[Lancaster Online]

[UncommonSense]

You quoted Tom Friedman in a previous blog, seemingly giving credence to his arguments. If you have read his book, The World is Flat, you might rethink your isolationist leanings. Additionally, you may well see the biggest threat is not conservatism v. liberalism (though this punches your meal ticket - so that's cool) but rather the net effect of both on the education and preperation of our young people to compete and thrive in the new global economy.

It is easy to rail against the loss of manufacturing. I do. I look for products made in the USA whenever possible (increasingly more difficulat) and will pay more for such items - if I can find them. However, do you think the manufacturing based economy of the great cinematic past of our country can be recaptured? Most likely not. If we don't have a collective assessment of education, and tailor our educational system to meet the needs of the future, WE will relegated to the Ash Heap of History, not four generations after Ronald Wilson Reagan gathered our collective will back toward prosperity.

The trouble is, both parties - both movements Conservative and Liberal - depend upon people feeling they need these leaders, they need these policies, they need these programs, they need, they need, they need. They/we need to work hard, especially the youth at school. The parents need to, as Pres-Elect Obama said, turn off the t.v., read to you kids, be involved, support the schools... We need to establish and fund correctly (notice, neither more or less - but correctly) and educational system that teaches effectively, relevant content for the 21st century.

For some time now, we have heard the strength of our country comes from our diversity, this is only partly true. The strength of our country came from our diverse population all grabbing on the national tug-o-war rope and pulling in the same damn direction.

[gsmart]

You quoted Tom Friedman in a previous blog, seemingly giving credence to his arguments. If you have read his book, The World is Flat, you might rethink your isolationist leanings. Additionally, you may well see the biggest threat is not conservatism v. liberalism (though this punches your meal ticket - so that's cool) but rather the net effect of both on the education and preperation of our young people to compete and thrive in the new global economy.

It is easy to rail against the loss of manufacturing. I do. I look for products made in the USA whenever possible (increasingly more difficulat) and will pay more for such items - if I can find them. However, do you think the manufacturing based economy of the great cinematic past of our country can be recaptured? Most likely not. If we don't have a collective assessment of education, and tailor our educational system to meet the needs of the future, WE will relegated to the Ash Heap of History, not four generations after Ronald Wilson Reagan gathered our collective will back toward prosperity.

The trouble is, both parties - both movements Conservative and Liberal - depend upon people feeling they need these leaders, they need these policies, they need these programs, they need, they need, they need. They/we need to work hard, especially the youth at school. The parents need to, as Pres-Elect Obama said, turn off the t.v., read to you kids, be involved, support the schools... We need to establish and fund correctly (notice, neither more or less - but correctly) and educational system that teaches effectively, relevant content for the 21st century.

For some time now, we have heard the strength of our country comes from our diversity, this is only partly true. The strength of our country came from our diverse population all grabbing on the national tug-o-war rope and pulling in the same damn direction.

I'll buy that.

No, I don't think we can bring back the cinematic manufacturing age. But I get the creeping feeling that we've never really, candidly discussed what this means, both at the national and local level.

Rather than isolationism, I tend to think in terms of self-sufficiency. At some point a few days ago I (think) I'd linked to something Josh Marshall had written in terms of the Detroit bailout; that, sure, it feels good to say that these companies have failed and should be permitted to fail. But if they DO fail - and wind up going Chapter 7 rather than Chapter 11 - we lose yet more of our heavy manufacturing base. Is that a good thing?

I'm familiar with Friedman's arguments. On the flip side is something I read in one of Pat Buchanan's books, very simplistic, but it resonated. For a very long time, we in this country owned the trees that produced the fruit. Then we figured - we can buy the fruit cheaper if someone else owns the trees, someone else makes the products for a wage far below what those "greedy" autoworkers or whomever in America make.

But wealth comes from the things you make - in owning the tree.

Finally, in terms of grabbing the rope and pulling in the same direction - I agree heartily. Which is why we need a rational, national dialogue on what that direction should be.

[Freedom]

I'll buy that.

No, I don't think we can bring back the cinematic manufacturing age. But I get the creeping feeling that we've never really, candidly discussed what this means, both at the national and local level.

