Govenor Sarah Palin, Mormonism, Post-Mormonism, Politics

[_beastie]

16 pages later....

Good point. My will power is lacking in this regard. It really is pointless, with few exceptions.

[_dartagnan]

16 pages later....

Oh, and this isn't even including her rants over in the off-topic forum, where she and EA tag teamed against Palin during the convention. At least EA had the common decency to just disappear if he felt he couldn't bring himself to admit being wrong.

[_Pokatator]

16 pages later....

Oh, and this isn't even including her rants over in the off-topic forum, where she and EA tag teamed against Palin during the convention. At least EA had the common decency to just disappear if he felt he couldn't bring himself to admit being wrong.

A button has definitely been pushed.

[_beastie]

A button has definitely been pushed.

I can't stand the modern republican party, that's the button. I admitted that from the get-go. Some of the rest of you are being disingenuous.

And, of course, I'm cynical in general about politics, so watching McCain out-whore even the worst of them is another button.

But there has been one positive benefit from this exercise in my own lack of will power - I've finally been pushed over the edge with dart. His past ill-informed and specious rants about evolution built the foundation, and his ill-informed and specious rants here pushed me over the edge. I refuse to engage with him anymore, and that will likely save me some time and head-banging in the future. If I miss him, I'll just say this to myself:

dart:
you idiot, you dunce, you blathering fool, (fill in the blank with information pulled off a right wing site, either religious or political).

Kind of reminds me of crock at this point, he was easy to mimic as well:
coward anonymous (fill in some silly, unsubstantiated claim, like the Maya had no writing)

[_dartagnan]

Here are some things I wish Senator McCain would do that he won't:

1) Open up everything for oil exploration. He's telling his constituents what they want to hear, but he's not going to do it. I'd be very surprised if he moved forward on this promise.

I disagree. I think he chose Palin because he knows she will insist on drilling in ANWR and if anyone can convince him that we should, it will be her. He is certainly more inclined to drill and use nuclear energy, than Obama is. Obama likes to brag about his voting record on alternative fuels, but these were just useless money pit programs for studying the possibility of alternative fuels like hydrogen cars, etc. Something we're not even close to accomplishing techonolgically, nor would be be a vaible alternative in the near future. You still have to convince companies to invest it this but it is too damn expensive and only the super rich could afford these kinds of cars. It just isn't practical, because rich people don't care about gas prices to begin with. Nuclear energy is available to us now. We have the technology. We've had it for decades. McCain wants to use it whereas Obama is beholden to the environmentalists.

2) Massive investment in solar, wind, tidal, natural gas, and nuclear energies and infrastructure. Make it a National Defense issue, and move forward, quickly. Instead he'll push for nuclear, which is a good thing, but it takes a long time to get a plant built and operating. The hysteria over nuclear energy is undeserved.

I think you have this backwards because I think we can get nuclear facilities taking the load off our energy woes faster than we could get wind or solar to make a dent. In Brazil they actually make cars that run off natural gas, but in the end it evens out economically. It isn't the most efficient means of transportation and it is really dangerous. The slightest automobile accidents result in gas explosions that have killed the passengers and innocent bystanders. Alcohol from corn isn't really that efficient either. It makes sense in Brasil because there is so much of it - four different crop seasons - but in the USA, it wouldn't be as beneficial, economically speaking. I heard one figure suggest it takes a gallon of gas to make 1.5 gallons of ethanol from corn.
Wind power doesn't provide nearly as much energy as people think (and where the hell are we supposed to put these windmills anyway?) Ted Kennedy doesn't even want wind power near his home:

Kennedy's antipathy to furtive rules changes and backroom power plays stops at the water's edge -- specifically, the waters of Nantucket Sound, which separates Cape Cod (where the Kennedy family has an oceanfront compound in Hyannis Port) from the islands of Nantucket and Martha's Vineyard. A shoal in the center of Nantucket Sound is where Cape Wind Associates hopes to build the nation's first offshore wind farm -- an array of 130 wind turbines capable of generating enough electricity to meet 75 percent of the Cape and Islands' energy needs, without burning any oil or emitting any pollution. The turbines would be miles from any coastal property, barely visible on the horizon. In fact, Cape Wind says they would be farther away from the nearest home than any other electricity generation project in Massachusetts.
But like a lot of well-to-do Cape and Islands landowners and sailing enthusiasts, Kennedy doesn't want to share his Atlantic playground with an energy facility, no matter how clean, green, and nearly unseen. Last month he secretly arranged for a poison-pill amendment, never debated in either house of Congress, to be slipped into an unrelated Coast Guard bill. It would give the governor of Massachusetts, who just happens to be a wind farm opponent, unilateral authority to veto the Cape Wind project. http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editor ... the_rules/

