Date: Dec 21, 2012 4:12 PM
Author: Paul A. Tanner III
Subject: Re: Would effective gun control laws be 'unacceptable social engineering'?
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 3:37 PM, kirby urner <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 2:16 AM, Paul Tanner <email@example.com> wrote:
>> > Voting is a quite distant form of control, more like the remote control
>> > channel changer.
>> So what? Therefore don't vote? It's the only form of control the
>> average Jane or Joe has over what laws we do and do not have. (If you
>> are an average Jane or Joe and do not vote and if I run for office and
>> find out, then you think that I'm going to do anything other than
>> ignore you?)
> No, not "therefore don't vote" but "therefore don't *just* vote".
> Make speeches on Youtube, join a Neighborhood Association and/or PTA. Write
> posts in cyberspace. Volunteer with non-profits. Contribute to campaigns
> (time/energy, not just money).
> I have a family member who flies to DC and visits with Congressional
> offices. I personally don't do that, but I do other things. I've been on a
> Neighborhood Association (but am not on one at the moment).
> My household does lots of volunteer service that affects the local political
> reality. I think I also mentioned my leadership role in the Occupy
> movement, which makes sense given my family has worked with Egypt and Libya
> and other Arabic-speaking nations (I've forgotten most my Arabic).
> I call our house the Blue House, an allusion the the White House on some
> level. I consider myself potentate, like a president, king, or prince. I
> should read more Machiavelli maybe.
>> >> Note: If you have voted for the more conservative Republican
>> >> alternative when you vote, then you have partly caused this mess.
>> > I'd say all the presidents since Eisenhower have been trapped in the
>> > post
>> > WW2 system for priming the economy, which is / was through defense
>> > contracting, with the pork distributed to all 50 states in exchange for
>> > various levels of cooperation.
>> I'd say that this is flat wrong.
> I'm not surprised, but then your analysis in general is quite shallow.
>> For instance:
>> You claim you like Medicare. But it's a fact that every last
>> Republican back then voted against its creation every last step of the
>> way until the very last vote when its final passage was assured. Only
>> then did some switch to try to cover their asses.
> I'm to your left Paul, not to your right. You confuse me with your
> "conservatives" because you can't seem to find me on your political spectrum
> But then I'm not your typical "left winger" in some other respects e.g. I'm
> not a Marxist. I believe in liberal sharing of skills and ideas, w/r regard
> for "race" (which I don't believe in anyway), creed, or birth place.
> Engineers contribute more to the political change process than most
> politicians. The free / open source software movement has transformed the
> USA economy in the last couple decades, in ways the bookkeepers don't have
> to reflect on their books. Multi-billion dollar industries on these
> community-sourced technologies.
> High schools are among the last to update their curricula accordingly, given
> these are the most conservative institutions and slowest to change. But SQL
> is slowly making more inroads, along with Python, Perl, PHP and all the rest
> of it. Math teachers haven't gotten the leadership they need from NCTM,
> can't say that's surprising.
>> So if you say that voting is not necessary or that voting for the
>> right people is not necessary, then there are so many examples in
>> history that prove this wrong, it's beyond belief why anyone would
>> believe it.
> I didn't say that.
> If you want to talk about implications, I was more implying you're hardly
> qualified to boast of your political savvy and activism if all you do is
> I am far more politically active than you are, is my working assumption. I
> don't "just vote". I'm a community organizer (I'm saying that to thumb my
> nose at Citizens United and their execrable movie 'Occupy Unmasked' which
> demonizes "community organizers" (a pot shot at Obama).
>>> I'm only talking about voting: I'm talking only about whether people
>>> vote for more liberal or the most liberal or more conservative or the
>>> most conservative candidate.
>> Voting might just be how people fool themselves into thinking they're
>> their part for democracy. They pull a little lever once every two or four
>> years and think that's the sum total of their contribution.
>> Therefore don't vote or don't vote for the right people?
> No, therefore don't just vote, and if that's all you do then maybe listen to
> your betters for a change.
> You have a lot to learn.
>> >> My arguing that people should vote and my wanting them to vote for the
>> >> most progressive candidate among all the given choices says nothing as
>> >> to whether I would think that enough people would vote in such a way
>> >> over enough election cycles to cause the US to have the same type of
>> >> laws as the Scandinavians.
>> > It's not just about "laws".
>> So what? Therefore don't have laws or don't have the right laws?
> No, therefore don't be a total cop out in thinking laws are all that matter.
> Or voting.
> So what? I repeat: Medicare and all good things like that from
>> government is "laws" - without which the level of suffering and
>> premature death from lack of health care would be much greater.
> Government helps pay for Medicare but the private sector delivers the
> services for the most part. Medicare is a public / private partnership.
> But then "we the people" are the government, so to include the people as
> private sector (not on government payroll) is not to exclude them from
> governance. "Cyber" means "steer" and when it comes to steersmen
> (statesmen), you'll find them on the Web, helping to guide, lead, and steer.
> Project Renaissance is a lot about public / private partnerships:
> http://grunch.net/archives/41 (more about my policies / guiding principles)
>> > To have universal health care at a high standard, you need way more than
>> > "laws" and way more than "money": you need a lot of highly trained
>> > health
>> > care workers with equipment and facilities, happy enough practicing
>> > health
>> > care to want to contribute their professional services.
>> So what? Don't expand Medicare to all to stop the suffering?
> I probably wouldn't call it "Medicare" and I might open it up to
> non-nationals more, as providers as well as clients.
> A lot of the better more affordable providers of medical services might be
> outside the USA, say in Canada. Why ball and chain people to only domestic
> providers, including for meds?
Let's get down to it:
I'm not doing what you think I'm doing, which is making this about
your or my political savvy or whatever you say.
All I'm talking about is what the average Jane or Joe needs to do at
minimum to get an end to this suffering, these homeless people in
question, for instance. That is, I note that in the Scandinavian
countries, the vast majority of people do not do more politically than
merely vote - they have neither the time nor the inclination to do
more than that (and I do not condemn them or otherwise criticize them
for that), and in sufficient percentages vote for the sufficiently
A starving person needs food, not BS philosophizing.
I point out that in 41 states, the majority of homeless people are
DENIED healthcare because they are DENIED an expansion of Medicare or
Medicaid and Food Stamps. And then your reply is BS philosophizing -
utterly empty, meaningless, and useless. And oh, by the way, the fact
that they are suffering so much without proper food and proper health
care, their rates of malnourishment premature deaths are much higher
than the general population, shows that private charity is not cutting
Like that starving person above needing food and not BS
philosophizing, these homeless people need most one and only one
thing: Proper food and proper health care, financed by the only thing
that I proved can pay for it, which is government. And this includes
all those expensive tests for diagnosis and expensive treatments that
those who are already covered with good insurance take for granted.
Private charity cannot go there, so don't say that they don't need
government assistance in the form of Medicare or Medicaid and Food
Stamps. (The proof is the fact that only about 2% of GDP is spent on
charity of every type in the US, but the total amount of health care
spending needed to cover all that unmet health care need out there is
a much larger percentage of GDP than that 2%. Note that no more than
only roughly 10% of that 2% could be diverted to meet said unmet
Therefore this question: Why are you against giving this starving
person food - why are you against giving these homeless people what
they need most, which is proper food and proper health care, paid for
by the only thing that can pay for it, which is government, by
expanding Medicare or Medicaid or Food Stamps?