Geezer Test

[footfootfoot]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Those viscous rumors really stick around, don't they, Foot?

They slip by most people...

[Crimson Ghost]

Those viscous rumors really stick around, don't they, Foot?
They slip by most people...

We got a couple of comedians here.

[Tonchi]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

... But clearly you've been everywhere and seen everything.

Or your relatives have.

I was talking about the examples of China and Switzerland. Period. Your sarcasm is unwarranted.

Originally Posted by MaggieL

You think it's possible to require the government to do something? I just think it's foolish to expect "the government" to take care of you...especially in view of their track record in other endeavors.

Well you see, it's kinda like this. We have these old pieces of paper cluttering up our history that say a few things about the purpose of government being to defend and protect the citizens. That's why we pay taxes and allow ourselves to be conscripted into the military should the need arise one of these days. Whether they, nowdays, are actually DOING that is a different issue for discussion. I am not saying anything whatever about the government "owing" me (or anybody) anything else. Not food or housing or education or toilet paper, nothing except the very reasonable expectation that they plan to prevent another power from dropping bombs on my head or in other ways terminating me while I am just going about my business. If we peasants are all toast, the so-called governors will have nobody to foot the bill either, so that is also their incentive to keep us safe, one would think. The deal is, we give them money and they take care of "all that", that's a contract that citizens have with their governments, and otherwise we would have to go back to fuedalism in order to secure our own protection. So please don't try to turn it into another discussion about entitlement mentality. Civil defense or the lack of it is not part of the welfare programs the last time I heard.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Tonchi

I was talking about the examples of China and Switzerland. Period. Your sarcasm is unwarranted

I'll keep my own counsel on that; my sarcasm is warranted whenever I deem it so. When I suggest you're off-base about how well prepared most Americans (when you include the population *outside* the Blue cities) are to deal with emeregencies, handwaving about China and Switzerland misses the point.

Originally Posted by Tonchi

The deal is, we give them money and they take care of "all that", that's a contract that citizens have with their governments....

Did you ever sign a contract where you exchanged valuable consideration for the promise of something as vague as "all that"? We're pretty far from universal agreement on what "all that" actually entails and how to provide it, which is one reason we have the "pieces of paper" to which you allude.

With any kind of luck we'll avoid some of the definitions in use in Switzerland and China, where the distinction between "civil defense" and "welfare" does indeed seem a bit blurry. You should go read that Swiss law you're holding up as an exemplar. When the law requires me to turn over shelter space for use as the government sees fit (i.e. to give to somebody else), I'd say we're in the blur zone.

[Tonchi]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

I'll keep my own counsel on that; my sarcasm is warranted whenever I deem it so.

Oh, how nice. We have somebody else like UG who feels free to jerk the conversation in any direction and attack the other person's knowledge, personality, motives or background when observed to be doing so. Well, I'll leave you there because, after all, my evil twin and I are only around to provide comic relief for people like you. Enjoy.

By the way, my mother's family has lived in Switzerland for 4 generations and if I wanted any further elaborations on what it is like there I would not be interested in having you tell me.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Tonchi

Oh, how nice. We have somebody else like UG who feels free to jerk the conversation in any direction and attack the other person's knowledge, personality, motives or background when observed to be doing so.

I just don't care to simply allow you to frame all the terms of debate. If you feel that's "jerking the conversation in any direction" and constitutes a personal attack on your motives, well, sorry. You'll just have to deal.

My main points are

1)The apparent truth of the proposition "most Americans are ill-prepared to deal with an emergency" varies widely with which subset of the population you're most familiar; it's far from isotropic.

2) The strategy of "I don't think the people are doing $X the way I think they should so let's have 'the goverment' do it for them my way at taxpayer expense." is not a winner

and

3) "How 'the government' does $X for them in China or Switzerland" is usually not portable to a country of our size, structure, situation and politics, even if we assume it was desrirable in situ.