Solar power is expensive and limited and impractical in its own ways (http://socialissues.wiseto.com/Articles ... 496/?print). I was watching a show on Discovery channel last month about solar energy and it is really only a viable option in the south west area where states receive a lot of sunlight. Then you'd have to build a huge facility out in the desert somewhere consisting of a few square miles of nothing but solar panels. It said that even a massive project like this - which would have to be funded by the government ebcause of teh enormous cost - would still only provide enough energy to power a city of 100-150,000 people. So while this might make sense in a state like Nevada or Arizona, it isn't necessarily something that's going to help us across the board. I think people should invest in their own home solar systems. They cost around $40,000 but it pays for itself after 20 years.

3) Economic and diplomatic sanctions against Saudi Arabia and other members of the Islamic bloc.

Do you really think Obama has any intention of being tough on these countries? The guy wants to have chats with Iran's leader without preconditions. Do you really think he is going to be the one who stops our ridiculous "economic aid" package of 3 billion a year to countries like Egypt? We've been giving them billions over the years as a payoff for them not to attack Israel. During the conventions, only McCain has spoken on this matter and said he would put an end to it.

McCain also outlined his plans to address the high gas prices and the economy if elected to office. He told the crowd the country “needs to drill now,” needs to look at nuclear power as an alternative source of energy and needs to “stop spending $700 billion a year to countries who don’t like us very much.” http://www.lsjournal.com/100/story/17189.html

To include resident aliens that live here; they have to go back to their countries.

McCain, as the senator of Arizona, knows illegal immigration up close and personal. Do you really think Obama has any intention of being tough on illegal immigration?

Sharia law is anti-thetical to womens' rights, democracy, and Islamic countries are incredibly violent and discriminatory toward minorities, non-believers, and women. Until they stop their mondern day apartheid, relegate Sharia to the past, give everyone the freedom and liberty they deserve, we should engage them as someone who is at odds with democracy, which they are. We did it with the Communists. We can do it with Islamists. We're hypocrits for how we conducted ourselves with Soviet Russia and South Africa, but somehow make allowances for the vile and repressive ideology of Islam. I don't get it.

Again, do you think Obama is more likely to do something about this?

[_dartagnan]

I can't stand the modern republican party, that's the button. I admitted that from the get-go.

Well at least you can admit you're blinded by your own hatred and ignorance. You can't help but to equate any republican with the worst republicans, but somehow you've managed to divorce the best demoncrats from the worst. We know what your issue is beastie, it is your hatred towardsa religion. You came out with guns a blazin on Palin and her religious beliefs. Turns out you were a complete idiot and didn't even know what her beliefs were.

I'm cynical in general about politics, so watching McCain out-whore even the worst of them is another button.

You're a scum for making this charge without evidence. This man has done more for his country and suffered more for his country than all your whacky liberals wadded up together. Calling him a whore without evidence is just sick. You throw out anything you can scrap from the worst of the liberal web, without a care in the world if anything therein is actually accurate.

The worst thing about you and other liberals is that you do not make sure your vote is an informed one. You make no effort to do this. You make no effort to educate yourself on teh two oppsoing sides, understand what they really stand for, and induce from that who is the better candidate. Instead you let your preconceived hatred of religious folk drive your passion into the voting box where you'll strike one down for your fellow atheists.

