next »

[helpful]

Our CHILDREN, many ELDERLY, the POOR, and the ENVIRONMENT of this country and world are suffering because of these narrow-minded characterizations.  Please let's have some common respect for each other, get past the "hate the others" diatribe, and fix some of the real problems.

I'd frame the issue quite differently, cpatrick, and say that there are many people who either don't believe these are serious problems or that they are problems that are owing to individual responsilbility, and thus not appropriate for social or collective action.

Let's take these people washing SUVs for free.  They are either making a statement that says "we don't have environmental problems" or "maybe we have environmental problems, but don't expect me to participate in the solution."

At the risk of oversimplifying, liberals tend to be the ones who want to "fix" the problems you listed, and conservatives are the ones who either deny the problems exist or who believe that a government "fix" is not appropriate.  Or may even make matters worse. The conservatives, again to oversimplify, will claim that free markets and individual responsibility are the way to address such problems.

The problem is is that 'nature' or the 'environment' does not pay attention to the free market. Look at the number of species that go extinct every year.

[cpatrick]

Our CHILDREN, many ELDERLY, the POOR, and the ENVIRONMENT of this country and world are suffering because of these narrow-minded characterizations.  Please let's have some common respect for each other, get past the "hate the others" diatribe, and fix some of the real problems.

I'd frame the issue quite differently, cpatrick, and say that there are many people who either don't believe these are serious problems or that they are problems that are owing to individual responsilbility, and thus not appropriate for social or collective action.

Let's take these people washing SUVs for free.  They are either making a statement that says "we don't have environmental problems" or "maybe we have environmental problems, but don't expect me to participate in the solution."

At the risk of oversimplifying, liberals tend to be the ones who want to "fix" the problems you listed, and conservatives are the ones who either deny the problems exist or who believe that a government "fix" is not appropriate.  Or may even make matters worse. The conservatives, again to oversimplify, will claim that free markets and individual responsibility are the way to address such problems.

Frankly, I'm a bit tired of the "excuse" that personal responsibility is the answer to our problems.  Almost 2 million children die every year of malaria in Africa.  That's nearly equivalent to the holocaust numbers during the period of WWII.  The difference is that our country and the world simply choose to ignore these dying children.  In the U.S. nearly 50 million people have no health insurance, including over 11 million children.  Children die in our country and across the world every day because of malnutrition.  It is inexcusable to expect these children to be "personally responsible" for their fate.  I hear a lot of talk about a return of morals in our country, but that talk is exclusively about the "sins" of abortion and gay marriage.  Ignoring our world's children and the poor is a sin in any religion, even Christianity.  Yes, we have become somewhat morally bankrupt in this society, but not for the reasons we hear so much from conservatives. 

[acrimone]

Our CHILDREN, many ELDERLY, the POOR, and the ENVIRONMENT of this country and world are suffering because of these narrow-minded characterizations.  Please let's have some common respect for each other, get past the "hate the others" diatribe, and fix some of the real problems.

I'd frame the issue quite differently, cpatrick, and say that there are many people who either don't believe these are serious problems or that they are problems that are owing to individual responsilbility, and thus not appropriate for social or collective action.

Let's take these people washing SUVs for free.  They are either making a statement that says "we don't have environmental problems" or "maybe we have environmental problems, but don't expect me to participate in the solution."

At the risk of oversimplifying, liberals tend to be the ones who want to "fix" the problems you listed, and conservatives are the ones who either deny the problems exist or who believe that a government "fix" is not appropriate.  Or may even make matters worse. The conservatives, again to oversimplify, will claim that free markets and individual responsibility are the way to address such problems.

Frankly, I'm a bit tired of the "excuse" that personal responsibility is the answer to our problems.  Almost 2 million children die every year of malaria in Africa.  That's nearly equivalent to the holocaust numbers during the period of WWII.  The difference is that our country and the world simply choose to ignore these dying children. 

We had fixed that.  Some idiots decided that bird eggs were more important than human children, and banned DDT.

[zharkov]

Children die in our country and across the world every day because of malnutrition.   

Source and details, please.

I don't believe there is malnutrition in any country with a democratic government and free markets, excepting in the case of incompetent or woefully underprepared parents.

[cpatrick]

Children die in our country and across the world every day because of malnutrition.   

Source and details, please.

I don't believe there is malnutrition in any country with a democratic government and free markets, excepting in the case of incompetent or woefully underprepared parents.

ARE YOU KIDDING ME????  You don't believe there is malnutrition in any country with a democratic government and free markets??????????  Really????  Surely you are not this naive.  I will not post my source and details because it is absolutely insulting for you to ask for "evidence."  Do some research of your own - you will find I'm not stating this to win an argument for either conservatives or liberals.  Go to any poor urban neighborhood or poverty stricken area of the country (like in Appalachia where I reside) and you will find many children with illnesses and social problems brought on, at least in part, by malnutrition.  And yes, sometimes these illnesses and other problems result in the death of our children.  In other parts of the world, regardless of the government, the problems are much worse.  As stated earlier, 2 million children die each year because of a preventful condition - malaria.
 
