Thoughts on how to improve the current system

[FireIceTalon]

Basically, we disagree on just about everything. NO government can tell me to go fight its dirty capitalistic wars, that is MY decision, and mine alone. Now, If YOU want to be a little pawn and go fight wars in the name of being an economic slave and making corporations and politicians richer, which you have been CONDITIONED to think are wars fighting in the name of our warped definition of "Democracy" from the misinformation spread by the propaganda machine, that is your prerogative. But you have absolutely NO right to force it upon others who do not share your same values. Take that authoritarian bullshit out of here, cause it aint happening. You will see a Communist Revolution in this country before you will ever see the likes of me (or my children, if I ever have any) serving a mandated military service for any nation, for any reason whatsoever. That my friend, is a a cold hard FACT. Patriotism IS another word for slavery (albeit a mental form of it), and that is the LAST THING we should be teaching our kids. What we do need to start teaching them is how to think CRITICALLY and not take in all the bullshit that is spoon-fed to us, hook-line-and sinker. If you think serving in the military will solve societies problems, it is you, not I, that lives in a utopian fantasy world.

Why should I support ANY country? I owe allegiance to NO nation, especially not one as hypocritical, selfish, and immature as America is. My only allegiance is to the emancipation of humanity, and nothing else. Patriotism and Nationalism are reactionary and they are just a small step away from racism (my country/nationality is better than yours type thing) and jingoism (the immigrants are stealing all our jobs crap lies). I don't have ideals, I merely analyze the material conditions of the world and form a judgement based on what I see. As a Dialectical Materalist, I reject all forms of idealism - and Nationalism or Patriotism therefore have NO place in my thinking, and in fact it is incompatible with being Marxist - which is fundamentally Internationalist. All Patriotism is, is a plan used by the elites as a divide and conquer tactic to turn the working class against one another, often through ethnocentrism. Besides, why would I support a country that uses propaganda slogans like "war on terror" as a vehicle to use terrorism of its own as a means to enrich the oil companies, politicians, bankers, and such? And to project our ideas of "American Exceptionalism" and warped definition of Democracy onto the rest of the world that wants no part of us? Nope, I despise nationalism in all its forms because it is basically just a short way of saying "send the poor man to fight the rich man's Capitalist war", as well as being just another excuse to allow people to be racist and xenophobic toward others they have been conditioned to hate. If that makes me Un-American, so be it, I make no apologies about it. Again, I owe allegiance to NO nation, and anyone who thinks they do is a puppet in my opinion. Sorry, but I dont buy into all that bullshit that our little "city on the hill" can do no wrong. It has done a HUGE amount of wrong, and when the littler, weaker countries start fighting back, we dont like it. LOL. But if you ask me, Howard Zinn probably said it best: "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism" - now THAT is a form of patriotism I can get down with!

Also, where do people get the idea that Communists guarantee a perfect world for anyone? I guess this comes from the old 'utopian socialism' that Marx himself also rejected? Communism doesn't guarantee a perfect world, only a better one (albeit a much better one), and any Marxist who seeks a perfect world as the end result is sorely mistaken. A perfect world however, IS something to strive for, even if it can never be obtained, as a means, to produce the best possible end result. But under a Capitalist society, there is no chance of this happening because it hinders us in a number of ways, Nationalism and all its consequences being one. Marxism isn't "utopian socialism", it is SCIENTIFIC socialism - there is a huge difference. Utopian Socialism is pretty laughable, by both Marxists and anti-Marxists alike. However, changing the political system isn't enough, Capitalism must go also, and believe me, it eventually will. Marxists understand that the economy and politics are fundamentally intertwined, something most people fail to realize. We are seeing the beginning of the end of Capitalism now. Nothing lasts forever. Slavery didn't last forever. Neither did the Roman, Greek, or British and Prussian/German Empires. Neither did Feudalism, nor did the theocracies of the middle ages. Fascism died pretty quickly, though due to the global economic crisis, it is making somewhat of a comeback, through none other than the Tea Party. For some reason reactionary ideas always seem to gain popularity in times of crisis. Anyways... Capitalism is an improvement over all these things, but like every system before it, it will break down and be replaced by a better and superior system. And that system, is Socialism, and eventually Communism. Revolutions are what have pushed history forward, and you can bet there will be more of them to come. America as the dominant power is coming to an end, we had our 15 minutes just like every empire before us. And for the conservatives (and liberals!) who can't swallow that, better prepare yourselves cause it is inevitable.