His past ill-informed and specious rants about evolution built the foundation

You mean where you made a complete fool of yourself by pretending the books you owned - mostly written by atheist activists like Dawkins - actually addressed the question I asked? I never said evolution was wrong or false. You just got all pissed off when you realized evolution didn't really disprove religion.

ill-informed and specious rants here

Funny, I am the only one offering refutation with detailed information from objective sources. I showed you what Obama supported. You throw out crap you find on the liberal web, I respond with detailed refutation, and you think you're going to just get away with calling mine "ill-informed and specious"? I'm not the moron who thinks talk about a penis entering a vagina where the sperm meets the egg, has absolutely nothing to do with sex! These are the kinds of intellect insulting dissonance exercises you have to perform in order to maintain your loyalty to Obama, the lesser of the theists.

Remember, you insisted war was the main reason you wouldn't vote McCain/Palin. Well, thanks to your darling, the liberal media, more and more people think in ignorance like you do and will vote Obama. Take for example Palin's interview with Gibson last night. ABC completely edited out the bolded parts that make her sound more informed and appealing (pay attention to her insistence that she hates war and prefers diplomatic solutions):

GIBSON: Have you ever met a foreign head of state?

PALIN: There in the state of Alaska, our international trade activities bring in many leaders of other countries.

GIBSON: And all governors deal with trade delegations.

PALIN: Right.

GIBSON: Who act at the behest of their governments.

PALIN: Right, right.

GIBSON: I’m talking about somebody who’s a head of state, who can negotiate for that country. Ever met one?

PALIN: I have not and I think if you go back in history and if you ask that question of many vice presidents, they may have the same answer that I just gave you. But, Charlie, again, we’ve got to remember what the desire is in this nation at this time. It is for no more politics as usual and somebody’s big, fat resume maybe that shows decades and decades in that Washington establishment, where, yes, they’ve had opportunities to meet heads of state … these last couple of weeks … it has been overwhelming to me that confirmation of the message that Americans are getting sick and tired of that self-dealing and kind of that closed door, good old boy network that has been the Washington elite.

GIBSON: Let me ask you about some specific national security situations.

PALIN: Sure.

GIBSON: Let’s start, because we are near Russia, let’s start with Russia and Georgia. The administration has said we’ve got to maintain the territorial integrity of Georgia. Do you believe the United States should try to restore Georgian sovereignty over South Ossetia and Abkhazia?

PALIN: First off, we’re going to continue good relations with Saakashvili there. I was able to speak with him the other day and giving him my commitment, as John McCain’s running mate, that we will be committed to Georgia. And we’ve got to keep an eye on Russia. For Russia to have exerted such pressure in terms of invading a smaller democratic country, unprovoked, is unacceptable and we have to keep…

GIBSON: You believe unprovoked.

PALIN: I do believe unprovoked and we have got to keep our eyes on Russia, under the leadership there. I think it was unfortunate. That manifestation that we saw with that invasion of Georgia shows us some steps backwards that Russia has recently taken away from the race toward a more democratic nation with democratic ideals. That’s why we have to keep an eye on Russia.

And, Charlie, you’re in Alaska. We have that very narrow maritime border between the United States, and the 49th state, Alaska, and Russia. They are our next door neighbors.We need to have a good relationship with them. They’re very, very important to us and they are our next door neighbor.

GIBSON: What insight into Russian actions, particularly in the last couple of weeks, does the proximity of the state give you?

PALIN: They’re our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska.

GIBSON: What insight does that give you into what they’re doing in Georgia?

PALIN: Well, I’m giving you that perspective of how small our world is and how important it is that we work with our allies to keep good relation with all of these countries, especially Russia. We will not repeat a Cold War. We must have good relationship with our allies, pressuring, also, helping us to remind Russia that it’s in their benefit, also, a mutually beneficial relationship for us all to be getting along.
Sarah Palin on Russia:

We cannot repeat the Cold War. We are thankful that, under Reagan, we won the Cold War, without a shot fired, also. We’ve learned lessons from that in our relationship with Russia, previously the Soviet Union.

We will not repeat a Cold War. We must have good relationship with our allies, pressuring, also, helping us to remind Russia that it’s in their benefit, also, a mutually beneficial relationship for us all to be getting along.

GIBSON: Would you favor putting Georgia and Ukraine in NATO?

PALIN: Ukraine, definitely, yes. Yes, and Georgia.

GIBSON: Because Putin has said he would not tolerate NATO incursion into the Caucasus.

