The Problem with Haven

Relax wrote:SNIP
I would place a $10,000 bet you have never worked an hour in "soup" kitchen in your life. If you have, it probably was not two hours and a near guarantee there was never a repeat showing of your august self. I will also bet you have never tried to actively get these people off welfare and into a steady job. It is a very rewarding experience, but you have to be careful not to be taken advantage of as well. Generally one learns after being way too compassionate once or twice. I will also bet you have never tried helping out in the foster care system either. Anyone who wants to do this, I have this to say: Regarding foster care "helping:" If you aren't willing to help at least once a week for an entire night/day, building an actual relationship with these needy children, please do not 'volunteer'. Showing up rarely or for short periods of time only reinforces how alienated these children are. It is a major commitment.

When you actually get your hands dirty and try to "help" these people instead of voting to take from others wallets to "help" them, let me know will ya? you will quickly understand that the system as constructed in our country(USA WA st. differs at the state level)actively keeps them there by rewarding them NOT to work(see below). Those like R&H, who I am near positive have never actually worked with those on welfare or tried helping anyone out of their problems outside of the welfare system where their only knowledge/reality of the subject consists of nothing more than a political hack job broad brushed swipe really piss me off. Get off your moral high horse and help out instead of only "helping" alleviate money out of others pockets to assuage your moral conscience you are unwilling to assuage via actually working with these people. Some really do need help. Some need help and are unwilling to accept it. Unfortunately, most, chose to be there via systematic choices they have made for years/decades previously. It is not a simple or clean cut subject. It is fraught with pain and suffering with a few rays of happiness thrown in.

Relax ---

The kids and I (our entire church youth group) work in a homeless breakfast here in Greenville on a regular schedule. Been doing it for going on three years now (I've been doing it for longer than that; the kids didn't start until the girls were 10), and we're also affiliated with a local food bank and a lunch program (our sister church, Wesley Chapel handles the lunches; our youth group flips with theirs once a month). We also support Epworth (a home for boys from troubled families) and the South Carolina Methodist Church is currently really pushing a workfare program that emphasizes entry level jobs and GEDs.

I will concede that there is much truth to what you say. I would also argue, however, that my own experience suggests you're painting with too broad a brush here. Not in your own experiences, but in the way in which you seem to be categorizing welfare recipients in general as "welfare scum." I have met the exact sort of people you're describing, and (like you) I find my sympathy for them . . . strained. I also concede that the way welfare has been currently structured and the ways in which the system can be gamed very often --- very often --- make the life situations of those receiving it worse, not better. This is certainly true in the long term, and I would argue that it's true even in the short term. And, speaking as an adoptive parent, someone who was raised with a foster sister who was basically stolen from her abusive, alcoholic mother by my own mother (back in the day when you could do that without going to jail), and someone who's seen the generational consequences up close and personal, I believe the consequences are worst of all for the kids caught in that mess.


Having said all of that, I have personally worked with men (and women) who are neither Downs Syndrome kids nor "welfare scum" and who have been entirely willing to work for food and to take entry level jobs almost anywhere (when they can get them). Mind you, I have to admit that I've worked with a larger number of them who have been a lot more willing to work for cash to buy beer or wine than for food, but that's not always the case.

I agree that a system which requires work, at least from the able-bodied, is far superior to the way the system we have works to maintain and even increase dependency rather than breaking the dependency cycle. And I suspect that much of the reason it's so broken is that it's so much easier for government programs to throw money at the problem and ameliorate outright disaster than it is for government to build the sort of ground-level-up infrastructure which would both require work and help provide that work. The most successful efforts I've seen in that direction have come out of churches and the private sector at the local community level, probably because they actually know their communities, are small enough the people running the programs (who are almost always volunteers who believe in what they're doing) don't turn into bureaucrats, and they are focused on results rather than bandaids. And, of course, a big part of the problem (from my own observation) comes from people who may be deeply committed to helping others but who judge the success of their efforts by the nobility of their intentions and the amount of effort they invest rather than by the results they achieve. I've seen way too many people congratulate themselves on their enlightened attitudes without ever questioning whether or not existing programs and efforts are accomplishing the goal of getting people permanently out of welfare.

Having said all of that and, I think, having found myself in substantial agreement with you, you're preaching to the choir when you hammer the problems in conversation with people who are up to their elbows in the problem already and probably moving yourself into the "fanatic" category when you unload on those who haven't been there and done that. The truth is that actually fixing the problem is going to require a pretty stiff dose of reality for the people building, maintaining, and supporting the present system (since they're the very people we have to convince to scrap the present system and build a better one), and much of that reality is exactly what you've just described. The problem is that we've got to get them to listen to us if w're ever going to change it, man. Whacking them between the eyes with a ballpeen hammer may not be the best way to get 'em to do that.