Let me give you a personal example.  In the public middle school where my child attends (small rural but better than many in the state because of the association with University and hospital in area), over 50% of the students live in conditions below the poverty level.  Some of these students only get real meals at the school (breakfast and lunch) and have to fend for themselves otherwise.  Yes, you can blame this on "woefully underprepared parents" but that doesn't change the conditions for the children.  Your reasoning is just an excuse, a tired old "conservative" excuse, used to ignore the problems facing our children.  I urge you to become part of the solution, rather than making excuses for the problem.

[acrimone]

Let me give you a personal example.  In the public middle school where my child attends (small rural but better than many in the state because of the association with University and hospital in area), over 50% of the students live in conditions below the poverty level.  Some of these students only get real meals at the school (breakfast and lunch) and have to fend for themselves otherwise. 

* * * *
Your reasoning is just an excuse, a tired old "conservative" excuse, used to ignore the problems facing our children.  I urge you to become part of the solution, rather than making excuses for the problem.

1. The "poverty level" represents historical opulence.

2. Free meals at school very well may be part of the problem, not part of the solution.  They and similar programs encourage a lack of responsibility on the part of the parents.  Policies like this have certainly assisted a handful of children who would otherwise suffer, but I can't help but think that they have plunged hundreds and thousands of other children into dysfunctional and paternalistic economic dependency.  I don't think that huge government programs are the answer here.  Yes, we're giving some food to a very VERY few kids who would otherwise not get enough food, but in the process we're just making many associated problems of parental disinterest and irresponsibility worse for many, many more.

3. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't make them evil or uncaring.  Just because someone doesn't think, for example, that a huge government entitlement to free lunches and breakfasts (that one still gets me) should include dinner as well doesn't mean they don't care.  Trotting out "the poor suffering children" isn't going to change the nature of the problem or what makes for an efficient solution.

4. It's just possible that not all human suffering needs to be alleviated.

4. I'm not even sure that Zharkov disagrees with you -- he's just saying that you're being a bit precipitous.  *I* disagreed with you -- why don't you pick a fight with me?

[pyshnov]

acrimone is right:

Free meals at school very well may be part of the problem, not part of the solution.  They and similar programs encourage   a lack of responsibility on the part of the parents.

Moreover, if one wants to know why Africans no longer are able to feed themselves, this is not the result of draught that, of course, always happened there. This is result of "aid", when people are gathered at a small place to get "aid" and die there, literally, in concentration camps. I saw a documentary and explanation of this process. It was shown that ones who benefit are American farmers whose produce the Govt. is purchasing, also - all kinds of officials. Many tragic events do not permit criticism and scepticism, that's true, but the truth has to be stated.

[dark_globe]

acrimone is right:

Free meals at school very well may be part of the problem, not part of the solution.  They and similar programs encourage   a lack of responsibility on the part of the parents.

Moreover, if one wants to know why Africans no longer are able to feed themselves, this is not the result of draught that, of course, always happened there. This is result of "aid", when people are gathered at a small place to get "aid" and die there, literally, in concentration camps. I saw a documentary and explanation of this process. It was shown that ones who benefit are American farmers whose produce the Govt. is purchasing, also - all kinds of officials. Many tragic events do not permit criticism and scepticism, that's true, but the truth has to be stated.

I'm convinced Africa is not a poor continent at all, since over the past two years I have received at least 200 emails from residents of Nigeria, each with over $50 million in US banks.

[navydad]

Children die in our country and across the world every day because of malnutrition.   

Source and details, please.

I don't believe there is malnutrition in any country with a democratic government and free markets, excepting in the case of incompetent or woefully underprepared parents.

Not sure how this particular post relates to the original topic, but at least Zharkov is asking for data. Anyway, here's a link: http://www.childinfo.org/areas/malnutrition/underweight.php

I would love to hear from someone who knows the literature on the causes of malnutrition. I suspect that the roots of malnutrition, like every other complex social phenomenon, are multiple and interactive. I also suspect that it would take quite complex correlational and historical analyses to tease out the causal pathways, which likely differ in different places. Zharkov seems to be proposing that form of government (democratic vs. non-democratic) and economic system (free market vs. non-free market) are the determining factors. It is conceivable that these two variables account for much of the variance in childhood malnutrition in a correlational sense (I don't know that, but it's conceivable), but even if that is true, it doesn't tell us much about causation. The development of democratic governments and free markets has not been random and is related to factors that also relate to the production and distribution of food. In other words, it is quite possible that the same factors that lead to adequate and reliable food supplies in a society (arable land, agricultural technology, relatively stable populations, territorial integrity) also make the development of democracy and free markets more likely.

