Quote:
Quote:
Now, the flipside is I can certainly remember an opposition to abortion during that time as far as what we learned, and, at least in religion class, we were encouraged in the direction of abstinence. So in that regard, I guess it was rounded, a "here's how you should live your life, here's what you need to know about life" education.

I am not against mentioning advantages of abstinence at all, just against preaching it as the only possible way. For example, a few months ago an African politician (I don't remember who) drew fire from some liberals because he was 'too reserved' towards use of condoms in anti-AIDS campaign. What the guy was saying was, essentially: "The best way to avoid AIDS is through abstinence or strict monogamy; failing that, and I know many of you will, *please* make sure to always use condoms!". Fair enough, I would say (needle sharing was not mentioned because his country is not rich enough for that kind of vice).



Sure. And that was basically the education I got.

Quote:

Quote:
The surprising thing is that during high school I had a corporatist, fiscally and socially conservative philosophy, which went against the current of the social justice type of class I took as a junior, and now, years later, I'm on the other side.

I am 31. In view of the quote variously attributed here I am heartless *and* brainless.

So, you saw the light, if I understand correctly


Well, despite the collapse of the basic steel industry around Pittsburgh when I was a kid, some other industries were suriviving, and I hadn't put all the pieces together.

The corporatist point of view seems to be that it's ok for high-level executives to profit as production is downsized or moved offshore. When steel was "going down" locally there wasn't massive profit-taking on the part of executives; The industry was legitimately hurting, and a lot of people lost their jobs as the domestic industry contracted.

tonyc was here this week and can no doubt attest to me pointing out several places which when I was young had steel mills covering them, and that wasn't even a majority of such local former mills.

Westinghouse Electric started shedding jobs later; The East Pittsburgh Works ended up being sold and reused as an industrial park. Copious Westinghouse facilities now sit empty or underused locally. Even this wasn't so much an issue; They too were in trouble. But then things were somewhat turned around as Westinghouse bought CBS... only to spin off the industrial assets. Westinghouse will never rise again to what it once was, and more jobs (they had a local R&D center) were lost in the process. Still, I hadn't totally lost the corporatist bent, but continued industrial downfall brought me around.

Today, Levi's Jeans production has all been moved offshore. It's nearly impossible to get a pair of shoes made in the U.S.; Expensive shoes might still come from Europe, some less expensive stuff is from Brazil, and everything else is from China.

Same deal with most toy production; Tonka stuff is now made elsewhere; One major competitor from the days of die cast metal toys, Nylint, went out of business a few years back.

For that matter, go in Wal-Mart and see what you can find that was made in this country. Remember when they used to advertise about saving American jobs? Did you notice how they haven't in quite a while? And we, all of us Americans collectively, look for cheap cheap cheap, and are buying ourselves right out of our own jobs. I won't say I'm better than anyone else; While I've started looking harder to find American-made things, or at least things made where I know the working conditions are likely to be reasonable, I know I'm guilty of buying things on price, recently even.

Am I under any delusion that this is Bush's fault? Not hardly. But the problem is, what do you do for the people who were turned out? We created bodies of non-skilled, semi-skilled, and skilled-but-priced-out-of-the-market unemployed labor, who now are often forced into trying to support their families on the barest wages, unable to afford health care.

Here's where I'm looking to the government for an answer, and I'm not seeing anything from this administration.

And here's where I have my disconnect with cushman:

Quote:
I am a moderate conservative. I believe in personal responsibility. If you mess up, it's your own fault.


Did these people screw up by not being able to foretell the oncoming collapse of these industries? Did they screw up by not being able to keep their medical insurance when they lost their jobs and had to find positions which would pay for either that coverage, or their food and shelter, and then got sick? Where is the line as far as personal responsibility?

Looking to the eastern part of the state, what had been Western Electric became AT&T Microelectronics, and then Lucent, and finally Agere. 3 factories stretching from Reading to Allentown were not enough to satiate the appetite of the new technological economy, and more plants were being built or bought, including in Mexico and Singapore. Then, the market faltered, and lo, over the next couple years all 3 plants in Pennsylvania lost their chip fab lines, and it ended up being done elsewhere. When business is good enough that your employer is struggling to keep up with demand, do you worry that your job and all the jobs around you will be gone in mere months?

Quote:

I do not like my tax dollars going towards social programs that are ineffective or inefficient.



Me either. But, I prefer they be made efficient, and others seem to prefer they just be cut. (for instance, in another post:
Quote:

I was stating this as a reason I am/vote conservatively. It was not a complaint, just a reason for my viewpoint. You are free to vote for the candidate that doesn't want to drop bombs, and I will vote for the one that cuts welfare.


and not for instance one who fixes welfare.)

Quote:
I should not be forced to give to what is basically charity. I can do that just fine on my own.


After considerable thought I came up with the concession I'd offer towards Libertarians if I were in power: codify in law that social programs would be reduced and eliminated, and taxes dropped accordingly, as charity met social needs. Like, if charity can help, when that's proven, then we let charity do it, and give you your money back. When charity has no pants, everyone else gets to bend over, too.

And as far as "well, I don't have the money *now*, so I can't give it to charity *now*", which was one reply I heard while talking to people locally, I asked "so you wouldn't buy a house if you didn't have the money for it now, right?"

I will freely admit to being a liberal, and to being a prick, though really these are unrelated. I was a prick long before I was even slightly liberal. But I don't feel bad about being a prick in the cases where I am seeing no personal benefit as a result of it.