Titus Pullo
I came, I saw, I slept
join:2004-06-26
 ·Embarq
| reply to Combat Chuck
Re: WiFi NOT a fundamental right; SF mayor an idio
said by Combat Chuck  :said by Minister :The dislike of the idea of broadband as a utility stems from a love of profit and a hatred of government getting in the way of that profit. And the dislike of profit and desire for government to intervene comes from a childish over-simplistic view of economics and the role profits (and losses) play in increasing the standard of living for everyone; a roll that is totally bypassed once the government decides something that is not a right is and then uses that to play to the publics emotions instead of their brains. Ohh the poor have to get up off their arses to go to the library to get access while the rich sit in their castles hording the broadband, their being oppressed!! You wouldn't know economic theory and its relation to quality of living if it bit you in the ass and fed you breakfast. Your criteria is HSI and a car with gas to make it to the library, while someone else may simply want a warm room this winter AND their medicine while working 40 hours, check to check.
You, and those that hold your opinion, are exemplary of a growing segment of this society that extols their intolerance as a virtue; you're simply rehashing Social Darwinism under the guise of corporate/political dogma. It is currently not the have-nots that hate, Sir, it is the haves that hate those without. Virtue has no price; perhaps that's why you've none.
If you're so sure of your understanding of the relationship between economics (in this case capitalism) and the quality of living it provides, please explain for us how a world economic superpower (that also happens to be one of the most religious industrialized nations in the world) has nearly the highest infant mortality rate within the same class of nations?
You can't.
Why not? Because your theory of economics and any "increased standard of living" don't belong in the same sentence. Your world view is polluted by an angry and hate-filled intolerant rhetoric: intolerance for those that have less and hatred for those that want to help those with less attain more. Whether this is born of self loathing or ignorance is up to the reader. The only thing you give freely is your indignation towards any level of indigence.
--
"The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppose." -- Frederick Douglass |
|
Combat Chuck
Too Many Cannibals
Premium
join:2001-11-29
Erie, PA
| said by Titus Pullo :You, and those that hold your opinion, are exemplary of a growing segment of this society that extols their intolerance as a virtue. Sigh, if only scientists looked at everything with the level of emotion you fools looked at everything we would have all starved to death long ago worrying about the suffering of wheat.
I'd love to know how the belief that profits, as a reward for those who do more with less, therefore lowering the costs of living (Hyundai anyone?) and losses, as the door hitting those who haven't on the ass on the way out, is intolerant. It's not, that's just your way of keeping people from taking a step back and looking at the situation from a realistic (ie: not emotional) standpoint.
--
Pi Piru Piru Piru PiPiru Pi! |
|
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| reply to Titus Pullo
said by Titus Pullo :... please explain for us how [the US] has nearly the highest infant mortality rate within the same class of nations? The key to your misleading question is your inclusion of "the same class of nations" as a qualifier. If you really want to compare economics, compare those nations with established capitalist societies with those nations that depend on other economic theory--and I include corruption as a theory, so don't discount it. If you have a specific point to make about the US within its "class", you need to be more explicit and less verbose in making it.
said by Titus Pullo :hatred for those that want to help those with less attain more. Let me ask you this: Which party profits more by having a large underclass that votes reliably for the Democratic party? I mean, let's face it--if half of the "have nots" got enough to be "have somethings" then they would become taxpayers and some of them would probably vote Republican--much to the distress of the Democratic party. So much better instead to make sure they are fully dependent on government largess and will vote reliably for the party which encourages government dependence.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! |
|
Titus Pullo
I came, I saw, I slept
join:2004-06-26
·Embarq
| reply to Combat Chuck
said by Combat Chuck :said by Titus Pullo :You, and those that hold your opinion, are exemplary of a growing segment of this society that extols their intolerance as a virtue. Sigh, if only scientists looked at everything with the level of emotion you fools looked at everything we would have all starved to death long ago worrying about the suffering of wheat. I'd love to know how the belief that profits, as a reward for those who do more with less, therefore lowering the costs of living (Hyundai anyone?) and losses, as the door hitting those who haven't on the ass on the way out, is intolerant. It's not, that's just your way of keeping people from taking a step back and looking at the situation from a realistic (ie: not emotional) standpoint. This is your response? and to only 1/20 of my post?
