Truth in a Restaurant

[Traditional_Ang]

Philip P:

Who says that all taxpayers don’t spend money on education? or, That all taxpayers don’t pay state and local taxes?

It’s completely accurate to include EDUCATION and other moneys spent ACROSS the country in the total figures. Although, I may not spend any of my state or local tax dollars on the Educational System in NY, I do spend a similar amount here in CA. And, although the taxpayer in NY doesn’t pay any of the bill here in CA, he pays a similar amount in NY…
Philip P:

It would be inaccuarte to include local spending as the “total US budget” since we don’t all contribute. You don’t pay NY state and city tax, for instance, yet including this in the total budget would imply you do. The federal budget, in contrast, applies to all of us.

…These expenditures do apply to all. With few exceptions, all taxpayers have to pay for the educational systems in their states.

Given what you wrote, this has to be included in the TOTAL expeditures by American Taxpayers to have an accurate picture of our priorities, and not some distortion arrived at by ignoring the fact that education is, by law, a state and local responsibility.

We’ve already found out the costs of not having a robust defense. Our weakness in the 1930’s lead to the attacks on Pearl Harbor and the Phillippines. In 1956, we watched as the USSR subjugated Hungary. In the mid 1970’s, the Communist Khmer Rouge slaughtered 2 million (Over 100,000 more died in Communist Vietnamese prisons and as a result of Communist reprisals). And, then there was the Iranian Hostage Crises where a President and our country were both held hostage along with the embassy because of our inability to mount an operation.

These are only part of the costs of not having a robust defense.

Promoting the General Welfare (building highways and waterways to connect towns and cities, dredging harbors, constructing dams, building levees for flood-prone towns and cities, funding public libraries and creating a national bank and mint system, insuring safer workplaces and products, licensing medicine and tracking epidemics, providing disaster relief and other public works) should not cost more than a robust national defense, even if you add the cost of a basic pension…
Philip P:

Having a defense is mandated. How much we spend on it, and how we spend it, is not, any more than it is for the promoting of the general welfare. My argument is not that we should have no defense. It’s that our current spending and deployment priorities are not furthering our defense. We do not need a global military hegemony to provide for the common defense - and in fact our current policies may actually be making us more likely to suffer attacks.

… Since you’re not to crazy about the US being the Hegemon, who would you want to be the Hegemon? Who do you think should be the world superpower? The now defunct USSR? The People’s Republic of China? The Giant Califate the Islamists have been fighting for? The EU? The UN? Nature abhores a vacuum. If the US weren’t the Hegemon, one of these others would be. Which one do you think would serve us and the rest of the world better?

The paragraph below is part of the reason I believe it would be a distortion to exclude the $6,000/student state and local taxpayers contribute towards education in a discusion of budgetting priorities.
Philip P:

And I highly disagree that cost is not a moral question. Spending tells you where a nation’s priorities really are. When you cut education and increase defense (as the president’s most recent budget does, for instance), you are making a choice with moral consequences. But, I would recommend that a discussion on whether budgeting priorities are moral actions more properly belongs in Moral Theology (in other words, feel free to post such a thread, but I don’t intend to debate that particular topic on this one).

It is one thing to discuss defense spending during a time of peace when no one seems to have dedicated themselves to killing us. It’s completely another to have this kind of discussion during a time of war when enemies have stated a desire to kill our civilians, This can only encourage those who sent the 19 people who flew planes into buildings full of innocent civilians on a clear Sept. morning not so long ago.

At that time, the experts were sure we were going to have a couple more similar, if not worse, attacks during the next couple of months.

Because of some very aggressive action on the part of the Bush Administration, treating this as a war instead of a criminal action, those attacks never happened, and you get to question the amount of money spent on national defense.

I don’t want to watch 3,000 of my fellow citizens die like that again, so I’ll spend the money to make sure they don’t.

The alleged “theft of Florida” wasn’t the real crime. What was done to my fellow citizens on 9/11/2001 was.

In Christ, Michael

 

[tamccrackine]

: In many respects military training is like brainwashing - you are teaching people to do what they naturally would not do. To do so they are put through strict regimes, ‘boot camp’, etc. which are indeed a form of brainwashing. They’d be useless troops otherwise.
Mike

spoken like a person that’s never been through boot camp.

If we taught our soldiers to do what they naturally would not do, then please explain the phenomenon called “Fight or Flight Syndrome”?

We also teach soldiers to suppress that paralyzing fear they feel for unknown, high stress situations and TRAIN them to react in a manner that ensures their personal survival along with their buddies survival. Please explain to me how that is negative brainwashing? Not to mention, our military does do some other things aside from fighting (shocker, ain’t it?) I don’t feel that as brainwashing as much as teaching my six year old that no matter how you look at it, 2 plus 2 will ALWAYS equal 4.