Anyway, I have no interest in trying to do some sort of analysis of childhood malnutrition, but I think Zharkov's post is an example of the sort of simplistic, ideologically driven argument that pervades our political discussions and precludes serious and sophisticated understanding of our world. The left often is guilty of the same thing. For example, one could make a case that Western imperialism has led to most of the oppressive regimes in the developing world and is the root cause of much of the world's income inequities. This argument is "right" in the same sense that Zharkov's argument is "right." Western imperialism is responsible for much evil in the world, and democracies and free markets are generally preferable to their alternatives, but both assertions are remarkably limited and simplistic and don't tell us much about how to proceed in specific instances (Iraq, anyone?).

Getting back to the original issue of this forum, I personally have no problem with "conservative" organizations encouraging the development of student groups on campus, just as I have no problems with organizations supporting "liberal" groups. Maybe the conservative students can drive their clean SUVs through someone's Tunnel of Oppression and everyone can feel better, while the ship continues to sink.

[cpatrick]

4. I'm not even sure that Zharkov disagrees with you -- he's just saying that you're being a bit precipitous.  *I* disagreed with you -- why don't you pick a fight with me?

I'm not trying to "pick a fight" with anyone.  I believe the U.S., as the only world superpower, should be the leader in solving the malnutrition problem for the world's children.  It seems that Zharkov believes there isn't a problem in the first place, at least in democratic societies.  He presented his opinion and I presented mine.  You did not like my opinion so you gave yours.  That is your "free speech" right.  Please allow me the same right without accusing me of "picking a fight". 

Opinions are easy; addressing the problems facing our children is not easy, especially when "left vs. right" occupies most of the discussion.

[zharkov]

4. I'm not even sure that Zharkov disagrees with you -- he's just saying that you're being a bit precipitous.  *I* disagreed with you -- why don't you pick a fight with me?

I'm not trying to "pick a fight" with anyone.  I believe the U.S., as the only world superpower, should be the leader in solving the malnutrition problem for the world's children.  It seems that Zharkov believes there isn't a problem in the first place, at least in democratic societies.  He presented his opinion and I presented mine.  You did not like my opinion so you gave yours.  That is your "free speech" right.  Please allow me the same right without accusing me of "picking a fight". 

Opinions are easy; addressing the problems facing our children is not easy, especially when "left vs. right" occupies most of the discussion.

It isn't a matter of opinion; it is a matter of getting the facts straight.  I am a scientist and I believe facts are important.  Here is the original exchange:

Children die in our country and across the world every day because of malnutrition.   

Source and details, please.

I don't believe there is malnutrition in any country with a democratic government and free markets, excepting in the case of incompetent or woefully underprepared parents.

I took the bait and looked up the data at the National Center for Health Statistics.  (Worktable III. Deaths from 358 causes, by 5-year age groups, race, and sex: United States, 2002  -- Page 4031.)

In 2002, 20 children in the US died because of malnutrition.  While this, IMHO, is 20 too many, it is not as though "children die every day in our country ... b/c of malnutrition."

I would maintain that a country where only 20 out of millions of children die from malnutrition has that problem pretty much solved. Again, 20 children is 20 too many, but I would expect that the root cause is "incompetent or woefully unprepared parenting," as I mentioned previously, or other one-of-a-kind causes.

I want to fix our problems as much as the next person, but we need to do so from a position of knowledge.

 

[acrimone]

4. I'm not even sure that Zharkov disagrees with you -- he's just saying that you're being a bit precipitous.  *I* disagreed with you -- why don't you pick a fight with me?

I'm not trying to "pick a fight" with anyone.  I believe the U.S., as the only world superpower, should be the leader in solving the malnutrition problem for the world's children.  It seems that Zharkov believes there isn't a problem in the first place, at least in democratic societies.  He presented his opinion and I presented mine.  You did not like my opinion so you gave yours.  That is your "free speech" right.  Please allow me the same right without accusing me of "picking a fight". 

I'm in a cranky mood this month.  So this may be mean.  I don't mean to direct it at you personally (I don't know you from Adam so it really can't be personal anyway) but I'm not going to let you get away with this.  This sort of attitude inhibits good discussion.

First -- you damn well did pick a fight.  Which is fine.  I pick online fights all the time.  This isn't just an opinion:

Children die in our country and across the world every day because of malnutrition.   

Source and details, please.

I don't believe there is malnutrition in any country with a democratic government and free markets, excepting in the case of incompetent or woefully underprepared parents.

ARE YOU KIDDING ME????  You don't believe there is malnutrition in any country with a democratic government and free markets??????????  Really????  Surely you are not this naive.  