As far as Unions go, it weren't for them, we'd still be working 14 hour+ days under hazardous conditions, there would be no laws to protect children from being part of the labor force, benefits for workers such as health insurance, and so forth. Unions are not the problem, POLICIES of austerity, put forth mostly by bourgeois politicians to uphold the interests of greedy Capitalist/Corporate CEO's are the problem, and the last 30 years have seen a substantial weakening of Unions. The Neo-cons want to take us back to 19th Century C®apitalism.

Hope I've made myself loud and clear.

[Taem]

Basically, we disagree on just about everything. NO government can tell me to go fight its dirty capitalistic wars, that is MY decision, and mine alone. Now, If YOU want to be a little pawn and go fight wars in the name of being an economic slave and making corporations and politicians richer, which you have been CONDITIONED to think are wars fighting in the name of our warped definition of "Democracy" from the misinformation spread by the propaganda machine, that is your prerogative. But you have absolutely NO right to force it upon others who do not share your same values. Take that authoritarian bullshit out of here, cause it aint happening. You will see a Communist Revolution in this country before you will ever see the likes of me (or my children, if I ever have any) serving a mandated military service for any nation, for any reason whatsoever. That my friend, is a a cold hard FACT. Patriotism IS another word for slavery (albeit a mental form of it), and that is the LAST THING we should be teaching our kids. What we do need to start teaching them is how to think CRITICALLY and not take in all the bullshit that is spoon-fed to us, hook-line-and sinker. If you think serving in the military will solve societies problems, it is you, not I, that lives in a utopian fantasy world.

Why should I support ANY country? I owe allegiance to NO nation, especially not one as hypocritical, selfish, and immature as America is. My only allegiance is to the emancipation of humanity, and nothing else. Patriotism and Nationalism are reactionary and they are just a small step away from racism (my country/nationality is better than yours type thing) and jingoism (the immigrants are stealing all our jobs crap lies). I don't have ideals, I merely analyze the material conditions of the world and form a judgement based on what I see. As a Dialectical Materalist, I reject all forms of idealism - and Nationalism or Patriotism therefore have NO place in my thinking, and in fact it is incompatible with being Marxist - which is fundamentally Internationalist. All Patriotism is, is a plan used by the elites as a divide and conquer tactic to turn the working class against one another, often through ethnocentrism. Besides, why would I support a country that uses propaganda slogans like "war on terror" as a vehicle to use terrorism of its own as a means to enrich the oil companies, politicians, bankers, and such? And to project our ideas of "American Exceptionalism" and warped definition of Democracy onto the rest of the world that wants no part of us? Nope, I despise nationalism in all its forms because it is basically just a short way of saying "send the poor man to fight the rich man's Capitalist war", as well as being just another excuse to allow people to be racist and xenophobic toward others they have been conditioned to hate. If that makes me Un-American, so be it, I make no apologies about it. Again, I owe allegiance to NO nation, and anyone who thinks they do is a puppet in my opinion. Sorry, but I dont buy into all that bullshit that our little "city on the hill" can do no wrong. It has done a HUGE amount of wrong, and when the littler, weaker countries start fighting back, we dont like it. LOL. But if you ask me, Howard Zinn probably said it best: "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism" - now THAT is a form of patriotism I can get down with!

I think the concept here is more akin to supporting your local high-school football team or college team. As a mediocre example off the top of my head, my son was playing waterpolo (wetball) through the YMCA, but they don't get too competitive - it's all fun and family games... so he never got very good at it! Now he's playing for his school and they are much more competitive based (we WILL beat school "x" today), and the comradeship is evident, as is the will to do better and improve. Nothing like a little healthy competition to really spurn our natural creativity and skills. Your is against the "system", but it does not have to be. What you consider corporate greed, I see as team-work.

There once was a time when each little community in the UK and China was broken into small provinces ran by warlords. Each small province wanted their own rules, traditions, and laws and consequently, they fought constantly. Once headstrong leaders came in and conquered the provinces in the name of peace, they succeeded in unifying these smaller provinces into great nations where trade ran freely and peace prospered. You do understand this concept, don't you? Without war, there couldn't have been peace in the first place because humans are naturally adverse to change, and apparently unification for the sake of peace. It's not a BS plot by money-grabbers to support their nation, but the ideals of the peaceful, everything you propose and suggest is important to you. Without the nations, each country would be in chaos. I'd go a step further and suggest that a one-world nation would be the best way to unify the world with a singular language and currency and really get rid of slavery and low-wage pay to poor third nation workers, but there are too many fearful bible-thumpers out there for that to ever happen in our lifetime.