 

[Matt25]

Traditional Ang:

Matt25:

I wouldn’t be so sure about Our Lord Jesus not giving someone who needs it a bust in the chops…

In Christ, Michael

The man talking about breaking jaws was probably not Jesus. I don’t think Christians normally go around breaking the jaws of people who just happen to disagree with them. However if you think that is how we should behave then perhaps the Apostles were criminally wrong in allowing themselves to be martyred.

Perhaps the faith would have spread more quickly if the early Christians instead of relying on prayer and meekness had taken up cudgels and swords. How silly to allow themselves to be thrown to the lions when they could have been busting chops for Jesus instead.

 

[MikeWM]

tamccrackine:

spoken like a person that’s never been through boot camp.

Very true.

Are people who have not been brainwashed by a religious cult not allowed to speak about people being brainwashing by them, then?

Or, how about priests, I guess they shouldn’t advise on family issues given they’ve not had one of their own.

etc.

If we taught our soldiers to do what they naturally would not do, then please explain the phenomenon called “Fight or Flight Syndrome”?

In face to face combat, yes, they would fight or flight. Does that apply to snipers? People who calmly fire things from far away? Dropping bombs?

We also teach soldiers to suppress that paralyzing fear they feel for unknown, high stress situations

So changing their natural behaviour.

Please explain to me how that is negative brainwashing?

Did I suggest it was necessarily negative?

The fact is, according to the psychological definition of brainwashing, they aren’t brainwashed, no. But according to how the term is used in popular speech, in a way they are indeed brainwashed into certain patterns of behaviour. Certainly the men in this ridiculous story have a point, even if they have expressed it badly. Wanting to whack them for it is hardly the right thing to do.

Mike

 

[MikeWM]

mlchance:

Well, you’re book is wrong. It is not a requirement that soldiers unquestioningly follow orders. To say otherwise is false. Again: I know. I was there.

So, you’re in the middle of a war zone, let’s say Iraq, and your commander tells you to go and root out some insurgents, and if necessary, kill them. You’re allowed to say to him ‘well, sir, I’m not sure that’s such a good idea, I don’t think that’s a very good plan’? Fascinating.

Mike

 

[mlchance]

MikeWM:

Are people who have not been brainwashed by a religious cult not allowed to speak about people being brainwashing by them, then?

Or, how about priests, I guess they shouldn’t advise on family issues given they’ve not had one of their own.

The issue here, Mike, is that people who don’t know what they talking about regarding a particular subject shouldn’t talk about it. They also most certainly shouldn’t keep contradicting those who do know what they’re talking about.

MikeWM:

The fact is, according to the psychological definition of brainwashing, they aren’t brainwashed, no.

So, IOW, you’re equivocating instead of just admitting that you’re wrong.

MikeWM:

So, you’re in the middle of a war zone, let’s say Iraq, and your commander tells you to go and root out some insurgents, and if necessary, kill them. You’re allowed to say to him ‘well, sir, I’m not sure that’s such a good idea, I don’t think that’s a very good plan’? Fascinating.

Yes, you are allowed to do that. That you don’t know this is true only further reinforces your ignorance of the subject and more deeply hammers home the point that you really ought to stop pretending otherwise.

During my time as a soldier, I questioned and heard other soldiers of all ranks question orders. Often these questions resulted in orders being changed, improved, and even rescinded.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Philip_P]

Traditional Ang:

Philip P:

Who says that all taxpayers don’t spend money on education? or, That all taxpayers don’t pay state and local taxes?

It’s completely accurate to include EDUCATION and other moneys spent ACROSS the country in the total figures. Although, I may not spend any of my state or local tax dollars on the Educational System in NY, I do spend a similar amount here in CA. And, although the taxpayer in NY doesn’t pay any of the bill here in CA, he pays a similar amount in NY…

But I don’t have (name removed by moderator)ut into how California tax dollars are spent. It’s a separate tax base, and a separate allocation. In contrast, both you and I contribute to the federal budget, and thus we have equal standing to comment on how it ought to be allocated.

We’ve already found out the costs of not having a robust defense. Our weakness in the 1930’s lead to the attacks on Pearl Harbor and the Phillippines. In 1956, we watched as the USSR subjugated Hungary. In the mid 1970’s, the Communist Khmer Rouge slaughtered 2 million (Over 100,000 more died in Communist Vietnamese prisons and as a result of Communist reprisals). And, then there was the Iranian Hostage Crises where a President and our country were both held hostage along with the embassy because of our inability to mount an operation.

