decot@cwruecmp.UUCP (02/13/84)
Thomas Ruschak:
I think the main issue here is the fact that if we help the starving people
of the world (temporarily), we also hurt ourselves (permanently). I do not
think the American people as a whole have the altruism necessary to do this.
What permanent (or even temporary) serious damage do we do ourselves by helping
people? If you mean that it is wrong to help them only temporarily, then you
are correct. We should help them until they no longer need it, for our own
good. The American people as a whole do have certain kinds of altruism, but
they aren't presently too interested in the plight of distant others.
This is not impossible to change. Make foreign culture a focus of education.
I tend to want the US's role in the world to be somewhat parental, nurturing
underdeveloped "child" nations until they can support themselves, and then
letting them go do whatever they want. It is important to make sure that
these nations become self-sufficient before putting them out on their own,
and that they don't get obnoxious and arrogant and bother their neighbors.
We should also break up petty fights between children, offering cooperation
as a solution. This is all taught on Sesame Street, but few adults practice
it.
If we don't responsibly help those in our care, they turn to other "adults"
for help, like the USSR, who is more than happy to "take care of them", but
for different reasons. Beating a misbehaving child, like Nicaragua,
is not good for you or the child. It only makes him run to an apparently
more understanding authority.
I do NOT advocate running around being holier-than-thou to nations that DO
NOT want our help. But if we gain the reputation as an authoritative
power, they'll come to us if they need us. This would strengthen our influence
in the world, and would help us become the Salvadors del Mondo we are always
claiming to be.
This discussion of underdeveloped countries as "our children" may seem to
stink of a nationalistic superiority complex. This is not intended, because
good parents treat their children as equals, keeping in mind the facts.
Dave Decot "Non-Americans are people, too."
decvax!cwruecmp!decot (Decot.Case@rand-relay)decot@cwruecmp.UUCP (02/13/84)
Thomas Ruschak:
I think the main issue here is the fact that if we help the starving
people of the world (temporarily), we also hurt ourselves (permanently).
I do not think the American people as a whole have the altruism necessary
to do this.
What permanent (or even temporary) serious damage do we do ourselves by helping
people? If you mean that it is wrong to help them only temporarily, then you
are correct. We should help them until they no longer need it, for our own
good. The American people as a whole do have certain kinds of altruism, but
they aren't presently too interested in the plight of distant others.
This is not impossible to change. Make foreign culture a focus of education.
I tend to want the US's role in the world to be somewhat parental, nurturing
underdeveloped "child" nations until they can support themselves, and then
letting them go do whatever they want. It is important to make sure that
these nations become self-sufficient before putting them out on their own,
and that they don't get obnoxious and arrogant and bother their neighbors.
We should also break up petty fights between children, offering cooperation
as a solution. This is all taught on Sesame Street, but few adults practice
it.
If we don't responsibly help those in our care, they turn to other "adults"
for help, like the USSR, who is more than happy to "take care of them", but
for different reasons. Beating a misbehaving child, like Nicaragua,
is not good for you or the child. It only makes him run to an apparently
more understanding authority.
I do NOT advocate running around being holier-than-thou to nations that DO
NOT want our help. But if we gain the reputation as an authoritative
power, they'll come to us if they need us. This would strengthen our influence
in the world, and would help us become the Salvadors del Mondo we are always
claiming to be.
This discussion of underdeveloped countries as "our children" may seem to
stink of a nationalistic superiority complex. This is not intended, because
good parents treat their children as equals, keeping in mind the facts.
Dave Decot "Non-Americans are people, too."
decvax!cwruecmp!decot (Decot.Case@rand-relay)decot@cwruecmp.UUCP (Dave Decot) (02/13/84)
Thomas Ruschak:
I think the main issue here is the fact that if we help the starving
people of the world (temporarily), we also hurt ourselves (permanently).
I do not think the American people as a whole have the altruism necessary
to do this.
What permanent (or even temporary) serious damage do we do ourselves by helping
people? If you mean that it is wrong to help them only temporarily, then you
are correct. We should help them until they no longer need it, for our own
good. The American people as a whole do have certain kinds of altruism, but
they aren't presently too interested in the plight of distant others.
This is not impossible to change. Make foreign culture a focus of education.
I tend to want the US's role in the world to be somewhat parental, nurturing
underdeveloped "child" nations until they can support themselves, and then
letting them go do whatever they want. It is important to make sure that
these nations become self-sufficient before putting them out on their own,
and that they don't get obnoxious and arrogant and bother their neighbors.
We should also break up petty fights between "children," offering cooperation
as a solution. This is all taught on Sesame Street, but few adults practice
it.