BTW, have you ever detailed your activities on the forum before? I only ask because it's obvious (to me, at least) that you've been there and paid your dues in a way which gives you a right to strong opinions. I'm just wondering if any of the people out there who have read earlier posts from you as "rants in a vacuum" without realizing the experience which underlies them?

hanuman wrote:
Please refrain from such generalizations and disrespect, and I for one would be much more inclined towards giving serious consideration to your argument. Thank you.

Since I have not gone to bed yet even though the commute tomorrow comes early:

I hastily read/edited what Relax wrote last night: He asked me to.

You know what is disrespectful? Not reading. There were example after example stated. Some of which I have had personal acquaintance with.

Those who are leaching on the system are scum. No way getting around that fact. Thieves are scum.

From those I personally know those who have been on welfare or food stamps, they have all been abusing the system. And no I do not have nearly as much hands on experience as Relax. So far, everything I know personally, unlike your generalized statements from some utopian perspective of what the system SHOULD BE FOR of which no one is arguing otherwise, what I know personally, most are abusers of the system without any real need. They abuse the system because it is convenient. Most of them will say openly, "I paid taxes, I am just getting my due." or something equivalent even if they have never paid a single cent in taxes. They view it as a right. They view welfare as their savings account so they live carefree without a thought in the world about the future expecting the government to save their bacon.

I have known a couple people who were in poverty, one married couple and another a single man, who both had major ongoing medical issues, parkinsons + wheelchair bound, who did NOT go on welfare or food stamps.

They could have but chose not to. Why?
They were not lazy.
They were not selfish.
They planned for the future.
They were not greedy covetous people who had to have the latest gadget and gizmo.
They did not own a nice car.
They did not trade their car in.
They used said car until it would work no more.
They bought used goods.
They did not travel.
They did not rack up giant credit card tabs.
They did not open multiple credit cards and pile up giant tabs on all of them so they could live the high life and then, say, "OOPS, so sorry, we are going to declare bankruptcy."
They did not go out to eat tripling/quadrupling their cost of food.
They did not buy premade packaged food or dinners.
They bought in bulk.
They did not have gigantic egos.
They ate a little humble pie.
They ask for help? Occasionally.
They made do just fine.
They had far worse health and financial problems then all the other people I knew and have known who were/are on welfare.

They were happy and content.

They didn't suck/steal money from your/my wallet.

All three people had it far worse than anyone I have known who has taken food stamps or welfare.

The system as it stands as far as I can tell is corrupt and abused. From where I stand, your generalized compassionate idealism is doing this subject no favors. It sounds really nice and compassionate as a proper upstanding citizen should be. Your generalized statements are not reality.

PS. I grew up in a single wide trailer with three siblings and essentially no heat and I know Relax also grew up in similar circumstances.

PPS. The very large illegal immigrant population do just fine without welfare and food stamps. There are millions of them. Generalized? Sure. Welcome to reality. Everything is a bell curve population. One can always find exceptions at both ends of the bell curve and get all in a huff and puff about it.

The E wrote:Taking one of these entry level jobs is strongly disincentivised, with benefits being cut quickly and harshly once you pass certain income thresholds. That anecdote about the cousin that quit a job because she was going to lose food stamps? That's not her being lazy, that's her not making enough money to get her family through the month.

Since I am still up being stupid. I can answer this one for Relax since I have known his cousins my entire life. I Knew/know his cousins before I knew him. Only one of whom has a job out of 4 adults. Lets just say it was a good thing I knew Relax before I knew who his cousins were. World turns in odd ways. It really is a small world.

From what I recall, this particular cousin, had $400-$500/month left over in food stamps. 10-15 years ago or so. Food cost half-2/3 what it does today for your reference point. A cut in their food stamps was starting to crimp their slush fund for their brand new Ford Ranger truck. I forget to what level the cut was going to take, but it was hardly life threatening when I heard about it. I believe they still would have had left over they could have sold.

They were selling their unused food stamps cards. I also believe the toddler and young child day care job she had was paying $10/hour 40hours/week which I believe is good pay for such a job. Her children were going there free as well was the deal as I recall. Anyways $1600/month $18,000/year. More than enough to live on. Would it be tight? Sure. She also had a husband... Neither of them or their children had any medical problems.

