[OFB Cafe] Tech Buzz: Who Deserves the Tech Vote?

[Timothy Butler]

>> 	FEMA did not work well, but honestly, people should not need FEMA.
>> Who in their right mind lives in a city below sea level anyway? But,
>> that's neither here nor there I suppose.
>
> Poor people without options.  People who once upon a time, _didn't_  
> live 14
> feet below sea level, but whose homes have been steadily subsiding  
> because
> _rich_ people control policy.
>
> People in their right minds don't _buy_ homes below sea level, on  
> flood
> plains, or anywhere in Florida; but people have to live somewhere.

	The midwest is wide open. That's what often confuses me. Here in St.  
Louis, we have some of the cheapest home prices and cost of living  
costs of anywhere in the country. (Cheaper than, say, Florida). We  
also don't have hurricanes.

	I don't want to sound cold, either. I'd like to help hurricane  
victims, especially the poorest of the poor. All the same I don't have  
faith in the government doing a good job with that. And, I think as  
much as I want to help them, it is easier to help people who don't  
expect help. If people are trying to make the best of things (rather  
than waiting for the government) when you provide them with help, it  
works better.

>
>
>>> whose policies have put America into war after war, caused
>>
>> 	Two, both of which Gore likely would have gone into as well, if he
>> followed in the footsteps of his former boss.
>
> I don't know that I agree completely, but I think it's a safe bet to  
> say that
> _nobody_ as president could have avoided going to war in  
> Afghanistan.  Never
> mind that history says that going to war in Afghanistan is always  
> going to be
> a losing proposition, no president that wanted to stay out of that  
> war could
> have kept the confidence of the people, and nobody who could have been
> elected by the people would likely have wanted to stay out of it  
> anyway.

	It's sort of like Georgia, I suspect. No one wants to see another  
restless giant start annexing neighboring states, but how do you ever  
win if you get involved in such a mess?

	I do think Gore may have gone into Iraq. The Clinton administration  
certainly flirted with the idea, especially in 1998. It certainly  
wouldn't have been a surprise at least. After all, Bush was the one  
running on a platform of *not* doing nation building, with the Dems  
having a history of it over the previous decade. But, he did basically  
the same thing. I think presidents love nation building because it is  
a chance for glory (though rarely does it happen that way).

>
>>
>>> put the economy in the crapper,
>>
>> 	You place far too much weight on the power of the government
>> concerning the economy. Our trade deficit is far more damaging to the
>> economy than anything the Bush administration (or the Clinton
>> administration) has done.
>
> Possibly true.  However, the economy is the cross a president has to  
> bear.
> Yes, there are things that a president can do that will change the  
> economy (I
> suspect Nixon's recognition of the People's Republic of China was  
> initially
> good for the economy), but for the most part a president just has to  
> accept
> that if the market's are good, people will look back on him fondly,  
> and vice
> versa.  otoh, trillions of dollars into a war in Iraq, are not good  
> for the
> economy, and while I'll agree that the trade deficit is probably  
> worse in the
> long run, _not_ having so many wars would have done wonders for  
> Bush's image
> with the economists.

	Probably so.

>> 	At least in Europe, I don't think that was hard. Places like France
>> didn't like the United States before.
>
> THAT is American isolationism.  Places like France _loved_ the US.   
> Some
> politicians didn't, but you don't realize just how much mileage you  
> got (and
> squandered) out of saving Europe from the Nazis.  They even forgave  
> you for
> being late (the British didn't, but then they weren't occupied).

	Hmm... I've never noticed Brits being angry at the US... generally  
speaking. I don't say what I said out of any malice to Europeans. I  
have plenty of friends in Britain and the continent. It just seems to  
me from conversations with them, they had a fairly low view of the  
U.S. (not its people, but the country) even before Iraq. But, I  
probably shouldn't generalize either.

>
>
>>> The smart democrat went on to teach at Harvard, win an Oscar and  
>>> later
>>> accept a Nobel prize for his work in the Global Warming arena.
>>
>> 	Yes, for work that has been thoroughly brought to question by those
>> actually in the fields Gore like to talk about.
>
> Not really.  It's been thoroughly brought into question by people  
> with vested
> interests in denying global warming, who like to cite the odd  
> question by
> others who actually believe it.

	I've met several significant experts that don't seem to have any real  
interest either way (other than that life would be much easier if they  
argued FOR global warming). But, I'd suggest Gore's Inconvenient Truth  
seems to be more pseudo-science than science -- that doesn't mean all  
of his concerns are hogwash, of course. I just think Gore is extreme.

	A friend of mine has debated Gore in the past on Global Warming, and  
from his impressions, I have a very high respect for Gore's personal  
integrity. He sounds like he truly is sincere. I just think he is  
sometimes misguided.

>
>
>> And, the alarmist
>> propaganda so far has come without realistic solutions (that's  
>> perhaps
>> the biggest problem of all).
>
> LOL.  So unless there's a solution, let's not bother about it.  You  
> _can't_
> have a solution until you agree to work on one, and for the most  
> part nobody
> wants to even admit there's a problem, so they'll never have a  
> solution.

	Well most people seem willing enough around here to admit there is a  
problem. The issue, it seems to me, is that most of the proposed  
solutions are extreme. Kyoto, for example, would completely change  
life for those in countries such as the U.S., if it was observed.  
That's why the Clinton administration did not support it, even though  
Gore did.

>
>
>> 	Confession helps restore one's reputation. It was also nearly 30
>> years ago.
>
> It's sure better than having to admit something during the  
> campaign :-)

	How true!

>> 	Can we guarantee that Obama would
>> not get it to a war? (I doubt -- it's now a prerequisite to becoming
>> president to start at least one war, I believe).
>
> I can certainly see the possibility of either candidate getting  
> boxed into
>
> situation in either Iran or Georgia, and something else is sure to  
> crop up.


	Indeed. I think Iran is fearfully close to coming into conflict with  
us. Either way. I personally think if we pull out of Iraq it will only  
accelerate the confrontation, but I hope I'm wrong. There are some  
times a person would like to be wrong. This is one of them.

>
>
>> 	Do tell how Obama is going to pay for all of his government  
>> expansion
>> projects, such as his enormous health plan that will surely run over
>> budget...
>
> Divert the Iraq war money...

	But you just forgot about the Iran and Georgia war money...

	-Tim

---
Timothy R. Butler | "Bad is so bad, that we cannot but think good
Editor, OfB.biz   | an accident;  good is so  good, that  we feel
tbutler at ofb.biz   | certain that evil could be explained."
timothybutler.us  |                           -- G. K. Chesterton