[Tonchi]

THIS is what I said, and nothing else: "The attitude in this country nowdays about protecting the public is nonexistent. While Switzerland and China have completed massive projects to greatly increase their chances of survival, America outside the Mormon church would not even have a clue what to do or where to go."

The only statement of yours which even approaches it is 1). If you wish to take my statement, which I still stand by, and turn it into a discussion of entitlement mentality while dragging me by a noose around my neck into YOUR territory, forget it. I am not talking about anything else this government does or does not do, I said simply that if our government has abandoned any pretense of civil defense, there is no other way to do it on the scale which is required. I'm not interested in your survivalist mentality about every man for himself when the balloon comes down so let's stock up on ammunition and too bad if you other scum want into my shelter cause it ain't gonna work. I'm talking about the CITIZENS, all of the country, the 300 million people give or take a few million illegal aliens, who will be forced to take the consequences when a government who has only provided sanctuary for their highest officials leaves them in the open. I said that Switzerland and China have long ago addressed this issue and resolved it as well as possible, which is TRUE. That was the only point on which these other countries were mentioned and whatever else they do with their citizens or revenue is not at issue; nobody is analyzing HOW or WHY the did it, they just DID IT. One country is Socialist and the other Communist, they have nothing whatsover in common in this thread except that they looked to the security of their citizens. Our way of government has practically nothing in common with either of those countries, and although we have the ability to follow their example or go them one better, we have not and probably will not. My statements stop there. If you want to take those thoughts somewhere else and extrapolate into your own take on the situation, do not drag me with you. Go by yourself.

[MaggieL]

So, "how or why"...

one Socialist country twice the size of New Jersey with a population comparable to metro Philadelphia

and

one Communist country with five times the population of the US (in slightly less land area)

...have done what they've done to "protect the public" aren't germane to your version of the discussion, and that one is Socialist and the other Communist is irrelevant too (presumably because there's obviously no connection between Socialism and Communism).

My sense is "the attitude in the country nowdays about protecting the public" is that people should plan and provide their own protection as much a possible, rather than relying on "the government" to protect them. Of course, that's the attitude prevailing amongst the crowd *I* run with; *your* peeps obviously have a different view.

I think centralized planning and provisioning for emergencies sucks rocks; a distributed approach is much more robust. I suppose we'll find out how effective the centralized approach is if one of those systems you cite is ever called upon to perform, since they've "solved it as well as possible".

[capnhowdy]

this is good

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by wolf

Are you implying that UG never grew up?

No, unfortunatly he did, but not in the 60s.
He said he was 5 in 61~63, so at the end of the 60s around 13, clearly not old enough to make the decisions that people facing the war had to make. He was probably mimicing the the adults he wanted to so dearly please.
When he did grow up in the 70s/80s, he busied himself with learning languages so that he could find authors that agreed with his left over childhood notions and never had to make real choices.
Sad really.

[capnhowdy]

I'm an even bigger geezer now. I had completely forgotten this thread.

[TheMercenary]

17, but you only need a good background in social history to get most of them.

[Radar]

I got 15.

1. B
2. C X
3. C
4. A
5. B
6. A
7. C
8. C X
9. A
10. C
11. C
12. C X
13. B X
14. C
15. C X
16. A
17. B
18. C
19. A
20. A

[spudcon]

I got 20, even tho I had a problem with a couple of answers. Number 16 had a misnomer, calling ditto, or spirit duplicators mimeos. Mimeo sheets usually stunk, but dittos, which have been banned from classrooms here, have that nice smell of alcohol. I didn't use it to get high, and neither did anyone else I knew. It just smelled good.
Number 19 I only heard sang by the Mills Brothers. The answer says the Ink Spots were a fifties group, but they were around long before the fifties.
Okay, it's just details, but I'm geezer enough to be allowed to be crotchety.

[DanaC]

I got 15...and most of them I lied/guessed. Very little relevant to Brits.