* * * *

Your reasoning is just an excuse, a tired old "conservative" excuse, used to ignore the problems facing our children.  I urge you to become part of the solution, rather than making excuses for the problem.

It's a purely rhetorical attack, casting Zharkov (unjustifiedly) in the role of someone who doesn't care that kids are (allegedly) dying, and who is clearly stupid on top of that for believing that bunk they spread about free markets.  The fact that he hasn't given you the @$$kicking you are asking for is a testament to the fact that he's a much better person than I am.

Second, don't you dare try that "free speech right" bullsh*t with me.  I am damn tired of listening to people respond to criticism with "but I have a right to free speech," thinking it can insulate them from any and all efforts to make them suffer the non-legal consequences of your speech.  Yes, you have a "right" to be as much of an ass as you want on these fora, without government interference. I'm not the government and you don't have a right not to be made a fool of in response for saying dumb things.  You have a right to refuse to back up your statements with evidence, without government interference.  Zharkov's not the government, and he has a right to demand you back up your delusions with some sort of proof, no matter how much this may make you NOT want to make such statements in the future.

I'm not the government; I can't throw you in jail, fine you, or threaten you (without breaking the law myself), and I'll criticize you in whatever fashion I damn well please so long as the moderators let me get away with it, as this is ultimately their forum, and their rules are the ONLY rules that matter outside of certain hate speech and true threats issues, which are a jurisdictional mess when it comes to internet speech anyway.

And if the moderators don't let me get away with it, well... you won't have to read this for very long.

My apologies to the rest of you, for this unscheduled interruption to your normally topical forum-reading... but certain things cannot be allowed to go unanswered.

[cpatrick]

Second, don't you dare try that "free speech right" bullsh*t with me.  I am damn tired of listening to people respond to criticism with "but I have a right to free speech," thinking it can insulate them from any and all efforts to make them suffer the non-legal consequences of your speech.  Yes, you have a "right" to be as much of an ass as you want on these fora, without government interference. I'm not the government and you don't have a right not to be made a fool of in response for saying dumb things.  You have a right to refuse to back up your statements with evidence, without government interference.  Zharkov's not the government, and he has a right to demand you back up your delusions with some sort of proof, no matter how much this may make you NOT want to make such statements in the future.

I'm not the government; I can't throw you in jail, fine you, or threaten you (without breaking the law myself), and I'll criticize you in whatever fashion I damn well please so long as the moderators let me get away with it, as this is ultimately their forum, and their rules are the ONLY rules that matter outside of certain hate speech and true threats issues, which are a jurisdictional mess when it comes to internet speech anyway.

And if the moderators don't let me get away with it, well... you won't have to read this for very long.

My apologies to the rest of you, for this unscheduled interruption to your normally topical forum-reading... but certain things cannot be allowed to go unanswered.

Thanks for your opinion.  I support your right to exercise "free speech".

[zharkov]

I suspect that the roots of malnutrition, like every other complex social phenomenon, are multiple and interactive. I also suspect that it would take quite complex correlational and historical analyses to tease out the causal pathways, which likely differ in different places. Zharkov seems to be proposing that form of government (democratic vs. non-democratic) and economic system (free market vs. non-free market) are the determining factors. It is conceivable that these two variables account for much of the variance in childhood malnutrition in a correlational sense (I don't know that, but it's conceivable), but even if that is true, it doesn't tell us much about causation. The development of democratic governments and free markets has not been random and is related to factors that also relate to the production and distribution of food. In other words, it is quite possible that the same factors that lead to adequate and reliable food supplies in a society (arable land, agricultural technology, relatively stable populations, territorial integrity) also make the development of democracy and free markets more likely.

While that kind of complete analysis has been done, a few basic examples illustrate the point....

North Korea, a "communist" dictatorship, has had famines; South Korea, a relatively democratic and market-oriented nation, has the same standard of living as western Europe.

As China and India have become more market-oriented, the standard of living has improved significantly.  (China remains a dictatorship, just to be clear.)

I'd argue that the data strongly supports what might be called the classical liberal or neoliberal view, that is, democracy, the rule of law, and free markets work pretty well.  Not perfectly, as some conservatives may claim, but well enough that a drive to democracy, the rule of law, and free markets does a lot to address problems that need "fixing."

[joehardy]

Hopefully, the next generation will be able to see the difference between a conservatism that simply stands to defend our civilization and the right of people to live their own lives, and the neo-conservatism of Wolfowitz, Horowitz and Podhoretz who somehow promote "the cause" that would not allow half of the world to live its own life.

That is a thought I kept having while reading the article. Conservative campus groups in my undergraduate days focused on individual liberty issues, smaller government, etc.  The conservative activists in the article seemed, on the other hand, to be focused on "wedge" issues such as gay rights. They sounded like young Karl Roves, not young William F. Buckleys.