> >> I think that we can all agree that there is some screwy stuff going
> >> on in our government and indeed, the other powers that be here.
> >> However, I think we can also agree that this is the best government that
> >> the world currently has to offer.
> >
> > That's why the US has the second highest poverty rate in the developed
> > world,
>
> Really? This is like comparing apples and oranges. "Poor" people in the
> U.S. would be considered rich in any other country in the world.
In terms of converted currency value of available cash, sure.
Unfortunately, I can't use my US dollars to pay Uganda prices, so it
really doesn't matter if I'm "richer" than someone there if they make
3x their cost of living, and I make 1.1x (or 0.5x) of mine.
BTW, these are UN stats. I meant to link them (
http://hdr.undp.org/statistics/data/ )in the original post; obviously
I forgot.
There are plenty more disturbing statistics, but I tried to leave out
the ones not semi-directly related to our government, such as the fact
that the US has double the infant mortality rate and pre-5-year-old
mortality rate of other developed nations.
> If, aside from gamed statistics, this is actually true, it would be
> because other countries in the running have socialist governments which
> mitigate against having poor people. Of course, they do so with
> confiscatory fees and taxes. Which is why the U.S. leads the world in
> entrepreneurship, invention, etc.
>
> Oh, and it just could be that those millions of illegal immigrants are
> bringing down our stats. So maybe we should send them home.
Bring me your poor, your tired, your huddled masses that make over
$80k/year and have a postsecondary degree after a 36-month waiting
period and highly intensive background check...
> > the highest private health expenditure in the developed world
> > (in fact, we're right up there with Uganda, Cambodia, Lebanon, Bosnia,
> > and other 'good governments'),
>
> Naturally. Of course, I don't see people in the U.S. hocking their
> condos to travel to other countries to get their operations. Perhaps we
> have better health care because we spend more on it.
But we *don't* have better healthcare. I personally know a dozen
people who are in need of medical treatment that can't get it because
their employers' insurance won't cover it (yes, they're all employed
full time), their employers don't offer insurance, or the insurance is
too expensive for them to pay it and still eat. And *nobody* will
take you without insurance. In places like Sweden, Great Britain, or
Canada, these people would just be able to walk into the doctor's
office.
> I'll stipulate this, though. One of the reasons we spend so much on
> health care is because the people of the U.S. have become intensely
> narcissistic. Remember, all those boob and face jobs are figured into
> those health care costs. But with affluence tends to come narcissism. It
> causes people to excessively fuss over themselves and be obsessed with
> their looks and their health. This, in turn, tends to magnify problems
> of health and appearance. Years ago, before health care became so
> universal, families had their own remedies, and rarely went to see a
> doctor. These days, people tend to see a doctor for the sniffles.
Cosmetic surgery isn't classified as health care. A big reason we
spend so much on health care here is that it's a competitive business.
A city that has enough people keep one MRI machine occupied maybe
75% of its available time has 10 of them, because every hospital has
to have one to compete with the other hospitals. It's like that with
lots of equipment. And the cost gets passed on to us.
> > the highest economic inequality in the
> > developed world (in the same area as Iran, Kenya, and Cambodia),
>
> It's called capitalism, and it's one of the faults of this system.
> Capitalism (not just free markets) tends to produce a greater inequity
> as time goes on. The solution to this is usually socialism. But a better
> solution is some limits on capitalism. For example, one of the main
> reasons your gas is so high is speculation on the futures markets.
> People buy and sell contracts for things they never actually intend to
> own, simply to make money. In the end, they haven't actually done
> anything of value except siphon money off of transactions going through
> the system. This activity adds cost to every other transaction in the
> system. And a great many people make a great deal of money for really
> doing nothing at all.
By this reasoning, Iran, Kenya, and Cambodia (along with Senegal,
Ghana, and Turkmenistan) would be shining examples of capitalism,
since they have similar economic inequity rates, and other countries,
like Japan, Denmark, Sweden, and Belgium, would be socialist regimes.
How well does this align with reality?
> > a low
> > life expectancy index (with Cuba, Korea, and Kuwait - probably our
> > healthcare system is to blame for this one), etc.
>
> We have low life expectancy? There's a surpise. People live longer and
> longer these days, but the U.S. is behind all these other countries?
> More and more babies make through to viable childhoods, and we're behind
> all these other countries? Hmm.
Actually, as mentioned previously we have about double the infant and
under-5 mortality rates than most developed countries. Possibly this
has some effect on the life expectancy statistic.
> > Your vote only
> > counts if you're in the majority for your state,
>
> This is true only in national elections, and only true to some extent.
> The Senate was created to mediate this tendency coming from the House of
> Representatives. But then again, you live in a representative republic.
> You get to vote for the guys who run things. If you happen to be in the
> minority, things may not run as you'd like. That's the way it is, and
> the way it was intended. It's no use arguing about it; the Founding
> Fathers are long gone, and this is the system they set up. Live with it
> or move.
Yeah, I know. But just because I'm stuck with it doesn't mean it's "the best."
> > the government has a
> > direct feed of all your phone and internet traffic (without due
> > process), and considers you a suspected terrorist.
