Rambling Rhodes

I'll only respond to the AIDS rant. Kerry said,
"We haven't done what we needed to do for AIDS globally. The president talks about it, but we still haven't passed the kind of comprehensive program that would help the United States lead on one of the great crises of our time."
And the key word here is LEAD. Because the U.S. has the money to do it. The other countries he's bashing about not spending on AIDS, well yeah, they're not spending on a lot of things. In 2002 the U.S. spent nearly 350 million on defense alone. Far more than Russia spent I'll assure you. So why would anyone be angry at them? The Russians don't have the money to spend like the U.S. does.

Okay, so we're supposed to give Russia a pass on AIDS because they're too poor to contribute? Gotcha. Nevermind that Russia and China are supposedly two of the most powerful countries on the planet. But, no, they're just too poor to pony up some dough for something as trivial as AIDS when they're trying to feed their people at home. But, as soon as it's America, a country with poor of its own to feed, we just can't spend ENOUGH to combat an African AIDS epidemic. In fact, we should be LEADING the fight! Right. Whatever. It's funny, here the U.S. is chastised over and over for having the audacity to act as the world's police force, yet we're called on to LEAD by example on practically every freakin' issue the world can trot out. You know, I fail to see where, exactly, it says the U.S. has any obligation at all to dedicate ANY money to battle the African AIDS epidemic, let alone $15 billion. And yet we do it, because we're nice like that. And, the worst part is, no matter how much money we dedicate to world problems, no matter how many people we contribute to combat planetary ills, no matter how much we LEAD, it will never, ever be enough for people. The Great American Handout can never be bottomless enough. We must LEAD the world in charity work, but we should know our place and grovel before France, Germany and Russia, hat in hand, when we want to exact some change militarily somewhere on the globe. LEAD us, but be sure you don't EXCEED us. Good God.

Okay, the comments helped explain it some but I was having a hard time connecting your Lileks excerpt and the mini-rant above about Kerry on MTV.

Lileks is, by the way, brilliant. I need to hit him up more often. And he makes some very poignant points. Why are we the world's keeper? How do the other super powers get a pass? Why does everyone hate America (and no, I don't think its all Bush's fault though he hasn't helped much at all)?

As for leading the world and giving money to everyone even though they'll spit in our eye while they take it, I'm all for spending that money at home to find a cure. Or spending it on education to teach Africans that condoms aren't evil and, in fact, they can save your life.

Oh, poppycock.

Nevermind that Russia and China are supposedly two of the most powerful countries on the planet. But, no, they're just too poor

This is some very soft reasoning. I mean, you're in touch with the fact that both Russia and China's militaries pale in comparison to the sophistication of the U.S. military, right? That they both have considerably fewer nukes, and that their delivery systems are antique? That their militaries are poorly equipped, and made up of conscripts? Powerful, yes. Because they're big, and they have larger militaries than the rest of the world. But remember back when Iraq had the 4th largest Army in the world? Remember how it took us about three months to turn that army into a sticky paste, smeared out across a few thousand square miles of desert? How we had, like, 150 casualties?

Power is relative and, relatively speaking, we've got tons more of it than anyone in the history of the world. Russia and China operate on a completely different scale. You know, people still actually starve to death in China, and not just because of party corruption. They actually don't have enough resources to feed people.

But, as soon as it's America, a country with poor of its own to feed

Yeah. What's your point here, Ryan? That we can't feed our pour because we're feeding other people's poor? You have got to be fucking kidding me. I mean seriously. Americans choose not to feed our poor. And even if we changed our attitude, feeding housing and educating the poor would still cost a fuck of a lot less than many other much less important spending projects, like jailing non-violent drug offenders, executing people, and building a fucking missile shield.

I fail to see where, exactly, it says the U.S. has any obligation at all to dedicate ANY money to battle the African AIDS epidemic, let alone $15 billion.

Enlightened self-interest. Don't be a schmuck.

We must LEAD the world in charity work, but we should know our place and grovel before France, Germany and Russia, hat in hand, when we want to exact some change militarily somewhere on the globe.

Grovel before my big hairy butt, dude. They're separate issues and you fucking well know it. Does the existence of welfare mean that we should just get rid of the 4th Amendment? No? But the federal government is feeding these poor people. Why should the federal government be obligated to observe due process in handling people who can't feed and clothe themselves? Obviously it'd be a lot easier for us to take care of their basic needs if we could keep them off drugs. And it'd be a lot easier to keep them off drugs if we could just search them and their houses anytime we felt like it.

There's no such thing as charity. All so-called charity is a form of enlightened self-interest. Free public schools are good because they lower the crime rate, not because we're working off some kind of karmic debt by educating the ignorant masses. Welfare is good for the same reason. State medical care is good because it prevents the spread of diseases and prevents new strains of disease from exploding into the general population. It has been proven time and again that positive social intervention is more cost-effective than prisons and cops. That free post-secondary education is more cost-effective than mass unemployment and that state-funded jobs programs are better for the economy than tax breaks. This is all essentially true at the international level as well.