As far as Unions go, it weren't for them, we'd still be working 14 hour+ days under hazardous conditions, there would be no laws to protect children from being part of the labor force, benefits for workers such as health insurance, and so forth. Unions are not the problem, POLICIES of austerity, put forth mostly by bourgeois politicians to uphold the interests of greedy Capitalist/Corporate CEO's are the problem, and the last 30 years have seen a substantial weakening of Unions. The Neo-cons want to take us back to 19th Century C®apitalism.

The unions were needed alright, but that was a long time ago. I don't see what the unions are doing for the good of our country now other than helping their own. There are plenty of minimum wage jobs out there at the moment. Are you suggesting the government raise the standard minimum wage rate to a "living wage" rate? As for oversight, they have that now. Unions are not needed to keep children from being exploited in the labor force - that's a states job! Health insurance? That's what Obama was trying to do for everyone, and every other country around the world already does it and does it right, but I promise you this should not be part of what unions fight for. You speak of strengthening the many and equalization, but if you in fact unionized every business, every businesses would go bankrupt as they could never support the demands of the unions... ever! That would be madness! So in reality, unions only support a select few - their members; capitalism at it's finest.

[Taem]

Taem, your posted essay deserves some thoughtful responses, and I may be able to find the time later to give some of the categories the detailed response they deserve. However, the first jumps out to me because I have given some time to that topic in the context of Canadian politics.

CONGRESS
A two-party system has its inherent flaws, as we’ve seen in recent and past dead-locks that ensue with the lame-duck session. While not a real “fix” of the system, introducing at least one additional party would alter the mix, and force all involved parties to rethink how they do business and potentially start thinking about what might be best for the people, instead of the institutions padding their wallets. Of the serious options, I’d suggest a Labor Party and/or Socialist Party to really get the Republicans and Democrats focused our freedoms as they should, while the Socialist Party fights for what we all deserve. Getting a 2/3rd majority vote in this new Congress would be nearly impossible, so I’d push for a 51% acceptance rating.

You cannot mandate a party to exist. My country's experience with additional parties suggests that even when they do, they cannot make much change because of the structure of our voting system.

What you can do is change the structure of your voting system so that other parties do have a chance to actually elect representatives. Mind you, just getting the existing parties (who have everything to lose by making this change) to vote to make that happen will be a challenge, to say the least.

But the archaic First Past the Post system used by both the U.S.A. and Canada is the root cause of much of what ails our political system. The incredibly disproportionate way that votes translate into seats in Parliament/Congress means that change does not take place. (i.e. a candidate and/or party with 30% of the popular vote can and often does take 70% of the seats)

There are many versions of proportional representation voting systems. Personally, I like the version wherein the voter rank orders the names on the ballot so that on vote counting the name that got the least first round votes is dropped out of the running and all the second order ballots for that individual are transferred to their second choices. The process repeats until one candidate gets more than 50% of the of the votes cast in that electoral district.

There are other types of voting structure that would also create a structure that would permit effective reforms. The challenge is to make sufficient people aware of how poorly they are served by FPP.

Do you really think the voting system itself is the root cause? I postulate that making such changes would only encourage widespread corruption of the voting system itself. People want to get ahead, and when money (lots of money) is at stake, you can all by guarantee corruption.

What I'm suggesting is not a direct change to the voting system, but a change to the parties themselves, at least one additional party, forcing each side to have to negotiate for their needs. I think the increased bartering would not actually make the system worse as some fear, but instead force each side to compromise if they wanted anything done without the opposing party supplanting their position through compromise. Then the will of the people should come to light. Short of completely revamping the entire system as it now stands, this is the only logical way I can see for changing the current system for the better.

[Taem]

SCHOOLS
Children here in this country of school age must attend a state or private run institution of their choice until the 12th grade. ...

I would like to see parents receive vouchers, and enroll their children in the best school for their child. There needs to be more rationality to the level of co-curricular activities in schools. I'd like to see our tax funding mostly to curricular activities, and leave funding the co-curricular activities to the community.

The current system rewards the schools for how many children are enrolled. I don't see how a voucher system would solve anything? If instead you suggest parents might go to whichever school were "better", and schools would have to jockey for the attention of said parents, then schools would need a way to advertise which would mean increased revenue. Perhaps if this would happen, schools should allows commercials and advertising to be put up? Just a thought?

MILITARY
A mandatory military service of 2.5 years ...