Besides: What he never stated:

At the time she had cable television with several of the sub packages, a cellphone, and internet bills. Since I recall specifically Relax being incensed that not even he had internet or cable and yet someone on welfare DID!

Said cousin still has plenty of spare money for cable television at around $100/month with the sports package along with a brand new cell phone/text/data costing over $100/month. Yup. They are really "hurting". Oh yea.

No sympathy here. I will keep it reserved for those who actually need it. There are plenty of those people.

J6P wrote:Said cousin still has plenty of spare money for cable television at around $100/month with the sports package along with a brand new cell phone/text/data costing over $100/month. Yup. They are really "hurting". Oh yea.

No sympathy here. I will keep it reserved for those who actually need it. There are plenty of those people.

I do not dispute the fact that there are people savvy enough to exploit all the potential loopholes in a given welfare system. But your account, and Relax's, give the impression that you seem to believe that that is what most people on welfare are doing. Always remember that the plural of anecdote isn't data.

All I am trying to say is that, from my personal experience, that just isn't true. Granted, the situation in the US might be completely different (I doubt it, however).

Secondly, this notion that people on welfare somehow do not deserve what you deem to be luxuries is ... flawed, to say the least.
You are building a false dichotomy between the "noble poor", those that stoically suffer through a (hopefully temporary) setback in the hopes that perseverance will carry them through into a better life, and those who are so immersed in the popular culture of today that they too desire the outward appearance of having a better life. You are, in essence, blaming these people for not wanting to appear poor, you're chastizing them for not living up to your ideal of what a poor person should be, when that ideal has been formed by decades upon decades of indoctrination (some from the culture in which you grew up in, some self-administered) that equates being poor with being lazy.

In the end, yes, those people that do decide to milk welfare for everything they can, those are annoying. But that's the price of having a welfare program; all you can do is to make sure that it isn't abusable to a damaging degree.

Short incoming personal point is that I have worked with people receiving welfare, both as an unpaid volunteer and as a paid bureaucrat. In the latter role worked at the coal face assessing needs, but finished writing government policy.

Very complex subject with many angles to consider. There are a number of people who simply won't work, and a number who are content to live in squalor (not necessarily the same people). In our society these are the minority. Most of our welfare recipients are either suffering temporary setbacks, or are genuinely unable to work for a living. Many still contribute to society in other ways.

My personal belief is that we should assist those with potential to get off the welfare cycle, and for those that never will provide them with basic sustenance and park them. This is a purely pragmatic approach in that you have to consider the whole cost to society. When you set out to marginalise those who will never work you get costs like high incarceration rates, home security issues, and an underclass that deals in drugs and such to get by.

I will probably annoy a couple of posters here by pointing out that chronic negativity is a proven health issue that does shorten life spans. Not suggesting that we all sit around the campfire singing Kum Baya or quoting the Desiderata, but chill out. Comments like "welfare scum", and "money out of other's pockets" indicate that there is too much judgemental anger for your own health's sake.

It amuses me to see that this thread has not only degenerated into a fecal storm without any comment from me, it has done so in spite of my starting a related thread which should have become the focus of the most contentious issues.

It constantly amazes me that so many military or former military types are tax and spend liberals until I remind myself that their perceptions are influenced by a career as a government employee that includes perks such as government subsidized housing, base commissary and other amenities such as the various golf courses that our current commander in chief is so fond of. What they forget is that these government "subsidies" are part of their compensation package for services rendered in a profession that is dangerous even in peace time and often requires the ultimate service. Reactionary conservatives such as myself object to an institutionalized, hereditary well fare class that spends their entire lives remaining dependent on collecting government check for doing absolutely nothing except voting for a particular group of politicians. This patronage system characterized ancient Rome as it degenerated from a Republic into an Empire. Perhaps the military folk who support the welfare state have aspirations of becoming the Pretorian Guard? More likely they fail to consider the possibility that the many Billionaires who support liberal ideology are motivated by the prospect of employing the corrupt political system to line their own pockets just as the legislaturists did.