Rather than isolationism, I tend to think in terms of self-sufficiency. At some point a few days ago I (think) I'd linked to something Josh Marshall had written in terms of the Detroit bailout; that, sure, it feels good to say that these companies have failed and should be permitted to fail. But if they DO fail - and wind up going Chapter 7 rather than Chapter 11 - we lose yet more of our heavy manufacturing base. Is that a good thing?

I'm familiar with Friedman's arguments. On the flip side is something I read in one of Pat Buchanan's books, very simplistic, but it resonated. For a very long time, we in this country owned the trees that produced the fruit. Then we figured - we can buy the fruit cheaper if someone else owns the trees, someone else makes the products for a wage far below what those "greedy" autoworkers or whomever in America make.

But wealth comes from the things you make - in owning the tree.

Finally, in terms of grabbing the rope and pulling in the same direction - I agree heartily. Which is why we need a rational, national dialogue on what that direction should be.

Gil,
In regards to your last paragraph - if you truely believe in what you post then why don't you use your column as the vehicle for local dialogue rather than spending your time wastefully demeaning, lancaster county conservatives??

Have a great day!!!

[gsmart]

Gil,
In regards to your last paragraph - if you truely believe in what you post then why don't you use your column as the vehicle for local dialogue rather than spending your time wastefully demeaning, lancaster county conservatives??

Have a great day!!!

Because frankly, there can BE no rational dialogue until movement conservatives - Rush and Hannity, et al - pipe down and start thinking, rather than reacting with a knee jerk in every single situation.

I've said this on and off at various times - in the original post here, as well - but I absolutely believe that the conservative movement has been disastrous for this country. Not individual conservatives or conservatism itself - but the type of conservatism that has exalted the "gut" and attacked "intellectoids," the type of conservatism that coalesced around a hatred of liberalism rather than any sort of positive agenda. The type of conservatism that, as Glenn Greenwald once wrote, never felt more alive than when it was sliming liberals as traitors.

For any serious national discussion to go forth - that attitude had to be buried beneath six feet of dirt and more.

[Freedom]

Because frankly, there can BE no rational dialogue until movement conservatives - Rush and Hannity, et al - pipe down and start thinking, rather than reacting with a knee jerk in every single situation.

I've said this on and off at various times - in the original post here, as well - but I absolutely believe that the conservative movement has been disastrous for this country. Not individual conservatives or conservatism itself - but the type of conservatism that has exalted the "gut" and attacked "intellectoids," the type of conservatism that coalesced around a hatred of liberalism rather than any sort of positive agenda. The type of conservatism that, as Glenn Greenwald once wrote, never felt more alive than when it was sliming liberals as traitors.

For any serious national discussion to go forth - that attitude had to be buried beneath six feet of dirt and more.

If I'm hearing you correctly, you will stoop to the level of Hannity and Rush and just sling mud at as they do and waste your abilities on such nonsense??

Have a great day!!!

[Artie See]

I’ve never been completely comfortable with the “liberal” label anyway, because while in some respects I’m extremely liberal, in others I’m pretty conservative.

It looks like you and I might have a lot in common.

I believe, for instance, in the need for personal fiscal responsibility.

As do I, which is why I live in a $100K home in Lancaster City where I can actually afford to make the mortgage payments. Besides, I (heart) city life .

Belief in personal fiscal responsibility should lead to a belief in governmental fiscal responsibility. There must be a fiscally responsible balance between a right-sized government and dealing with the needs of society (such as police, fire, streets, etc.). I also believe that we as a society have a responsibility to help others who through no fault of their own have needs which go beyond their own ability to deal with them (as a conservative Christian, I know that the Bible teaches us to do exactly that). That doesn't mean a return to unlimited welfare, like in the 1970s and 1980s.

I believe that government has a role to play in economic development, although a limited one. I would be the first to support reasonable and appropriate government subsidies for economic development in a depressed or blighted area. On the other hand, I am totally and completely convinced that government subsidies using taxpayer dollars should NEVER be anything more than enough to provide an initiative for private investment; anything more than that is always fiscally irresponsible.

Trolleys?

Would any means of "public transportation" which is permanently affixed to an extremely limited route, appealing to a very narrow clientele, while interfering with the flow of other kinds of traffic, ever be fiscally responsible?