No. I'd like to see more 18 year old graduates, become entrepreneurs. It would be a much better use of the money to send the best and the brightest to college, vocational school, or a low interest business loan program. A country with a 25 million person army, is just more likely to use it.

Once their time is the Military is served, reformed individuals ...

Reformed? From being young?

I was unclear in my suggestion. I was foreseeing the potential of serving in the armed forces as an opportunity for young Americans to learn respect for each other, our nation, and break down as much ignorance and racism that grows in parts of this great country. I saw time in service as an means of unifying Americans, and then giving them opportunity later in life through paid-for college. To me, this is an ideal situation.

ILLEGALS
On that note, both the Canadian and Mexican border should be removed completely. Citizens in North America should receive a pass, as they have in Europe, to travel around the continent and work freely.

No. You cannot control your legal system if you cannot control your borders. However, I agree roughly with your assessment. My solution would be to more vigorously fine the people who hire illegal workers, and remove the incentive. Secondly, to streamline the process of obtaining a work visa, and the citizenship process. Third, to vastly increase the number of allowed immigrants, especially those who already have the skills we need in our work force.

Ultimately, I'd like to see a one-world government, without boarders, without poverty, without slavery. But this would not be for a long, long time, and not in my foreseeable lifetime.

FOREIGN RELATIONS... let countries ... fight their own battles. ...

I like the idea, but I think it needs to be a weaning rather than a cold Turkey situation. Like it or not, the US chose to be the great stabilizer after WWII. We see our role as interventionists, because of the global consequences of isolationism. The pendulum has swung too far toward involving ourselves in every brush fire wherever it flares up, rather than encouraging and helping our allies in tamping down local issues. It means giving (up) power to peace oriented regional coalitions, (like the Arab league, African union, EU, etc. ) to help manage their own local issues. But, also in enabling those regional peace keeping coalitions by providing training, equipment, strategies, etc.

That is a good strategy too. I rather like that concept, a slow weaning. I'll have to change my position on this based on your input .

---

The problem is Duverger's Law.

So what America needs is stronger parties then?

[Jester]

The problem is Duverger's Law.

So what America needs is stronger parties then?

America could not possibly have stronger parties. You cannot force the existence of parties, nor alter them from the government - free association is guaranteed by the constitution. The issue is the voting system - if one thinks that two parties is inherently a problem. First-past-the-post generates two party systems automatically.

-Jester

[FireIceTalon]

Basically, we disagree on just about everything. NO government can tell me to go fight its dirty capitalistic wars, that is MY decision, and mine alone. Now, If YOU want to be a little pawn and go fight wars in the name of being an economic slave and making corporations and politicians richer, which you have been CONDITIONED to think are wars fighting in the name of our warped definition of "Democracy" from the misinformation spread by the propaganda machine, that is your prerogative. But you have absolutely NO right to force it upon others who do not share your same values. Take that authoritarian bullshit out of here, cause it aint happening. You will see a Communist Revolution in this country before you will ever see the likes of me (or my children, if I ever have any) serving a mandated military service for any nation, for any reason whatsoever. That my friend, is a a cold hard FACT. Patriotism IS another word for slavery (albeit a mental form of it), and that is the LAST THING we should be teaching our kids. What we do need to start teaching them is how to think CRITICALLY and not take in all the bullshit that is spoon-fed to us, hook-line-and sinker. If you think serving in the military will solve societies problems, it is you, not I, that lives in a utopian fantasy world.

Why should I support ANY country? I owe allegiance to NO nation, especially not one as hypocritical, selfish, and immature as America is. My only allegiance is to the emancipation of humanity, and nothing else. Patriotism and Nationalism are reactionary and they are just a small step away from racism (my country/nationality is better than yours type thing) and jingoism (the immigrants are stealing all our jobs crap lies). I don't have ideals, I merely analyze the material conditions of the world and form a judgement based on what I see. As a Dialectical Materalist, I reject all forms of idealism - and Nationalism or Patriotism therefore have NO place in my thinking, and in fact it is incompatible with being Marxist - which is fundamentally Internationalist. All Patriotism is, is a plan used by the elites as a divide and conquer tactic to turn the working class against one another, often through ethnocentrism. Besides, why would I support a country that uses propaganda slogans like "war on terror" as a vehicle to use terrorism of its own as a means to enrich the oil companies, politicians, bankers, and such? And to project our ideas of "American Exceptionalism" and warped definition of Democracy onto the rest of the world that wants no part of us? Nope, I despise nationalism in all its forms because it is basically just a short way of saying "send the poor man to fight the rich man's Capitalist war", as well as being just another excuse to allow people to be racist and xenophobic toward others they have been conditioned to hate. If that makes me Un-American, so be it, I make no apologies about it. Again, I owe allegiance to NO nation, and anyone who thinks they do is a puppet in my opinion. Sorry, but I dont buy into all that bullshit that our little "city on the hill" can do no wrong. It has done a HUGE amount of wrong, and when the littler, weaker countries start fighting back, we dont like it. LOL. But if you ask me, Howard Zinn probably said it best: "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism" - now THAT is a form of patriotism I can get down with!