All of this sniping aside, Weber's portrayal of the Republic of Haven is a cautionary tale of what a society that seeks to create a social safety net can evolve into. Given Honorverse technology that effectively eliminates resource and energy limitations, a society would have to become extremely dysfunctional before conquest could be perceived as a more profitable alternative to just producing wealth internally. Haven is not an agrarian society whose wealth and population is limited by the availability of viable farmland. Those of us who understand this are understandably fascinated with and perhaps incredulous about the seemingly miraculous reform and renascence of the Haven Republic. We too easily forget that in spite of the totalitarian
methods employed by Rob Pierre and the Committee for Public Safety, they spent the entire first war beginning the process of restoration by motivating the people to work instead of sitting on their asses. Their totalitarian brutality was perhaps necessary to eliminate the wealthiest Havenites who had encouraged the indolence of the masses in order to maintain their monopoly on political and economic power. They were content to be by far the biggest frogs in a small, polluted pond rather than be even bigger frogs in a much larger, healthier pond because they would have to share that bigger pond with many, not so much smaller frogs. These biggest frogs needed to be killed so that the other frogs and the pond could flourish. Once this occurred, Haven was no longer Manticore's natural ally.

kzt wrote:

roseandheather wrote:Just ignore Relax. He's a particularly virulent strain of conservative which has no concept of 'social responsibility'. Any welfare system has its problems, and Haven is an excellent illustration of the consequences of those problems getting out of hand, but our welfare system is nowhere near as bad as that same virulent strain of conservative makes it out to be.

BTW, have you looked at the FAQ pages on this site?
" Basically, the People's Republic of Haven was actually the United States of America after a cynical deal had been struck between a political elite and the "machine bosses" who were able to deliver bloc votes on a dependable, reliable basis. The people who became the Legislaturalists deliberately set out to create a situation in which there would be an enormous underclass completely dependent upon the state for its support and upkeep. What had begun as a principled effort to provide the best possible life for all of the Republic's citizens under the Legislaturalists' predecessors became, in effect, a means of permanently institutionalizing graft and corruption in a way which would keep the Legislaturalists (and their descendents) in power."

I had not gotten to Weber's post when I posted the above post. Well said.

I would like to point out that my hostility to holier than though liberals is inspired by my experiences with my adoptive family who presumed and encouraged everyone to believe that they were such wonderful people because they had adopted my brother and I. The nasty little secret that I did not discover until very late in life was that my brother and I were orphans because their larceny had literally killed our parents as well as our maternal grandmother and they had adopted us as a ploy to maintain ownership of the stolen loot. My brother and I were expected to be content with being on hind tit so our step siblings could be first pigs at a trough that was overflowing with wealth that had been stolen from our mother and her mother.

I don't have the people skills to work in soup kitchen. I do donate entire cows, and elk when we bagged three one year, to the local food bank so that others could have meat. There are families who were able to eat roasts and steaks rather than hamburger or less for Christmas dinner. These people were not indolent. They had merely had their livelihoods as loggers and sawmill workers destroyed by shit brained liberals who exploited the spotted owl as a pretext to ban logging on public lands.

It is my perception that the Republic of Haven degenerated then became a conquerer because the legislaturists intentionally crippled the economic and educational system to create a class of indolent idiots whose easily purchased votes would keep them in power. I can imagine this system limping along until something (perhaps prolong and related medical technologies that alter the demographics?) pushes it off a cliff. How Haven reformed itself is a story that Weber has not told in detail.

runsforcelery wrote:

Relax wrote:SNIP
I would place a $10,000 bet you have never worked an hour in "soup" kitchen in your life. If you have, it probably was not two hours and a near guarantee there was never a repeat showing of your august self. I will also bet you have never tried to actively get these people off welfare and into a steady job. It is a very rewarding experience, but you have to be careful not to be taken advantage of as well. Generally one learns after being way too compassionate once or twice. I will also bet you have never tried helping out in the foster care system either. Anyone who wants to do this, I have this to say: Regarding foster care "helping:" If you aren't willing to help at least once a week for an entire night/day, building an actual relationship with these needy children, please do not 'volunteer'. Showing up rarely or for short periods of time only reinforces how alienated these children are. It is a major commitment.

When you actually get your hands dirty and try to "help" these people instead of voting to take from others wallets to "help" them, let me know will ya? you will quickly understand that the system as constructed in our country(USA WA st. differs at the state level)actively keeps them there by rewarding them NOT to work(see below). Those like R&H, who I am near positive have never actually worked with those on welfare or tried helping anyone out of their problems outside of the welfare system where their only knowledge/reality of the subject consists of nothing more than a political hack job broad brushed swipe really piss me off. Get off your moral high horse and help out instead of only "helping" alleviate money out of others pockets to assuage your moral conscience you are unwilling to assuage via actually working with these people. Some really do need help. Some need help and are unwilling to accept it. Unfortunately, most, chose to be there via systematic choices they have made for years/decades previously. It is not a simple or clean cut subject. It is fraught with pain and suffering with a few rays of happiness thrown in.