> >
>
> I rather doubt the government considers me a terrorist. (You, on the
> other hand... ;-)
The government is monitoring your communications, and its rationale
for doing so is preventing terrorism. Therefore, you must be
considered a suspected terrorist, or they wouldn't need to monitor
your communications.
> Any privacy you think you have is really illusory. Every time you swipe
> a credit or debit card, rent a hotel room, use one of those little CVS
> cards, etc., you're potentially being tracked. You benefit from the fact
> that all these entities with data on you haven't pooled their
> information... yet. There are cameras at various intersections. If you
> have a concealed weapons permit, you're in the system, even if you've
> never committed a crime.
I'm aware of this. Also, my fingerprints have been on file since I
was six because the leader of my boy scout troop thought it would be a
wonderful idea to take us all down to the police station and get us
all fingerprinted "for safety."
> That the government has tapped into your communications with Carnivore,
> Echelon, et al, shouldn't particularly concern you unless you are in
> fact engaged in illegal activities.
There it is again - "if you're not doing anything wrong, why do you care?"
> The only reason it didn't happen
> sooner is that the technology didn't exist. Once it came into existence,
> the government (or someone else, like Google) would use it to look into
> your business. Google keeps track of surfing habits. Tivo keeps track of
> viewing habits. Microsoft keeps track of your hardware. Where have you
> been? Governments tapped into deep ocean phone cables almost as soon as
> they could be laid. Now all they have to do is point a dish up and get
> all the data they'd like.
And here I thought little things like the US Constitution were
supposed to make a difference.
> And another point, specifically about the NSA program. This is not a new
> capability, and has been exercised by our government for a long time,
> through several administrations. Congress, regardless of what they say
> now, were well informed on it. One of the problems the NSA has is that
> it's virtually impossible to monitor phone conversations and internet
> traffic going to or coming from overseas without also picking up
> domestic traffic as well. Unfortunately for us, when the NSA picks up
> domestic traffic that indicates the commission of a crime or conspiracy
> to commit one, they must ash can it. Just because they have no brief to
> pursue or turn it over to other governmental agencies.
Because it has existed for a long time doesn't make it not wrong. I'm
sure previous administrations attributed it to the war on communism,
or the war on drugs. Next it will be the war on illegal immigration.
Or maybe the war on "piracy."
> Also, regardless of what you see on TV, the NSA hasn't the capability to
> monitor *every* phone conversation or email. They're good, but not quite
> that good.
>
> <snip>
Yeah, thank goodness for that. This issue in particular reminds me
forcibly of "The Hanged Man's Song" by John Sandford (John Camp).
On a related note, Sandford's Kidd books (The Hanged Man's Song, The
Devil's Code, Fool's Run, and The Empress File) are must-reads for
computer geeks.
> > "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
> > safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Ben Franklin
>
> Agreed, but the box has been opened, the barn door is ajar, and you're
> out of luck. When Einstein figured out E=mc2 and a bunch of scientists
> figured out you could make a really big bomb with this stuff, did you
> think someone wouldn't actually do it? And *use* the thing?
>
> Man always wanted to fly. It was only a matter of time before some guys
> figured out how to do it.
>
> If technology exists to clone people, how long do you think it will be
> before someone does it, laws or no laws?
>
> You can whine and cry about the government using the technology (that
> other entities are also using), but you're pissing in the wind. If the
> technology exists, it will be used, both for good and evil. It so
> happens your government is using it. So get a law passed preventing its
> use. Of course, that doesn't mean it won't be. But the problem will be
> that if it is used, its *benefits* can't be realized. Which is part of
> the reason that the warning signs before 9/11, known by one part of the
> government, couldn't be shared with another part of the government.
> Great law.
Heh, that's not the reason the government had warning signs before 9/11.
So, because the government is already wrong, and uses all the
resources at its disposal to do things it's specifically forbidden to
do, we should just quit whining about it and take it? It's already
done, we may as well welcome our new overlords?
> Also, another major factor in this whole debate is profiling. They're
> not interested in you, and will do what they can to avoid having
> anything to do with your traffic, unless you fit the profile. There is
> simply too much traffic to actively watch it all. So they have to
> concentrate where it will do them some good-- Hamid calling someone in
> Syria on a limited use cell phone meant to be hard to trace.
Actually this is a point Sandford's character made in The Hanged Man's
Code. (plot spoiler) It's revealed that the US govt is working on a
project to flag communications based on profiling, but the data flow
is too unwieldy to be actually used for crime/terrorism prevention;
the only real use for them is extortion. It's a work of fiction, but
it has some very close parallels to reality.
> Personally, if the government wants to spy on me having sex, I can tell
> them it's just not going to be anywhere near as exciting as it is with
> people who get paid thousands to do it professionally. But they're
> welcome to anyway.
Well, they're not welcome to watch me having sex. If I can't avoid
them doing so, I'm at least entitled to be paid for it! (which should
be a further discouragement from my already off-putting physical
appearance...)
Prepare for inconclusive ending in 3...2...1...now!
-- Tcsh: Now with higher FPS! http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/shouldbefree.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 20:08:17 EDT