You just keep hittin 'em out of the park. Don't you, Chuck?
--
"The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppose." -- Frederick Douglass |
|
John Galt
Forward, March
Premium
join:2004-09-30
Happy Camp
·CenturyLink
| said by Titus Pullo :This is your response? and to only 1/20 of my post? You just keep hittin 'em out of the park. Don't you, Chuck? He knows a troll when he sees one...
No point wasting time, effort and energy on a zealot.
--
A is A |
|
Titus Pullo
I came, I saw, I slept
join:2004-06-26
·Embarq
| reply to calvoiper
There's nothing misleading about the question. Here, I'll make it as concise as I can.
Take any industrialized nation in the world today and compare their infant mortality rate with that of the USA. I don't need economics, political systems or anything else; just the numbers will do.
How then, does one answer why the sole superpower has higher rates than many of the other nations? Is that a "Culture of Life?" Or is it closer to a culture of growing intolerance? It's simply that simple.
Your question is piffle. No one benefits from carrying a large underclass. Look at what we're borrowing from the Chinese now to clean up NOLA. Next you'll tell us that the liberal left opposes any and all measures designed to help the poor that the republicans support. Liberals keep pushing for minimum wage increases and republicans keep telling us it will stifle growth, yet every increase in modern history has done nothing to slow growth.
Both parties are captive to corporatism, but I truly believe one is more likely to leave crumbs on the table than the other.
--
"The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppose." -- Frederick Douglass |
|
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| Actually, there's a good argument to be made that our "culture of tolerance" is to blame for infant mortality--specifically tolerance of drug use and tolerance of pre-natal abuse.
You talk about "help" for the poor the same way a drug addict talks about "help" for his withdrawal--please give me something to increase my dependence.
Finally, if you so reject our economic system as to only support the party that leaves more "crumbs" on the table, I doubt that we are even talking about the same things as goals. I don't want to see people eating crumbs, I want them to be eating bread--but I want them to have a choice of bread, and I'm not willing to give that up just so you and your pseudo-idealistic cronies can run the bakery and make only the kind of bread you like.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! |
|
Titus Pullo
I came, I saw, I slept
join:2004-06-26
·Embarq
| You're not answering the question. I'm not arguing economic systems - I'm talking about how we treat human beings. How old are you?
--
"The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppose." -- Frederick Douglass |
|
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| Damn near 50. Why does that matter? How old are you?
What question am I not answering? You asked me why we have a higher infant mortality rate than other countries with similar economic systems, and I indicated that it's because we put up with things that other countries don't--including cultural issues relating to marriage, child care, and drug use. If you have a different reason, spit it out--but don't expect me to either magically detect what YOU think the answer is or to immediately agree that your answer is the cause.
I'm talking about how we treat human beings too--and you are sounding more and more like a teenager who doesn't like his curfew and claims that it's "intolerant."
Understand something: "Tolerance" does not mean "obligation to endlessly fund." Sample usage: I tolerate your practice of a religion different from my own, but I won't be funding that religion.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! |
|
Titus Pullo
I came, I saw, I slept
join:2004-06-26
·Embarq
| said by calvoiper :Damn near 50. Why does that matter? How old are you? What question am I not answering? You asked me why we have a higher infant mortality rate than other countries with similar economic systems, and I indicated that it's because we put up with things that other countries don't--including cultural issues relating to marriage, child care, and drug use. If you have a different reason, spit it out--but don't expect me to either magically detect what YOU think the answer is or to immediately agree that your answer is the cause. I'm talking about how we treat human beings too--and you are sounding more and more like a teenager who doesn't like his curfew and claims that it's "intolerant." Understand something: "Tolerance" does not mean "obligation to endlessly fund." Sample usage: I tolerate your practice of a religion different from my own, but I won't be funding that religion. calvoiper Age goes to perspective, and there's really only one answer to the question. If you can't figure it out, then I'm sorry, but I can give you a clue -- Forget systems and focus on means.