If we don't responsibly help those in our care, they turn to other "adults"
for help, like the USSR, who is more than happy to "take care of them", but
for different reasons. Beating a misbehaving child, like Nicaragua,
is not good for you or the child. It only makes her run to an apparently
more understanding authority.
I do NOT advocate running around being holier-than-thou to nations that DO
NOT want our help. But if we gain the reputation as an authoritative
power, they'll come to us if they need us. This would strengthen our influence
in the world, and would help us become the Salvadors del Mundo we are always
claiming to be.
This discussion of underdeveloped countries as "our children" may seem to
smell of a nationalistic superiority complex. This is not intended, because
good parents treat their children as equals, keeping in mind the facts.
Good parents don't refuse to learn from their children, either.
Dave Decot "Non-Americans are people, too."
decvax!cwruecmp!decot (Decot.Case@rand-relay)kechkayl@ecn-ee.UUCP (02/15/84)
#R:cwruecmp:-99600:ecn-ee:13400005:000:3120
ecn-ee!kechkayl Feb 14 13:30:00 1984
First, the permanent damage I was talking about was the destruction of
topsoils, and the fact that we may ourselves need those reserves.
Sorry, but if it comes down to a choice between starving or having someone
else starve, I will (callously, if you will) let them starve. Self preservation
is a part of most everyone.
I tend to want the US's role in the world to be somewhat parental, nurturing
underdeveloped "child" nations until they can support themselves, and then
letting them go do whatever they want. It is important to make sure that
these nations become self-sufficient before putting them out on their own,
and that they don't get obnoxious and arrogant and bother their neighbors.
We should also break up petty fights between "children," offering cooperation
as a solution. This is all taught on Sesame Street, but few adults practice
it.
Well, with the availability of nukes, I don't want to go breaking up TOO
many "petty fights between children". More than likely, we would wake up one
day to find out that Washington had just been destroyed!
If we don't responsibly help those in our care, they turn to other "adults"
for help, like the USSR, who is more than happy to "take care of them", but
for different reasons. Beating a misbehaving child, like Nicaragua,
is not good for you or the child. It only makes her run to an apparently
more understanding authority.
A MISBEHAVING CHILD???!?!? Right. A misbehaving child with guns, and tanks,
and planes, and etc . . .
I do NOT advocate running around being holier-than-thou to nations that DO
NOT want our help. But if we gain the reputation as an authoritative
power, they'll come to us if they need us. This would strengthen our influence
in the world, and would help us become the Salvadors del Mundo we are always
claiming to be.
This discussion of underdeveloped countries as "our children" may seem to
smell of a nationalistic superiority complex. This is not intended, because
good parents treat their children as equals, keeping in mind the facts.
Good parents don't refuse to learn from their children, either.
"Good parents TREAT their children as equals, keeping in mind the facts."
What facts are those? Those implied facts are that the parents are BETTER
than the children, and so they can patronize them with impunity! Just what
are you avdocating with your BIG DADDY policy?? "No, Jimmy mustn't nuke his
neighbors, that wouldn't be nice!" That we set ourselves up as the best and
most intelligent nation in the world, well qualified to run their affairs?
"But if we gain the reputation as an authoritative power, they'll come to
us if they need us."
Surrre . . . I we tell them that "We're much better than you, so if you see
the errors of your ways, we'll help you" they'll come to us with open arms?
Frankly, I do think calling other nations "Our Children" does smell, whether
or not it is intended. Sorry, but if you're so superior, why aren't YOU
President???????
Thomas Ruschak
ecn-ee!kechkayl
"Aiee! A toy robot!"decot@cwruecmp.UUCP (Dave Decot) (02/16/84)
Thomas Ruschak:
First, the permanent damage I was talking about was the destruction of
topsoils, and the fact that we may ourselves need those reserves.
Sorry, but if it comes down to a choice between starving or having someone
else starve, I will ... let them starve. Self preservation is a part of
most everyone.
And it is of me. Do you have any evidence that we are overtaxing our topsoils
with our current food production? If so, we should reduce our production
so that we aren't. But if we can produce enough for ourselves, any extra
land potential can be used for someone else. Permanently damaging anyone's
resources is irrational. Our current surplus is rotting, which is also
irrational.
Well, with the availability of nukes, I don't want to go breaking up TOO
many "petty fights between children". More than likely, we would wake up one
day to find out that Washington had just been destroyed!