I think the concept here is more akin to supporting your local high-school football team or college team. As a mediocre example off the top of my head, my son was playing waterpolo (wetball) through the YMCA, but they don't get too competitive - it's all fun and family games... so he never got very good at it! Now he's playing for his school and they are much more competitive based (we WILL beat school "x" today), and the comradeship is evident, as is the will to do better and improve. Nothing like a little healthy competition to really spurn our natural creativity and skills. Your is against the "system", but it does not have to be. What you consider corporate greed, I see as team-work.

There once was a time when each little community in the UK and China was broken into small provinces ran by warlords. Each small province wanted their own rules, traditions, and laws and consequently, they fought constantly. Once headstrong leaders came in and conquered the provinces in the name of peace, they succeeded in unifying these smaller provinces into great nations where trade ran freely and peace prospered. You do understand this concept, don't you? Without war, there couldn't have been peace in the first place because humans are naturally adverse to change, and apparently unification for the sake of peace. It's not a BS plot by money-grabbers to support their nation, but the ideals of the peaceful, everything you propose and suggest is important to you. Without the nations, each country would be in chaos. I'd go a step further and suggest that a one-world nation would be the best way to unify the world with a singular language and currency and really get rid of slavery and low-wage pay to poor third nation workers, but there are too many fearful bible-thumpers out there for that to ever happen in our lifetime.

As far as Unions go, it weren't for them, we'd still be working 14 hour+ days under hazardous conditions, there would be no laws to protect children from being part of the labor force, benefits for workers such as health insurance, and so forth. Unions are not the problem, POLICIES of austerity, put forth mostly by bourgeois politicians to uphold the interests of greedy Capitalist/Corporate CEO's are the problem, and the last 30 years have seen a substantial weakening of Unions. The Neo-cons want to take us back to 19th Century C®apitalism.

The unions were needed alright, but that was a long time ago. I don't see what the unions are doing for the good of our country now other than helping their own. There are plenty of minimum wage jobs out there at the moment. Are you suggesting the government raise the standard minimum wage rate to a "living wage" rate? As for oversight, they have that now. Unions are not needed to keep children from being exploited in the labor force - that's a states job! Health insurance? That's what Obama was trying to do for everyone, and every other country around the world already does it and does it right, but I promise you this should not be part of what unions fight for. You speak of strengthening the many and equalization, but if you in fact unionized every business, every businesses would go bankrupt as they could never support the demands of the unions... ever! That would be madness! So in reality, unions only support a select few - their members; capitalism at it's finest.

If I want competition, I will play a game of some sort, be it sports, a video game or chess. But in economics, this isn't such a great idea, because now people's well being, and lively hood are at stake. It's like saying "survival of the fittest", which is a fundamental aspect of the animal kingdom, is ok among human societies. I cannot agree. And in sports, it is ok to support your favorite team, local or not. But again, comparing sports in the same context as economics or politics is folly, because the stakes are far too great. Nationalism, no matter how innocent it is intended to be, is a slippery slope at best, that can easily lead to racism or xenophobia.

I think the wars you are talking about are more like 'civil wars' rather than wars between nations themselves? Not that I necessarily support these wars either, but in general they are fought on a far different premise than the global wars we see today. You are viewing war in the more traditional manner of one territory protecting its sovereignty from the invasion of another - a Realist perspective. Many of the wars in the past may have been fought due to such circumstances, but contemporary global conflicts, meaning since WWI, have been much more related to Critical Theory and Identity perspectives.

Your desire of a one-nation world with no wage slavery is indeed what Communists want also (though we feel there is some room for multiculturalism to exist in such a society, but we also realize that some aspects of some cultures would not be compatible with a Communist society - the (mis)treatment of women in Iranian culture comes to mind), we are internationalists and view people as people, nothing more and nothing less. This is why we cannot get down with the concept of Nationalism: no nations people are better than anothers. Nationalism and patriotism are social constructs made by man to formulate the outlandish idea that standing by your country of birth, right or wrong, is somehow going to be to societies benefit.