I know the particulars, and you provide a few good examples.
Now, if you care to, answer the question at its root and tell us why we tolerate - to use your term - high infant mortality when we clearly have the means to reduce it significantly.
Please understand this: I don't advocate anything by asking this question. I don't advocate a welfare state, Marxism, or any other hideous thing you can imagine. I'm asking a simple question that requires a root cause. No one needs a textbook explanation. Ones conscience should suffice.
--
"The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppose." -- Frederick Douglass |
|
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| All right, since you're making me stab at your thrice rephrased question in the dark,...
We tolerate a higher infant mortality in the US because "civil libertarians" believe that it is inappropriate to force proper pre-natal care on unwilling mothers. In particular, we cannot legally force a pregnant drug-addicted female into a secure facility. We cannot force pregnant females to stop smoking, or to make and keep clinic appointments.
This is beginning to sound like the tired old refrain about how Regan supposedly closed mental health facilities and dumped mentally handicapped people on the street. What really happened was that the dear liberal courts said that you cannot confine a mentally deranged person unless they "are an immediate threat to themselves or others", so scores, if not hundreds, of thousands of mentally ill people signed themselves out to live on the street. The institutions were closed because they were empty, not because anyone wanted to dump people in the gutter.
You haven't answered my question about age, but perhaps we're circling Mark Twain's quote about how if a man isn't a liberal at 16 he has no heart and if he isn't a conservative at 40 he has no mind. After you share your age, perhaps you'll tell us which government agency or liberal do-good "non-profit" you work for....
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! |
|
John Galt
Forward, March
Premium
join:2004-09-30
Happy Camp
·CenturyLink
| reply to calvoiper
said by calvoiper :Actually, there's a good argument to be made that our "culture of tolerance" is to blame for infant mortality--specifically tolerance of drug use and tolerance of pre-natal abuse. WOW...I'm glad I read further down in the posts. It saved me a lot of typing.
Calvoiper is exactly correct.
Why do I know this? Because I spent 10 years at the business end of an autopsy scalpel doing post-mortem exams on dead babies. They were usually the "waste by-product" of a crack-whore "mother" who was too busy with her "habit" to attend to the new life growing in her womb. I guess that the only "happy thought" was that she would soon be newly-impregnated and the same vicious cycle would continue.
Nothing like delivering a stillborn to an abusive "mother" and having her ask if she can "go now" because she has to "meet somebody".
Add to that alcoholic "mothers", "mothers" that smoke, and "mothers" that just plain don't give a shit..and that is why you get a high infant mortality in industrialized nations.
Why?
Because they can afford it. As long as the "taxpayer" is picking up the tab, why should they care?
My personal preference would be to give them a full-on Demerol push and send them off to their happiness. But that is not "socially acceptable" now, is it?
I'd probably be accused of killing a Liberal...
--
A is A |
|
bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
| said by John Galt :My personal preference would be to give them a full-on Demerol push and send them off to their happiness. But that is not "socially acceptable" now, is it? Not only is it not "socially acceptable," its also not "morally acceptable." What happens to those people later in life from any number of diseases and illnesses to things like mental illness is going to be their sentence... And they will have no one to blame but themselves.
--
Tor server operator... Helping the free flow of information daily. |
|
John Galt
Forward, March
Premium
join:2004-09-30
Happy Camp
·CenturyLink
| said by bmn :And they will have no one to blame but themselves. The reality is that everyone else ends up getting the blame...
--
A is A |
|
bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
| said by John Galt :said by bmn :And they will have no one to blame but themselves. The reality is that everyone else ends up getting the blame... Well, with phenomenon like addiction, where cultural, societal and environmental issues also play a role, its much easier to blame other people than to take responsibility. That's never going to change.