That’s one view. Another view points toward long-running tensions between the US and Japan on access to energy (oil). In any case, I’m not going so far as to argue against US participation in WWII. What I would say is that specific choices, such as the purposeful targeting of entire cities (whethery by fire, carpet, or atomic bombing) were beyond the bounds of prudence and morality. Furthermore, following WWII we overplayed our hand. We had no business propping up French colonial regimes in SE Asia, for instance. Nor was it necessary to stockpile all those nukes. And the Iran hostage crisis - that was blowback of our own making. We overthrew a democratically elected government in Iran and installed and propped up the Shah - what did we think was going to happen?

Defense and agression are not synonyms. We can have a robust defense without needing to dominate the world.

… Since you’re not to crazy about the US being the Hegemon, who would you want to be the Hegemon? Who do you think should be the world superpower? The now defunct USSR? The People’s Republic of China? The Giant Califate the Islamists have been fighting for? The EU? The UN? Nature abhores a vacuum. If the US weren’t the Hegemon, one of these others would be. Which one do you think would serve us and the rest of the world better?

No one. A global hegemony is neithe desirable nor inevitable. We should reform the UN and put our support behind helping it to realize it’s vision - NOT a world government, but a place where nations speak to each other as equals, reflecting a world order where they act to each other as equals.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Balance:

I take offence at this too… I don’t hate America - been there, like it, nice country, nice people. I do however, bear a great animosity towards America’s foreign policy and its implememtation of that policy. to say that is not to say I hate America, and to suggest otherwise is , yes, ignorant.

Did you mean to say, "I don’t hate America. I merely intensely dislike its internal organs?"http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gif

 

[Philip_P]

Traditional Ang:

At that time, the experts were sure we were going to have a couple more similar, if not worse, attacks during the next couple of months.

Because of some very aggressive action on the part of the Bush Administration, treating this as a war instead of a criminal action, those attacks never happened, and you get to question the amount of money spent on national defense.

I don’t want to watch 3,000 of my fellow citizens die like that again, so I’ll spend the money to make sure they don’t.

I live in NYC - you think I want to see 3000 more die?

I’m not convinced that the military actions of this administration have effectively lessened the threat of terrorism. In many ways, I think they’ve made it worse. In the first place, there’s the fact that terrorism has not actually decreased. Madrid and London happened after 9/11 - obviously our military adventures did not take away the desire or ability of terrorists to plan and launch attacks. As to foiling attacks in the US - again, this has far more to do with good police work than our presence in Iraq or the number of tanks in our inventory.

I believe in spending money on defense, too - but I want to make sure I’m getting my money’s worth. Spending to create and maintain a global hegemony is not making us safer.

 

[gilliam]

Philip,

It sounds to me that you simply want a differnt leadership in Washington running the show. You don’t really have a problem with any branch of the government per say. Am I interpreting what you are saying correctly?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Philip P:

I live in NYC - you think I want to see 3000 more die?

I think you’re willing to commit to courses of action that will have that result.

You may remember the original WTC bombing was treated as a police matter – and look what happened.

 

[MikeWM]

mlchance:

The issue here, Mike, is that people who don’t know what they talking about regarding a particular subject shouldn’t talk about it. They also most certainly shouldn’t keep contradicting those who do know what they’re talking about.

So, your answer is that a priest shouldn’t advise people on marital matters, for example?

So, IOW, you’re equivocating instead of just admitting that you’re wrong.

No, and if you’d read the rest of the paragraph which you’ve quoted part of, you’d know why.

Yes, you are allowed to do that. That you don’t know this is true only further reinforces your ignorance of the subject and more deeply hammers home the point that you really ought to stop pretending otherwise.

During my time as a soldier, I questioned and heard other soldiers of all ranks question orders. Often these questions resulted in orders being changed, improved, and even rescinded.

Fascinating. Please give some examples, I’m intrigued.

It’s not difficult to find people knowledgable people who believe military training is like brainwashing, by the way.

One veteran describes his experience in basic training:

Naturally there was a certain amount of brainwashing that goes through basic [training].

serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro03/web2/shabelow.html

For Stephen, the gravity of his situation only hit him after his commanders in basic training instructed recruits to chant “kill, kill” over and over. It was brainwashing, pure and simple.

seattlepi.nwsource.com/jamieson/138525_robert08.html

Military training all over the world, as the Canadian military historian Glenn Dyer has written, is a kind of brainwashing. It requires killing, on command and without question, those who have been identified as the enemy. This programmed response is achieved through re-education based on fear and humiliation. The methods of the criminal-deliberate stress, doubletalk, threat, harassment, and punishment-are legitimized by the state in order to create military force. If you don’t kill, you will be killed.

Protest and expressions of suffering are suppressed. Breaking a man down is called making a man of him. A woman also experiences the Tailhook pattern of abuse.

peacetaxfund.org/literature/newsletters/1996-4-fall.html

It’s a reasonable point of view, whether you agree with it or not.