Relax ---

The kids and I (our entire church youth group) work in a homeless breakfast here in Greenville on a regular schedule. Been doing it for going on three years now (I've been doing it for longer than that; the kids didn't start until the girls were 10), and we're also affiliated with a local food bank and a lunch program (our sister church, Wesley Chapel handles the lunches; our youth group flips with theirs once a month). We also support Epworth (a home for boys from troubled families) and the South Carolina Methodist Church is currently really pushing a workfare program that emphasizes entry level jobs and GEDs.

I will concede that there is much truth to what you say. I would also argue, however, that my own experience suggests you're painting with too broad a brush here. Not in your own experiences, but in the way in which you seem to be categorizing welfare recipients in general as "welfare scum." I have met the exact sort of people you're describing, and (like you) I find my sympathy for them . . . strained. I also concede that the way welfare has been currently structured and the ways in which the system can be gamed very often --- very often --- make the life situations of those receiving it worse, not better. This is certainly true in the long term, and I would argue that it's true even in the short term. And, speaking as an adoptive parent, someone who was raised with a foster sister who was basically stolen from her abusive, alcoholic mother by my own mother (back in the day when you could do that without going to jail), and someone who's seen the generational consequences up close and personal, I believe the consequences are worst of all for the kids caught in that mess.


Having said all of that, I have personally worked with men (and women) who are neither Downs Syndrome kids nor "welfare scum" and who have been entirely willing to work for food and to take entry level jobs almost anywhere (when they can get them). Mind you, I have to admit that I've worked with a larger number of them who have been a lot more willing to work for cash to buy beer or wine than for food, but that's not always the case.

I agree that a system which requires work, at least from the able-bodied, is far superior to the way the system we have works to maintain and even increase dependency rather than breaking the dependency cycle. And I suspect that much of the reason it's so broken is that it's so much easier for government programs to throw money at the problem and ameliorate outright disaster than it is for government to build the sort of ground-level-up infrastructure which would both require work and help provide that work. The most successful efforts I've seen in that direction have come out of churches and the private sector at the local community level, probably because they actually know their communities, are small enough the people running the programs (who are almost always volunteers who believe in what they're doing) don't turn into bureaucrats, and they are focused on results rather than bandaids. And, of course, a big part of the problem (from my own observation) comes from people who may be deeply committed to helping others but who judge the success of their efforts by the nobility of their intentions and the amount of effort they invest rather than by the results they achieve. I've seen way too many people congratulate themselves on their enlightened attitudes without ever questioning whether or not existing programs and efforts are accomplishing the goal of getting people permanently out of welfare.

Having said all of that and, I think, having found myself in substantial agreement with you, you're preaching to the choir when you hammer the problems in conversation with people who are up to their elbows in the problem already and probably moving yourself into the "fanatic" category when you unload on those who haven't been there and done that. The truth is that actually fixing the problem is going to require a pretty stiff dose of reality for the people building, maintaining, and supporting the present system (since they're the very people we have to convince to scrap the present system and build a better one), and much of that reality is exactly what you've just described. The problem is that we've got to get them to listen to us if w're ever going to change it, man. Whacking them between the eyes with a ballpeen hammer may not be the best way to get 'em to do that.

BTW, have you ever detailed your activities on the forum before? I only ask because it's obvious (to me, at least) that you've been there and paid your dues in a way which gives you a right to strong opinions. I'm just wondering if any of the people out there who have read earlier posts from you as "rants in a vacuum" without realizing the experience which underlies them?

J6P wrote:

hanuman wrote:
Please refrain from such generalizations and disrespect, and I for one would be much more inclined towards giving serious consideration to your argument. Thank you.

Since I have not gone to bed yet even though the commute tomorrow comes early:

I hastily read/edited what Relax wrote last night: He asked me to.

You know what is disrespectful? Not reading. There were example after example stated. Some of which I have had personal acquaintance with.

Those who are leaching on the system are scum. No way getting around that fact. Thieves are scum.

From those I personally know those who have been on welfare or food stamps, they have all been abusing the system. And no I do not have nearly as much hands on experience as Relax. So far, everything I know personally, unlike your generalized statements from some utopian perspective of what the system SHOULD BE FOR of which no one is arguing otherwise, what I know personally, most are abusers of the system without any real need. They abuse the system because it is convenient. Most of them will say openly, "I paid taxes, I am just getting my due." or something equivalent even if they have never paid a single cent in taxes. They view it as a right. They view welfare as their savings account so they live carefree without a thought in the world about the future expecting the government to save their bacon.