Yes, there would be a lot of resistance from Bible Thumpers to form a one nation world. But I think this is a defeatist excuse in my opinion. There has been resistance to EVERY revolution in the past, yet society has been able to improve over time, because we fought for the changes to take place. Be it the Russian Revolution, the French and American Revolutions, the Cuban Revolution, the 1964 Civil Rights Act...all these things pushed society forward, and to varying degrees, improved the living circumstances of its citizens. No one said it was going to be easy. Social change is a very long and painful process, but if we give up, then change can never take place. From a Marxist perspective, Capitalism for all its atrocities, intrinsic contradictions, and anti-human features, is a vast improvement from all previous systems in history, and it is a necessary stage in the evolution of economics to reach a Communist society. Thus, in that regard I do not hate it - if anything I am indifferent towards it. As a human being though, I do hate it, and do so with the utmost intensity.

People are not adverse to change by nature. Rather, they are conditioned to be this way by the structures of the society they live in, often by fear tactics propelled by mass media or other misinformation that is picked up through social discourse. Material conditions determine human nature and behavior, not the reverse. In other words, the selfishness and greed seen in human nature doesn't produce Capitalism (idealists disagree - but they are wrong). Capitalism produces the selfishness and greed seen in human nature. We are a product of the material conditions and environment around us. We live in a material world (and I'm not talking about the kind Madonna sang about), not an idealist one.

If Unions are only looking out for their own interests now, as you said, that is capitalism at its finest. Which basically proves my point: Under a Socialist society, there would be no need for Unions to begin with (at least not in the long run, in the short run they may be needed to help stabilize the revolution and help to protect from reactionary ideas), because everyone equally shares the means to production and has a say in how the economy and individual work places are ran! Everyone has the same interests economically, eliminating the need for Unions in the long run, and eventually, a political system in general. The goal of Marxist thought is to eliminate the state (over a period of time) so society can be emancipated, but this can only be done if Capitalism is overthrown first. The economy and politics are different things, but they are in fact mutually INCLUSIVE to one another, not exclusive. Being a Marxist is a bit ironic, because the goal for us is to achieve a society where us Marxists don't have to be Marxists anymore, let alone even talk about politics ever again. We are like doctors: we want to cure everybody so we do not have a job anymore. LMAO.

[kandrathe]

SCHOOLS
Children here in this country of school age must attend a state or private run institution of their choice until the 12th grade. ...

I would like to see parents receive vouchers, and enroll their children in the best school for their child. There needs to be more rationality to the level of co-curricular activities in schools. I'd like to see our tax funding mostly to curricular activities, and leave funding the co-curricular activities to the community.

The current system rewards the schools for how many children are enrolled. I don't see how a voucher system would solve anything? If instead you suggest parents might go to whichever school were "better", and schools would have to jockey for the attention of said parents, then schools would need a way to advertise which would mean increased revenue. Perhaps if this would happen, schools should allows commercials and advertising to be put up? Just a thought?

Advertising is easy. You just publish the statistics. What were the schools average SAT/ACT tests? How many were prepared for their adult life? How many went on to post secondary education? Perhaps a satisfaction survey given to parents and the graduates? But, we need to determine what success means, then measure it, and publish the results. Vouchers are a compromise to allow the government to continue to attempt to level the playing field. And, it sometimes works. However, the current approach doesn't draw a distinction between the ones who are trying hard, and those that lower the bar until the schools look successful. If you are too poor to move out of your slum neighborhood, then you are also too poor to get your kids to good schools. You are stuck with the ones the government provides, even when they suck. At least with a voucher system, these victims of bad school systems would be closer to an alternative if they can work out the transportation (i.e. city buses, trams).

MILITARY... I was unclear in my suggestion. I was foreseeing the potential of serving in the armed forces as an opportunity for young Americans to learn respect for each other, our nation, and break down as much ignorance and racism that grows in parts of this great country. I saw time in service as an means of unifying Americans, and then giving them opportunity later in life through paid-for college. To me, this is an ideal situation.

The military is a weapon used to repel those who invade or declare war on us, or on those we declare war upon. It's not a way to teach citizenship to young people, but it is a way to teach young people to follow orders to kill without questions. If the government couldn't teach citizenship and racial harmony to them in 4 years of high school, why would you think it would soak in during 4 more years of government indoctrination training them to shoot guns?