Mike

 

[vern_humphrey]

vern humphrey:

I think you’re willing to commit to courses of action that will have that result.

You may remember the original WTC bombing was treated as a police matter – and look what happened.

I think there are some people who claim we can reverse it – but I’m not sure. I can’t hear them because every time they say it, the smoke detector in my undershorts goes off.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gif

 

[mlchance]

MikeWM:

So, your answer is that a priest shouldn’t advise people on marital matters, for example?

Straw man. That isn’t what I said, and you know it isn’t what I said.

What I’ve said repeated is this: You’re wrong about military training. You don’t know what you’re talking about. Hence, you shouldn’t talk, and you most certainly shouldn’t contradict those who do. In essence, you’ve been calling me a liar.

MikeWM:

No, and if you’d read the rest of the paragraph which you’ve quoted part of, you’d know why.

I did read it. You admit your not using the actual definition of brainwashing while at the same time you keep insisting that soldiers are brainwashed. That is equivocating. It is intellectually dishonest.

MikeWM:

Fascinating. Please give some examples, I’m intrigued.

After you admit you’re wrong.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[MikeWM]

mlchance:

Straw man. That isn’t what I said, and you know it isn’t what I said.

I asked a question and you didn’t answer it directly, but instead said what you said. I asked you again.

What I’ve said repeated is this: You’re wrong about military training. You don’t know what you’re talking about. Hence, you shouldn’t talk, and you most certainly shouldn’t contradict those who do. In essence, you’ve been calling me a liar.

Well, I’ve now given you three quotes from people who ‘do know what they are talking about’. There are many more just a google away. Are all those people calling you a liar too?

I did read it. You admit your not using the actual definition of brainwashing while at the same time you keep insisting that soldiers are brainwashed. That is equivocating. It is intellectually dishonest.

No it isn’t. The OP was about businessmen talking about ‘brainwashing’ in a bar somewhere and someone wanting to punch them out because of it. Was the person going to get a dictionary out to see if they were using the psychological definition of brainwashing or were just using the colloquial expression, before whacking them? I think not.

After you admit you’re wrong.

Given I’m not, I won’t, no.

Mike

 

[Philip_P]

gilliam:

Philip,

It sounds to me that you simply want a differnt leadership in Washington running the show. You don’t really have a problem with any branch of the government per say. Am I interpreting what you are saying correctly?

Yes - but with a caution. The fact that I strongly disagree with the course taken by this specific administration does not mean I am necessarily gung-ho Democrat (in fact, I’m registered as an independent). Nor does it mean that I would necessarily be opposed to a future Republican administration.

My problem is more with a direction in setting our priorities than in with any specific partisan approach. Overall, I’d like to see our global military presence shrink - as you know from previous discussion, I don’t believe our presence in Iraq is beneficial, for instance. Also, I think a smaller, more politcally and culturally aware force would be far more effective in meeting the actual threats. There’s a story in today’s NYT about the 10th Mountain Division in Afghanistan, for instance, that I think illustrates more the direction we should be going. Basically, I’d like a smaller footprint and a greater emphasis on working with cultures on their own terms.

I would also point to operations like the Tsunami relief as being the sort of thing we should be doing. More of that; less of the invading and occupying.

Along with that is a greater respect for international law. We should be strengthening international rule of law, and you do that by supporting international institutions, not declaring them corrupt or ineffective and ignoring them. The US was a key founding member of the UN. We should be working to make it more effective, not using its shortcomings as an excuse to destroy it.

 

[mary_bobo]

MikeWM:

I’m not usually a fan of people with MBAs myself, but if they were ‘hoping we wouldn’t go to war with Iran’ they sound like sensible people.

Mike

Out of curiosity, what do you have against people with MBAs?

 

[mary_bobo]

Balance:

again, you can find this out for yourself. in Iraq, and in New Orleans, many contracts for rebuildiong and restructuring were given to relatives, friends of the Bush administration. smacks of something like imperialsim.

Who are these relative and friends? What companies?

 

[miguel]

Lance:

I don’t see much difference in hating our policies and hating us, but that is just the way I feel. Kind of like telling you neighbor, “I don’t hate you but I hate the way you conduct your life, I hate the way you spend your money, I hate the way you keep your yard and I hate what you do for a living, other than that lets be good buddies.”

Well I don’t know if you’re Catholic…but ever hear of hate the sin, love the sinner?

 

[MikeWM]

mary bobo:

Out of curiosity, what do you have against people with MBAs?

It’s a bit of a tongue-in-cheek comment. In my experience, they are the kind of managers who spout buzz-words and ‘trendy’ ideas for how to get work done, ‘team bonding exercises’ and all that nonsense. It’s a generalisation though, and probably not altogether fair.

Mike