My analogy was perhaps unclear. When I speak of "children", I refer only to
their degree of economic and technical development. The only country with
nuclear weapons I can think of that might be considered "underdeveloped"
is India. I don't see how any other underdeveloped countries could destroy
Washington, even if they wanted to. Note the following paragraph, where
I include the USSR in the set of "adults."
D If we don't responsibly help those in our care, they turn to other
A "adults" for help, like the USSR, who is more than happy to "take care
V of them", but for different reasons. Beating a misbehaving child,
E like Nicaragua, is not good for you or the child. It only makes her
run to an apparently more understanding authority.
A MISBEHAVING CHILD???!?!? Right. A misbehaving child with guns, and
tanks, and planes, etc...
*Yes*, a misbehaving child with guns, tanks, and planes. These were
provided by "adults", and the analogy does not break down here. Have you
ever heard news stories about children who somehow get hold of dangerous
implements and kill people? Destructive power is not limited to responsible
adults. I add that beating misbehaving adults is just as useless.
D This discussion of underdeveloped countries as "our children" may seem
A to smell of a nationalistic superiority complex. This is not intended,
V because good parents treat their children as equals, keeping in mind
E the facts. Good parents don't refuse to learn from their children,
either.
What facts are those? Those implied facts are that the parents are BETTER
than the children, and so they can patronize them with impunity! Just what
are you [advocating] with your BIG DADDY policy?? "No, Jimmy mustn't nuke
his neighbors, that wouldn't be nice!" That we set ourselves up as the
best and most intelligent nation in the world, well qualified to run their
affairs?
The "facts" are that we have more technological and economic power than they
do, not that we are better. We have much to learn from *each other*, as I
implied in the original article. I also said that we should NOT run their
affairs, just advise them WHEN they asked for our advice. I did NOT say that
we should patronize them, but killing one's neighbors ISN'T nice (or useful),
and we should discourage that in the countries who have requested our aid.
It's up to them, if they want our help. We have a good system here, and we
should encourage (not force!) it to countries in trouble.
DAVE: But if we gain the reputation as an authoritative power, they'll
come to us if they need us.
Surrre . . . we tell them that "We're much better than you, so if you see
the errors of your ways, we'll help you" they'll come to us with open arms?
Frankly, I do think calling other nations "Our Children" does smell, whether
or not it is intended. Sorry, but if you're so superior, why aren't YOU
President?
We tell them no such thing. We wait for countries to ask for help, keeping
our nose out of their business if they don't. I do not consider myself or
my country to be generally superior, but the US is more technically powerful.
Don't you want your country to have a reputation as being a friendly,
knowledgeable, pleasant peacemaker?
As for why I am not President, I have insufficient connections to achieve
the office, and inadequate experience in domestic issues. Doing the job
properly seems more demanding a career than I have the patience for. But,
then again, I'm not 35, yet.
Dave Decot "Non-Americans are people, too."
decvax!cwruecmp!decot (Decot.Case@rand-relay)jj@rabbit.UUCP (02/16/84)
Gee. Two articles in one day. I should have stayed in bed. Mr. Decot. I don't even plan to comment on most of the discussion under this subject header, since it's not my ideas that are discussed. I DO wish to comment about soil depletion. Please, sir, look in your nearest library for literature about the "dust bowl", the Okies, and so on. Please then look at US Government reports, Scientific American articles, and the like about soil depletion. DAMNIT! The facts of soil depletion aren't even in debate. EVERYONE that I've seen who has even looked at the subject is convinced. EVERYONE. Liberals. Conservatives. Even Libertarians. <So there!> If you don't know about soil depletion, either you haven't been watching television, reading the news, or reading the popular science journals, or you've skipped the articles in favor of something more interesting. As far as I'm concerned, soil depletion is now in the same catagory as nuclear waste was in 1970, fallout in 1955, or dioxin before Seveso. Any one of them can kill you, eh? Wake up! We have some NEW problems to face, folks. Strangely enough, the old, bad, ones haven't. Why? Because we've started to face up to them. What CAN kill us? Something we won't face up to. HUMBUG. I think I'll lapse into silence for another three weeks. -- TEDDY BEARS ARE NICER THAN PEOPLE-HUG YOUR OWN TODAY (allegra,harpo,ulysses)!rabbit!jj
kechkayl@ecn-ee.UUCP (02/17/84)
#R:cwruecmp:-99600:ecn-ee:13400006:000:5066
ecn-ee!kechkayl Feb 17 01:08:00 1984
[Dave Decot's Comments are *'rred]
Well, with the availability of nukes, I don't want to go breaking up TOO
many "petty fights between children". More than likely, we would wake up one
day to find out that Washington had just been destroyed!
