand the consequences if you don't actually simulate the
outcome well--talking just doesn't have all that great a track record of
getting through to them.



> We have lots of laws on the books that are there to protect children. One of
> them deals with adults having sex with minors. Why do you suppose those laws are
> on the books if it should be permissable for minors to engage in sexual
> relations?

The prohibition against adults having sex with minors is nearly
universal in societies (there are a few tribal exceptions ISTR.) Minors
with minors gets a little harder to clarify. Individuals mature at
different rates, and of course local society gets in there
somewhere--they do breed rather young in many parts of this country
compared to what many of us thought was 'normal' growing up in other parts.



> Don't you think handing out condoms to children, in light of the laws against
> pre-adult sex, sends a mixed message to kids? Do you think the plethora of mixed
> messages is contributing to some of the problems kids have these days?

I think handing out condoms to teenagers/young adults and educating them
in the proper use thereof is one of the smartest and cheapest things we
can do to improve the situation, and the evidence rather strongly
supports that position. The emotional and related consequences of
consensual teenage sexual activity are miniscule compared to the
emotional and life-limiting consequences of teenage pregnancy or teenage
rape. Given the limited budget available, I vote for spending the money
in the most efficient possible way.

[LeBaron & Alrich]

Kurt Albershardt wrote:

> I don't think we should have helmet laws for adults because riders
> should have the right to make a free choice regarding their own heads.
> In exchange however, insurance companies and public medical care systems
> should have the right (even obligation) to not use millions of dollars
> of other people's money to treat head/neck injuries incurred by the
> non-helmet-wearing riders who made that choice.

But sometimes I wonder what are the stats for serious injuries to auto
drivers that might have been prevented had they been wearing a helmet.
Can we guess the chances of legislation requiring auto drivers to wear
helmets so that our insurance rates can go down, even if the stats
showed savings far exceeding that achieved by slapping pots on the heads
of motorcycle riders? <g>

--
ha

[Rob Adelman]

>>I've seen the same behavior from people raised in strict
>>religious homes who go off to college and get "enlightenment."

I think Billy Joel sang about that..

[Rob Adelman]

Kurt Albershardt wrote:

> In
> exchange however, insurance companies and public medical care systems
> should have the right (even obligation) to not use millions of dollars
> of other people's money to treat head/neck injuries incurred by the
> non-helmet-wearing riders who made that choice.

This was always my thought as well. But what of the family of this broke
invalid, that go hungry trying to put his pieces together? Maybe the
guy's kids begged him for years to wear the helmet, or even not to ride
that flying motor? Things get so complicated..

[John LeBlanc]

"Rob Adelman" > wrote in message
...
> Kurt Albershardt wrote:
> > In
> > exchange however, insurance companies and public medical care systems
> > should have the right (even obligation) to not use millions of dollars
> > of other people's money to treat head/neck injuries incurred by the
> > non-helmet-wearing riders who made that choice.
>
> This was always my thought as well. But what of the family of this broke
> invalid, that go hungry trying to put his pieces together? Maybe the
> guy's kids begged him for years to wear the helmet, or even not to ride
> that flying motor? Things get so complicated..

There are already federal, state and local assistance programs for families in
need. You'd think family and friends would help, too.

But what do you think of the guy who chose to not wear the helmet who put his
family in harms way as a result of his decision? Should be the same as your
opinion of the guy who choses to smoke cigarettes.

John

[Kurt Albershardt]

ryanm wrote:
> "Kurt Albershardt" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> My libertarian (small 'L') self says, "Any act performed by or between
>> one or more consenting adults which does not affect the person or
>> property of another is not a crime."
>
>
> Replace the word "affect" with the phrase "damage or cause the
> loss of" and we're good. Ok, now tell me your plan to eliminate the war on
> drugs, legalize gambling, prostitution, and other consensual "crimes", and
> what you plan to do about the state of education in this country


Read Peter Mc Williams' "Ain't Nobody's Business if You Do"--from which
I stole the above quote.

[Les Cargill]

Justin Ulysses Morse wrote:
>
> Les Cargill > wrote:
>
> > Might not, either. It's not like there aren't avenues for kids
> > to obtain birth control at reasonable levels of hassle.
>
> I'm an adult, and I'm annoyed at the amount of hassle involved in
> finding decent contraception on short notice, especially late at night
> when the topic tends to come up. Most 24-hour stores keep all the
> contraceptives locked behind bullet-proof glass (because it's such
> dangerous stuff, I guess). Add to that the unnecessary embarassment
> and fear of being caught imposed on the average teen by the silly
> puritanical anti-sexual stance of our various societies, and you can
> see why kids are often unprepared when the time comes. Sure, they
> might have access to handfuls of them when they DON'T need them, but
> what are they going to do, keep them in their pockets til laundry day?
> If parents, teachers, and governing authorities didn't freak out at the
> possibility of minors having sex with each other, maybe they'd feel
> comfortable keeping the proper materials on hand "just in case" the
> need should arise.
>
> ulysses

I think it's even simpler than that. If you have daughters of the
approriate age, drag 'em down to the doc for the prescription. It
won't prevent STDs, but it'll prevent premature grandparentism.