The bigger your armed forces, the bigger your weapon and the more compelling it is to use it to beat down your political adversaries. If we had a 25 million person army, we'd probably have swept through Iran by now. Our defense strategy should be simply to have armed forces sufficient to defend the United States proper from the #2 threat to world peace, China. Currently, (I believe) the US government is the biggest threat to world peace, and the prosperity of US citizens. Example; the definition of overkill -- a small pack of rogue disgruntled Islamist wacko's hijack planes and fly them into some key structures catching us with our defensive pants down killing 6500 or so people, so we spend a trillion dollars over a decade to invade Afghanistan (and Iraq), killing 7500 more of our own coalition forces, and umpteen thousand Afghan citizens. Now, do they love us more?

I'm still not sure what benefit there was in invading Iraq other than killing Saddam. We tore Iraq apart and then rebuilt it in our image, and now, they will probably systematically tear down what we've built -- it's too early to tell.

ILLEGALS... Ultimately, I'd like to see a one-world government, without boarders, without poverty, without slavery. But this would not be for a long, long time, and not in my foreseeable lifetime.

Governments and borders don't necessarily create poverty and slavery. Slavery (sex trade) is rampant in the US, more than we "know". One side of it is that we are wealthy, and so we can afford to "offer" seeming huge sums of wealth in exchange for people. The solution isn't to make everyone too poor, but rather to 1) expose it, and 2) help lift up the poor nations. You don't see Europeans, and Americans buying Norwegians. But, you do see Europeans, and Americans buying Latino, and Asian slaves. A one world government wouldn't eliminate this disparity between wealthy and poor, and it may just exacerbate it. In the worst cases of government abuse, such as the Soviet Union, state dominance led to corruption where Oligarchs and party favorites would control peoples lives, even to the point of slavery.

I'm sometimes encouraged by what is happening in the state of international affairs in our world. Even the worlds worst dictatorships somewhat conform to the democratic UN model. What is somewhat unfair though is the UN security council. It's dominated by the 5 "winners" of WWII, who are permanent members with a veto power. I'm discouraged by the political use of the security council to dominate or invade weaker (unpopular) nations.

[Jester]

Slavery (sex trade) is rampant in the US, more than we "know". One side of it is that we are wealthy, and so we can afford to "offer" seeming huge sums of wealth in exchange for people. The solution isn't to make everyone too poor, but rather to 1) expose it, and 2) help lift up the poor nations. You don't see Europeans, and Americans buying Norwegians. But, you do see Europeans, and Americans buying Latino, and Asian slaves. A one world government wouldn't eliminate this disparity between wealthy and poor, and it may just exacerbate it.

From what I understand, sexual slavery is actually quite rare. While something so abhorrent should be dealt with, the idea that it constitutes a large-scale problem is, from what I understand, mostly a moral panic. Many sex workers illegally move across borders, and many work for illegal organizations, but this is distinct from slavery - and a problem that would be almost entirely eliminated by open borders and a legal sex trade.

Do we have numbers to back up a claim that it is "rampant"?

As for the claim that a one-world government might increase disparity, I disagree. There is no single policy that the world could adopt that would do more to reduce global inequality than open borders. Add in a tariff-free world, and inter-region inequality would drop dramatically. The effect on social inequality is ambiguous, but it would have to come from the richest getting richer, because the world has about 1 billion people who are as poor as it gets - it is their fate that is most important, and they would certainly gain income.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

From what I understand, sexual slavery is actually quite rare. While something so abhorrent should be dealt with, the idea that it constitutes a large-scale problem is, from what I understand, mostly a moral panic. Many sex workers illegally move across borders, and many work for illegal organizations, but this is distinct from slavery - and a problem that would be almost entirely eliminated by open borders and a legal sex trade.

Do we have numbers to back up a claim that it is "rampant"?

"The most cited statistics on trafficking come from the U.S. State Department's annual reports on trafficking in persons. According to the 2005 report, 600,000 to 800,000 people are trafficked across international borders each year, with 14,500 to 17,500 trafficked into the U.S. The report does not provide data on sexual exploitation specifically; the numbers include people trafficked for any sort of forced labor." PBS - Frontline

As for the claim that a one-world government might increase disparity, I disagree. There is no single policy that the world could adopt that would do more to reduce global inequality than open borders. Add in a tariff-free world, and inter-region inequality would drop dramatically. The effect on social inequality is ambiguous, but it would have to come from the richest getting richer, because the world has about 1 billion people who are as poor as it gets - it is their fate that is most important, and they would certainly gain income.