--
Tor server operator... Helping the free flow of information daily. |
|
jester121
Premium
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL
 ·surpasshosting
 ·ViaTalk
| reply to John Galt
said by John Galt :[ Why do I know this? Because I spent 10 years at the business end of an autopsy scalpel doing post-mortem exams on dead babies. I think technically it was the corpse that was on the business end of the scalpel. All a question of perspective, I suppose.  |
|
qdemn7
Smurf in My Loop
Premium
join:2003-09-16
Fort Worth, TX
| reply to John Galt
said by John Galt :My personal preference would be to give them a full-on Demerol push and send them off to their happiness. But that is not "socially acceptable" now, is it? I'd probably be accused of killing a Liberal... You don't have to be that harsh, simply forcibly sterilize their sorry asses. The men as well as the women. Of course the Left and empathy fascists would shit themselves blind over that. 
Of course it WOULD have the desired affect of reducing infant mortality. But then if you want an omelet you have to break eggs. That's hard on the egg, and hurts the hen's feelings, but then, so what? 
--
"Gun Control: The notion that Matthew Shepard tied to a fence post in the middle of Wyoming is morally superior to Matthew Shepard explaining to the local sheriff how his attackers got all those fatal bullet holes." ~Dan Weiner |
|
Titus Pullo
I came, I saw, I slept
join:2004-06-26
·Embarq
| reply to calvoiper
The answer is that we now tolerate obscene levels of poverty for the richest nation on earth, which leads to many of our social ills. The problem today is that the gap between rich and poor is reaching critical mass.
I just ran across this article today while surfing:
»news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051005/us_···usa_dc_6
Which contains such tidbits as:
"Since 2000, the ranks of the poor have increased year by year by almost 5.5 million in total."
Which, interestingly enough, corresponds to the same year that infant mortality began to increase (after a slow decrease) in the US. Coincidence? I don't think so. You may disagree.
Another snippet from the link:
U.S. POVERTY WORST IN INDUSTRIALISED WORLD
"Every August, we Americans tell ourselves a lie," said David Brady, a Duke University professor who studies poverty.
"The poverty rate was designed to undercount because the government wanted to show progress in the war on poverty."
"Taking everything into account, the real rate is around 18 percent, or 48 million people. Poverty in the United States is more widespread, by far, than in any other industrialized country."
Poverty is a universal problem, as is inequality. The world's 500 richest people, according to U.N. statistics, have as much income as the world's poorest 416 million. Yes, that's 500/416,000,000. If someone doesn't see the problems inherent to such a skewed statistic, I daresay they're in an alternate reality.
I can think of no plausible excuse for such obscenity. We live in a world that has created a milieu of pure greed with class systems that encourage intolerance and indifference in order to divide and conquer. Such a state of existence is unsustainable, as history has shown us time and time again.
--
"The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppose." -- Frederick Douglass |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·Comcast
| said by Titus Pullo :» news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051005/us_···usa_dc_6Which contains such tidbits as: "Since 2000, the ranks of the poor have increased year by year by almost 5.5 million in total." Which, interestingly enough, corresponds to the same year that infant mortality began to increase (after a slow decrease) in the US. Coincidence? I don't think so. You may disagree. Which also, intersetingly enough, matches how many illegal immigrants have flooded into the US.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
My Web Page |
|
Titus Pullo
I came, I saw, I slept
join:2004-06-26
·Embarq
| said by TKJunkMail :said by Titus Pullo :» news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051005/us_···usa_dc_6Which contains such tidbits as: "Since 2000, the ranks of the poor have increased year by year by almost 5.5 million in total." Which, interestingly enough, corresponds to the same year that infant mortality began to increase (after a slow decrease) in the US. Coincidence? I don't think so. You may disagree. Which also, intersetingly enough, matches how many illegal immigrants have flooded into the US. So you're saying illegals are included in the data and that illegal aliens (not black Americans) are the predominant source for the increase in US infant mortality since 2000? I'd appreciate a citation or a link to back up that assertion, if you'd be so kind.
--
"The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppose." -- Frederick Douglass |
|