--
Les Cargill

[ryanm]

"Blind Joni" > wrote in message
...
>
> I'm not advocating the government do anything..but if we can hand out
condoms
> we can darn well teach abstinance...no?
>
Not if we expect to be taken seriously. Preaching abstinence makes you
as big a joke to teenagers as preaching "Just Say No To Drugs."

Fact #1: The urge to have sex is an instinct, a natural drive that comes
just after the urge to eat and just before the urge to find shelter. This
always has and always will be the case. No amount of "civilization" or
"morality" will change that. Fear of burning in hell doesn't keep priests
from molesting children, I don't know what makes people think it will keep
teenagers from having sex with other teenagers.

Fact #2: Kids experiment. With all kinds of stuff. They do drugs, they
have sex, they jump off the roof, they get in shopping carts and have their
friends push them across the highway. Is it smart? No. Is it going to happen
no matter how many times adults tell them not to? Yes.

Fact #3: Telling kids they *can't* do something is the surest way to
make them *want* to do it.

Once you understand and accept these three things, then you're in a
position to make a realistic suggestion about how to deal with issues like
this.

ryanm

[ryanm]

"Kurt Albershardt" > wrote in message
...
>
> Read Peter Mc Williams' "Ain't Nobody's Business if You Do"--from which
> I stole the above quote.
>
Actually, I have read it and agree with every word of it. If we
legalized drugs, gambling, and prostitution and taxed the crap out of it, we
could pay off our national debt and have a massive (hundreds of billions a
year) surplus, and that's without changing anything else about our spending.

ryanm

[Blind Joni]

>I'm not advocating the government do anything..but if we can hand out
>condoms
>> we can darn well teach abstinance...no?
>>
> Not if we expect to be taken seriously. Preaching abstinence makes you
>as big a joke to teenagers as preaching "Just Say No To Drugs."
>

Well I quess if you don't take it seriously it will never work..but if it works
in even a small percentage of cases why not even consider it? If baseball
players thought like this noone would ever try to hit again.



>Fact #3: Telling kids they *can't* do something is the surest way to
>make them *want* to do it.

I think what some are suggesting is not telling teens not to do it..but to
present a total picture of the real world consequences and hope SOME may be
open enough to choose not to. It's funny that some..myself included..believe
that young people can have some measure of self control and a view that
includes a responsible future and others.._____
do not.


John A. Chiara
SOS Recording Studio
Live Sound Inc.
Albany, NY
www.sosrecording.net
518-449-1637

[Blind Joni]

>
>> Religious 'Morality" really doesn't jeapordize anyone.
>
>Unless it's coupled with political and/or economic power and imposed on
>others.
>

And this true no matter what you preferences..that's why we have elections..I
thought.
If we all agreed none of this would matter.


John A. Chiara
SOS Recording Studio
Live Sound Inc.
Albany, NY
www.sosrecording.net
518-449-1637

[Blind Joni]

> "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
>> prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
>or of
>> the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
>petition the
>> government for a redress of grievances."
>
>A wonderful and powerful statement that some in our current
>administration would be well served to read again (carefully.)
>
>

On this we agree!!

John A. Chiara
SOS Recording Studio
Live Sound Inc.
Albany, NY
www.sosrecording.net
518-449-1637

[ScotFraser]

<< What is the unmistakable effect of a well-educated populace?
>>

They don't believe the lies of their leaders, for one thing.


Scott Fraser

[ScotFraser]

<< but if we can hand out condoms
we can darn well teach abstinance...no? >>

No. You might as well demand that people only **** in the afternoon. Kids are
programmed by the release of hormones to propagate the species. You really
think that telling them sex is bad is going to actually result in their finding
it distasteful?


Scott Fraser

[Kurt Albershardt]

Blind Joni wrote:

>> I'm not advocating the government do anything..but if we can hand out
>> condoms we can darn well teach abstinance...no?
>>
>>
>> Not if we expect to be taken seriously. Preaching abstinence makes you
>> as big a joke to teenagers as preaching "Just Say No To Drugs."
>
>
> Well I quess if you don't take it seriously it will never work..but if it works
> in even a small percentage of cases why not even consider it?


Consider it, sure--but not spend our limited budget on it to the
exclusion of better-proven solutions.