I have known a couple people who were in poverty, one married couple and another a single man, who both had major ongoing medical issues, parkinsons + wheelchair bound, who did NOT go on welfare or food stamps.

They could have but chose not to. Why?
They were not lazy.
They were not selfish.
They planned for the future.
They were not greedy covetous people who had to have the latest gadget and gizmo.
They did not own a nice car.
They did not trade their car in.
They used said car until it would work no more.
They bought used goods.
They did not travel.
They did not rack up giant credit card tabs.
They did not open multiple credit cards and pile up giant tabs on all of them so they could live the high life and then, say, "OOPS, so sorry, we are going to declare bankruptcy."
They did not go out to eat tripling/quadrupling their cost of food.
They did not buy premade packaged food or dinners.
They bought in bulk.
They did not have gigantic egos.
They ate a little humble pie.
They ask for help? Occasionally.
They made do just fine.
They had far worse health and financial problems then all the other people I knew and have known who were/are on welfare.

They were happy and content.

They didn't suck/steal money from your/my wallet.

All three people had it far worse than anyone I have known who has taken food stamps or welfare.

The system as it stands as far as I can tell is corrupt and abused. From where I stand, your generalized compassionate idealism is doing this subject no favors. It sounds really nice and compassionate as a proper upstanding citizen should be. Your generalized statements are not reality.

PS. I grew up in a single wide trailer with three siblings and essentially no heat and I know Relax also grew up in similar circumstances.

PPS. The very large illegal immigrant population do just fine without welfare and food stamps. There are millions of them. Generalized? Sure. Welcome to reality. Everything is a bell curve population. One can always find exceptions at both ends of the bell curve and get all in a huff and puff about it.

I am NOT getting into this discussion, because it's starting to turn into a flame war. I WILL reiterate that at no point did Relax make it clear that his use of the term "welfare scum" was referring to specific individuals; he used the term in such a generalized manner as to imply that ALL welfare recipients are scum. THAT is what I objected to, and asked him very respectfully to refrain from, because instead of engendering a true debate, the generalized use of such terms do nothing but get people's gander up.

Thank you.

Ay-yi-yi-yi....

I am not going into the derailment (hell, the train wreck) except to say that personal testimony is the weakest evidence that there is for any topic, and I say that as a Card-carrying skeptic (James Randi Educational Foundation) who has debated (and followed debates) with UFo'ists, Bigfootists, Apollo Hoax believers, and 9-11 Conspiracy mongers.

Personal testimony can lead to hypothesis, at best; it cannot lead to broad-based conclusions and theory.

And that is all I intend to say on the subject.



Now, back to orginally scheduled program....

IIRC (several pages ago), the major point of contention was how far the SEM could trust Haven,and I will note that those who were skeptical of how far and how deeply the SEM was trusting a nation they had been at war with for the better part of twenty years. And they made some very good points.

However, I must disagree with them for several reasons, besides the storyline saying it is so, so therefore it is so (authors are like Gods in someway--often capricious while still being all-knowing... )

But I would note that the treaty was approved by the Haven Senate (including the military alliance) by a huge majority of the Haven Senate, who, being politicians, would pretty much have to know their planet's population views....and obviously thought the treaty was in their best interests (to get re-elected) as well as good for the RH in general.

As for Eliose going back to war, my impression during WoH is that she was fending off the 'war' party, or at least those led by Giancola who wanted a more aggressive approach to negotiations with the Manties. Prichard did most everything she could to get the Manticore Government to make a deal, and ran into the wall of indifference and Delecroixs' (sic?) fumbling (possibly intentional per direction from the MAlignment). All the while holding back those who woudl have pushed the Manties harder and if it led to a resumption of the war, so be it.

So Eliose was under the gun from both sides; given her background history, it is not too surprising that she eventually choose to fight rather than 'flee'.

One last point for your consideration; Manticore was still a threat--there is a passage in WoH where Janachek suggested one option to solve their problems was for the Manties to launch an 'surprise' attack on Haven, in effect do what Haven did some time later. While the Havenites did not know about that conversation, they certainly could credit that option to the SKM, and any state that is capable will protect itself from such occurrrences.

Again, I have not covered all the many and varied points made to date (that might cause my three remaining brain cells to overload), but I offer them for further grist for the mill.

IMHO as always. YMMV.