*My analogy was perhaps unclear. When I speak of "children", I refer only to
*their degree of economic and technical development. The only country with
*nuclear weapons I can think of that might be considered "underdeveloped"
*is India. I don't see how any other underdeveloped countries could destroy
*Washington, even if they wanted to. Note the following paragraph, where
*I include the USSR in the set of "adults."
Do you read the newspapers, or even watch television? If so, you will note
concern that security in areas where fissionable materials are handled. I
am not so confident as you that India is the ONLY underdeveloped country
with a nuclear bomb. I would say that if a country really wanted to make 1 bomb,
it would be able to. I do not want an American city destroyed by a make-shift
bomb smuggled in and set off.
D If we don't responsibly help those in our care, they turn to other
A "adults" for help, like the USSR, who is more than happy to "take care
V of them", but for different reasons. Beating a misbehaving child,
E like Nicaragua, is not good for you or the child. It only makes her
run to an apparently more understanding authority.
A MISBEHAVING CHILD???!?!? Right. A misbehaving child with guns, and
tanks, and planes, etc...
**Yes*, a misbehaving child with guns, tanks, and planes. These were
*provided by "adults", and the analogy does not break down here. Have you
*ever heard news stories about children who somehow get hold of dangerous
*implements and kill people? Destructive power is not limited to responsible
*adults. I add that beating misbehaving adults is just as useless.
I was simply laughing at your continuing, and condescending use of the word
`child`. I am sorry, but I do not consider the US to have `authority` over
undeveloped nations. We are simply a wealthy country with a lot of brute force
at our disposal. There are other countries almost as wealthy and powerful.
The only `authority`, where nations are concerned, is the U.N. (sigh.).
D This discussion of underdeveloped countries as "our children" may seem
A to smell of a nationalistic superiority complex. This is not intended,
V because good parents treat their children as equals, keeping in mind
E the facts. Good parents don't refuse to learn from their children,
either.
What facts are those? Those implied facts are that the parents are BETTER
than the children, and so they can patronize them with impunity! Just what
are you [advocating] with your BIG DADDY policy?? "No, Jimmy mustn't nuke
his neighbors, that wouldn't be nice!" That we set ourselves up as the
best and most intelligent nation in the world, well qualified to run their
affairs?
*The "facts" are that we have more technological and economic power than they
*do, not that we are better. We have much to learn from *each other*, as I
*implied in the original article. I also said that we should NOT run their
*affairs, just advise them WHEN they asked for our advice. I did NOT say that
*we should patronize them, but killing one's neighbors ISN'T nice (or useful),
*and we should discourage that in the countries who have requested our aid.
*It's up to them, if they want our help. We have a good system here, and we
*should encourage (not force!) it to countries in trouble.
I suggest that if we definitely connect U.S. aid to `discouraging` other
governments from doing what they want, we will merely force them to ally
with the U.S.S.R., who doesn't care too much about things like human
rights, land reforms, and world peace. They will get the things they need,
and we will lose allies.
DAVE: But if we gain the reputation as an authoritative power, they'll
come to us if they need us.
Surrre . . . we tell them that "We're much better than you, so if you see
the errors of your ways, we'll help you" they'll come to us with open arms?
Frankly, I do think calling other nations "Our Children" does smell, whether
or not it is intended. Sorry, but if you're so superior, why aren't YOU
President?
*We tell them no such thing. We wait for countries to ask for help, keeping
*our nose out of their business if they don't. I do not consider myself or
*my country to be generally superior, but the US is more technically powerful.
*Don't you want your country to have a reputation as being a friendly,
*knowledgeable, pleasant peacemaker?
Well, if we wait for countries to ask to be scolded about their policies, we
will wait an awful long time. Also, if we say "If you want our help, you will
do exactly as we say.", you will not be giving out much aid. (although that
would decrease the budget deficit :-)
Thomas Ruschak
pur-ee!kechkayl
"Aiee! A toy robot!"keller@uicsl.UUCP (03/26/84)
#R:rabbit:-252000:uicsl:16300059:000:732 uicsl!keller Mar 25 15:13:00 1984 While I don't know to what jj's was replying I have read something interesting about soil depletion. It seems that Federal water subsidies in the western US have led to farming of marginal land with the result that what little top soil there was to begin with has disappeared. It is easy to understand that with government incentives such as cheap irrigation water and price supports any available land will be used even if it is only good for a few seasons. Would like to know why farmers plant every available inch of ground then complain when the rain washes away the top soil. Seems like they could leave some wildlife between the fields. Smack dab in the middle of the corn fields of Illinois... -Shaun at Univ. of Illinois