Use your brain.

It has been proven time and again that positive social intervention is more cost-effective than prisons and cops. That free post-secondary education is more cost-effective than mass unemployment and that state-funded jobs programs are better for the economy than tax breaks. This is all essentially true at the international level as well.

I'm not trying to start any shit, dude, but taking a contrary position to all of this is not exactly indefensible. Start with your definition of "free". Anyway, while I'm certainly not going after all your criticisms of Ryan's post, I will say that very little of your rebuttal is clearly above reproach. FYI IMHO ILBCNU 0wn3d POS. Or something.

Damn it. That's it. I'm going to take the four minutes it takes to figure out how to bold, italicize and indent shit in my comment section. Period. I feel so inadequite.

Of course, I may not, because I'm lazy like that.

I will say that very little of your rebuttal is clearly above reproach

I think that goes without saying.

Selected Countries Military Budget
1- United States $396.1 Billion
2 - Russia* $60.0 Billion
3 - China* $42.0 Billion

This is the direct order of spending on defense in 2001. There is no other country near us. Why shouldn't we lead, Ryan? We obviously have money to spare. If the two other "most powerful countries" in the world can't come near our spending capabilities for defense how are they supposed to match our spending capabilities for AIDS? How would you feel if the U.S. cut back on some of that defense spending?

Hey...the bold and italics crap is easy and...
QUIT PICKIN' ON THE OZZ-MAN!!
I love the guy and I can also help ya out with the italics and bold stuff....
(But first ya gotta admit Ozzy still kicks ass...lol)

Joshua, the only reason I said that was the "use your brain" and "don't be a schmuck" comments. You sound like Costanza's dad with that. Ha!

I'm saying that some of the dichotomies (ohgawd, now I sound like Chomsky) that you present are, uh, false. Free post-secondary education vs. mass unemployment? There is neither here, unless you think that my $40k student debt load is "free", or 5.6% unemployment is "mass". Ask a German if you don't believe me.

"state-funded jobs programs are better for the economy than tax breaks". Well, "tax breaks" doesn't really mean anything without knowing what "taxes" are, nor do tax breaks (or cuts) preclude state jobs programs (classical Keynesian economics), nor have state jobs programs been proved better than keeping that money in the private sector, nor have state jobs programs been proved better than straight cash welfare, or "negative income tax" schemes.

Screama:

I'm actually well in touch with most of that stuff. So, for example:

"state-funded jobs programs are better for the economy than tax breaks"

Read that as, "dollar for dollar (adjusted), the WPA and the Federal Highway Program were better for the economic prosperity of the average American than Bush's tax breaks have been (especially because Bush's tax breaks have been aimed mostly at the wealthy; money trickling down does not spread to as many people as money scraped off the top and shoved up from the bottom). I believe this to be true of most domestic spending packages, where domestic spending is put toward infrastructure improvements, and managed by government bureaucrats. Private industry bureaucrats, while they can often do the same thing with fewer people, have a profit incentive that fucks everything up (see; the differences between UK socialized healthcare and US privatized healthcare, or US semi-socialized healthcare). Given that, state-funded jobs programs represent a more productive use of funds than tax breaks (especially tax breaks for the wealthy)."

Etc etc. I could go on for the length of a novel about that topic all by itself. Taken literally, the dichotomies I set up are false. Taken as pointers to larger issues, a kind of shorthand, they're at least defensible.

Unfortunately, Ryan tends not to debate on the internet. Which is to say, he's good for throwing some pithy rants back and forth, but if a comment string gets too long he just stops participating. Maybe he gets bored. Maybe he just doesn't have the time. Whatever. So I tend to shave the ideas down to Basic when I post them in the comments section of this blog. Naturally, a lot gets lost in translation.

Fair enough, Joshua. I'm not sold, and I could also go on at length explaining why not; but Skyy, the Great Motivation Killer, is whispering sweet nothings in my ear. By the way, thanks for not calling me a Randbot for not falling in love with gov't jobs programs. I get this sometimes on lefty boards; I think this "Rand" person was part of the early 90's punk scene in Berkeley, or something.

Why does everyone truncate my name? It's Screamapiller, not Screamy or Screamer or Me Fookin' Mate, Scream-o. Are we all using the Australian Naming Rules?

Ryan tends not to debate on the internet. Which is to say, he's good for throwing some pithy rants back and forth, but if a comment string gets too long he just stops participating. Maybe he gets bored. Maybe he just doesn't have the time.

That's not fair and you know it. I let comment threads die because a) the discussion usually end up traversing old terrain that has been beat to death and ax2) I know that the debate will be picked up anew in a different post, or possibly at an entirely different blog.

And, true, I don't have the time and/or inclination to maintain a comment thread until it surpasses 200 entries. So, you do. Congratulations.