PALIN: Well, you know, the Rose Revolution, the Orange Revolution, those actions have showed us that those democratic nations, I believe, deserve to be in NATO. Putin thinks otherwise. Obviously, he thinks otherwise, but…

GIBSON: And under the NATO treaty, wouldn’t we then have to go to war if Russia went into Georgia?

PALIN: Perhaps so. I mean, that is the agreement when you are a NATO ally, is if another country is attacked, you’re going to be expected to be called upon and help.

But NATO, I think, should include Ukraine, definitely, at this point and I think that we need to — especially with new leadership coming in on January 20, being sworn on, on either ticket, we have got to make sure that we strengthen our allies, our ties with each one of those NATO members.

We have got to make sure that that is the group that can be counted upon to defend one another in a very dangerous world today.

GIBSON: And you think it would be worth it to the United States, Georgia is worth it to the United States to go to war if Russia were to invade.

PALIN: What I think is that smaller democratic countries that are invaded by a larger power is something for us to be vigilant against. We have got to be cognizant of what the consequences are if a larger power is able to take over smaller democratic countries.
And we have got to be vigilant. We have got to show the support, in this case, for Georgia. The support that we can show is economic sanctions perhaps against Russia, if this is what it leads to.
It doesn’t have to lead to war and it doesn’t have to lead, as I said, to a Cold War, but economic sanctions, diplomatic pressure, again, counting on our allies to help us do that in this mission of keeping our eye on Russia and Putin and some of his desire to control and to control much more than smaller democratic countries.

His mission, if it is to control energy supplies, also, coming from and through Russia, that’s a dangerous position for our world to be in, if we were to allow that to happen.

Sarah Palin on Iran and Israel:

GIBSON: Let me turn to Iran. Do you consider a nuclear Iran to be an existential threat to Israel?

PALIN: I believe that under the leadership of Ahmadinejad, nuclear weapons in the hands of his government are extremely dangerous to everyone on this globe, yes.

GIBSON: So what should we do about a nuclear Iran? John McCain said the only thing worse than a war with Iran would be a nuclear Iran. John Abizaid said we may have to live with a nuclear Iran. Who’s right?

PALIN: No, no. I agree with John McCain that nuclear weapons in the hands of those who would seek to destroy our allies, in this case, we’re talking about Israel, we’re talking about Ahmadinejad’s comment about Israel being the “stinking corpse, should be wiped off the face of the earth,” that’s atrocious. That’s unacceptable.
GIBSON: So what do you do about a nuclear Iran?

PALIN: We have got to make sure that these weapons of mass destruction, that nuclear weapons are not given to those hands of Ahmadinejad, not that he would use them, but that he would allow terrorists to be able to use them. So we have got to put the pressure on Iran and we have got to count on our allies to help us, diplomatic pressure.

GIBSON: But, Governor, we’ve threatened greater sanctions against Iran for a long time. It hasn’t done any good. It hasn’t stemmed their nuclear program.

PALIN: We need to pursue those and we need to implement those. We cannot back off. We cannot just concede that, oh, gee, maybe they’re going to have nuclear weapons, what can we do about it. No way, not Americans. We do not have to stand for that.

GIBSON: What if Israel decided it felt threatened and needed to take out the Iranian nuclear facilities?

PALIN: Well, first, we are friends with Israel and I don’t think that we should second guess the measures that Israel has to take to defend themselves and for their security.

GIBSON: So if we wouldn’t second guess it and they decided they needed to do it because Iran was an existential threat, we would cooperative or agree with that.

PALIN: I don’t think we can second guess what Israel has to do to secure its nation.

GIBSON: So if it felt necessary, if it felt the need to defend itself by taking out Iranian nuclear facilities, that would be all right.

PALIN: We cannot second guess the steps that Israel has to take to defend itself.

GIBSON: We talk on the anniversary of 9/11. Why do you think those hijackers attacked? Why did they want to hurt us?

PALIN: You know, there is a very small percentage of Islamic believers who are extreme and they are violent and they do not believe in American ideals, and they attacked us and now we are at a point here seven years later, on the anniversary, in this post-9/11 world, where we’re able to commit to never again. They see that the only option for them is to become a suicide bomber, to get caught up in this evil, in this terror. They need to be provided the hope that all Americans have instilled in us, because we’re a democratic, we are a free, and we are a free-thinking society.

GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?

PALIN: In what respect, Charlie?

GIBSON: The Bush — well, what do you — what do you interpret it to be?

PALIN: His world view.

GIBSON: No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war.

PALIN: I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell bent on destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made. And with new leadership, and that’s the beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy, is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better.

GIBSON: The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that?

PALIN: I agree that a president’s job, when they swear in their oath to uphold our Constitution, their top priority is to defend the United States of America.

I know that John McCain will do that and I, as his vice president, families we are blessed with that vote of the American people and are elected to serve and are sworn in on January 20, that will be our top priority is to defend the American people.

GIBSON: Do we have a right to anticipatory self-defense? Do we have a right to make a preemptive strike again another country if we feel that country might strike us?

PALIN: Charlie, if there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country. In fact, the president has the obligation, the duty to defend.

GIBSON: Do we have the right to be making cross-border attacks into Pakistan from Afghanistan, with or without the approval of the Pakistani government?

PALIN: Now, as for our right to invade, we’re going to work with these countries, building new relationships, working with existing allies, but forging new, also, in order to, Charlie, get to a point in this world where war is not going to be a first option. In fact, war has got to be, a military strike, a last option.

GIBSON: But, Governor, I’m asking you: We have the right, in your mind, to go across the border with or without the approval of the Pakistani government.

PALIN: In order to stop Islamic extremists, those terrorists who would seek to destroy America and our allies, we must do whatever it takes and we must not blink, Charlie, in making those tough decisions of where we go and even who we target.

GIBSON: And let me finish with this. I got lost in a blizzard of words there. Is that a yes? That you think we have the right to go across the border with or without the approval of the Pakistani government, to go after terrorists who are in the Waziristan area?

PALIN: I believe that America has to exercise all options in order to stop the terrorists who are hell bent on destroying America and our allies. We have got to have all options out there on the table.
Sarah Palin on God:

GIBSON: You said recently, in your old church, “Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God.” Are we fighting a holy war?

PALIN: You know, I don’t know if that was my exact quote.

GIBSON: Exact words.

PALIN: But the reference there is a repeat of Abraham Lincoln’s words when he said — first, he suggested never presume to know what God’s will is, and I would never presume to know God’s will or to speak God’s words. But what Abraham Lincoln had said, and that’s a repeat in my comments, was let us not pray that God is on our side in a war or any other time, but let us pray that we are on God’s side.

That’s what that comment was all about, Charlie. And I do believe, though, that this war against extreme Islamic terrorists is the right thing. It’s an unfortunate thing, because war is hell and I hate war, and, Charlie, today is the day that I send my first born, my son, my teenage son overseas with his Stryker brigade, 4,000 other wonderful American men and women, to fight for our country, for democracy, for our freedoms.

Charlie, those are freedoms that too many of us just take for granted. I hate war and I want to see war ended. We end war when we see victory, and we do see victory in sight in Iraq.

GIBSON: I take your point about Lincoln’s words, but you went on and said, “There is a plan and it is God’s plan.”

PALIN: I believe that there is a plan for this world and that plan for this world is for good. I believe that there is great hope and great potential for every country to be able to live and be protected with inalienable rights that I believe are God-given, Charlie, and I believe that those are the rights to life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
That, in my world view, is a grand — the grand plan.

GIBSON: But then are you sending your son on a task that is from God?

PALIN: I don’t know if the task is from God, Charlie. What I know is that my son has made a decision. I am so proud of his independent and strong decision he has made, what he decided to do and serving for the right reasons and serving something greater than himself and not choosing a real easy path where he could be more comfortable and certainly safer.

As noted elsewhere, -http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=7431- Gibson relied on an internet citations that was not "exact words" as he claimed. It seems Gibson's standard of integrity is right up there with beastie's. Or down there, I should say.

[_dartagnan]

You see, the liberal media is desperately trying to portray McCain and Palin as war-happy. This is why beastie insisted before they were the most likely to go to war with Iran, as if Obama wouldn't.

In the interview Palin made it perfectly clear her disdain for war, but ABC couldn't broadcast those comments because it knew it would resonate well with most Americans, especially those who are voting against Bush by voting for Obama. Just count the comments that were edited out...

We will not repeat a Cold War.

We cannot repeat the Cold War.

We will not repeat a Cold War.

It doesn’t have to lead to war and it doesn’t have to lead, as I said, to a Cold War, but economic sanctions, diplomatic pressure, again, counting on our allies to help us do that in this mission

we have got to count on our allies to help us, diplomatic pressure

war is hell and I hate war

I hate war and I want to see war ended.

We end war when we see victory, and we do see victory in sight in Iraq.

None of these made the final cut. Now tell me that is fair and balanced journalistic reporting!!

You can also see Gibson's previous interviews with democrats Obama and Johnathan Edwards. It is a joke of a comparison, as he throws them softball questions about their family and past history. Never did he look smugly down his nose at them, or try to trick them with false citations, malicious allegations or quiz them on their experience or accuse them of lying. Most of all, he didn't edit out their comments that most Americans would find appealing.

[_dartagnan]

To further put things into perspective about beastie's so-called concern over the smear techniques by the "Bush Camp" towards McCain (who she now calls a "whore"!)...

"McCain’s severe war injuries prevent him from combing his hair, typing on a keyboard, or tying his shoes."- Boston Globe; March 4, 2000

"His nightly ritual is to read his email together with his wife, Cindy. The injuries he incurred as a Vietnam POW make it painful for McCain to type. Instead, he dictates responses that his wife types on a laptop" - Forbes; May 29, 2000

And now, eight years after McCain's disability becomes common knowledge, Obama pays for an ad that says McCain...

"doesn't even know how to use a computer ...can't even send an email..."

This message approved by Barack Obama and paid for by Obama for America - September 12, 2008

Now how SICK is that?

That's your candidate at work beastie! So stop pretending you actualy give a rat's ass about below the belt smear tactics. you embrace them so long as they attack republicans.

[_antishock8]

Yeah, we do agree on many of these issues, although not all. We'll just have to agree to disagree, and hope for the best, whatever that may be.

Well, which ones don't we agree on? I'm not sure because you don't make them clear.

[_beastie]

Well, which ones don't we agree on? I'm not sure because you don't make them clear.

I really am trying to refrain from any more political posting, but I'll answer your questions.

I don't believe we should "drill drill drill". By the time we would see any benefit from that drilling, China will be the major player in oil bidding, and we may not get a drop of that oil, anyway. By that time, prices will be so outrageous that any benefit will be minimal. I think we should take any money that would be spent on "drill drill drill" and invest in new technologies to replace oil altogether. This is a fool's game. We're like crack addicts and our crack is running out. Time to clean up.

And while I agree that some social programs do create a culture of dependency, working close-up with many children from that culture renders me unwilling to simply cut it off. I would rather invest in more preventive measures, such as poverty intervention with newborns and preschoolers. If we can intervene with some of these kids before they go to school, and provide the type of preschool (from birth on) support that will result in these children NOT already being five years behind their peers from literate homes, then perhaps we can break the cycle of dependency. I don't expect this country ever to be willing to make that sort of commitment, in wealth or time, so we're probably stuck with the broken system we have. The problems that poor families face are very complex, and their children are continuing the cycle not because their parents don't love them, or are riff-raff, but because their parents don't have the skills to help their children break the cycle on their own. And they don't have those skills because their parents didn't have those skills. Middle class Americans take so much for granted that I don't think we understand the cycle of poverty. Do you know I work with children who come from homes where there is not a single piece of reading material in the house? Why would there be? Their parents can barely read. In education, we refer to this problem as the Matthew effect - those who have get even more, and those who don't have get further and further behind. Educationally speaking, some of these kids have been doomed before they ever walked into kindergarten. Reading is not a natural process, it is an ability that is wired into the brain during certain crucial periods of brain development. We "wire" it via all sorts of language interactions with our children from birth on, including exposing them to books and reading. When 5 year old kids go to school without any of that prior exposure...they will be plagued with reading problems, and hence educational problems in general, and the cycle of poverty will continue. This is the core of my problem with simply stopping all social welfare - the price is not one I'm willing to pay. So we have the sucky situation we have.