Ok, I agree with that part, but this does not require a one-world government. Only global free trade agreements, and the freedom to move (with or without a passport/visa). I think factors that contribute to the ability to enslave a person include criminal enterprises, and the cultural/economic/language barriers faced by the victims.

[eppie]

After reading some articles in papers these days I had to think about this thread.
I don't know why it is but it seems that in many countries politicians shouldn't be too smart otherwise the voters don't trust them.
In the past a politician, especially a presidential candidate was supposed to be at least a pretty smart person.
Reading about the GOP presidential candidate elections makes me desperate and very negative about the future of our world as we know it.
Why does every candidate of the republicans need to be a completely ignorant moron? Some of them are slightly less moronic, but things like not knowing the USSR doesn't exist anymore etc. should disqualify you directly from running for the most important job on this world or am I wrong?

[kandrathe]

... or am I wrong?

Don't believe most anything you read, and only half of what you see. That was an old axiom of my father's. In other words, be skeptical, and when it comes to politics, be extremely skeptical.

The field of political science does not require any specific knowledge of history, geography, or economics, but you'd think it would help. As it's turning out, I'll probably be voting for the gynecologist.

Edit: This LA times article says what I'd like to say, but more succinctly. Everyone has an axe to grind in politics, so often, we are the idiots for not looking deeper to discover the truth. They say "Look at the idiot.", and we guffaw on cue. Who is the ignorant one?

[FireIceTalon]

After reading some articles in papers these days I had to think about this thread.
I don't know why it is but it seems that in many countries politicians shouldn't be too smart otherwise the voters don't trust them.
In the past a politician, especially a presidential candidate was supposed to be at least a pretty smart person.
Reading about the GOP presidential candidate elections makes me desperate and very negative about the future of our world as we know it.
Why does every candidate of the republicans need to be a completely ignorant moron? Some of them are slightly less moronic, but things like not knowing the USSR doesn't exist anymore etc. should disqualify you directly from running for the most important job on this world or am I wrong?

Ignorance and anti-intellectualism have been part of the agenda for the GOP for a hot minute now. It's all part of the big plan to spread misinformation and keep the populace "dumbed down" so the status quo stays intact. I've said it many times - they are all racist, fascist, homophobic, xenophobic elitist hypocritical, douche bags. You should feel desperate and negative about the world when seeing them flap their gums, and knowing there is actually people out there gullible enough to vote for them: they are puppets designed to protect the interest of the corporate elite that control the mass media and all other forms of public information, our education system, our culture, economy, and the hierarchy of society as well as how it is ran in general - all wrapped in a pretty package of attractive words and talking points like American Exceptionalism, war on terror, Democracy, and a quote or two from the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. For them, misinformation and propaganda rule over truth, respect for authority and patriotism over critical thinking and creativity (in education), inequality and apathy over equality and justice, and superstition/religion over rationality, science and ethics are the order of the day. Personally, I would rather roast in the firey pits of hell (if there is such a place) 100 million times over than vote for any one of these dipshits, or Obama for that matter. Just knowing I have to to breathe the same air as scum like Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, or Michelle Bachmann makes me nauseous. Elections are a sham, especially American elections.

[Taem]

Ignorance and anti-intellectualism have been part of the agenda for the GOP for a hot minute now. It's all part of the big plan to spread misinformation and keep the populace "dumbed down" so the status quo stays intact. I've said it many times - they are all racist, fascist, homophobic, xenophobic elitist hypocritical, douche bags. You should feel desperate and negative about the world when seeing them flap their gums, and knowing there is actually people out there gullible enough to vote for them:

I don't wish to be rude, but this is a lot of bark with no bite, or in other words, I'd like to see some unbiased links to your proof of concept that ALL GOP members are as you claim.

they are puppets designed to protect the interest of the corporate elite that control the mass media and all other forms of public information, our education system, our culture, economy, and the hierarchy of society as well as how it is ran in general - all wrapped in a pretty package of attractive words and talking points like American Exceptionalism, war on terror, Democracy, and a quote or two from the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

The elite would have no power save for the Americans buying up all of "their" goods. So who's really to blame? Corporations are going to do whatever it takes to make money. If your going to blame anyone, blame the ignorance of your typical American, not The Man, not the person or institution out to make a buck. We, as voters, have options, have choice. Remember that 90's slogan, "Go Vote"? WE could reimage the world if we so choose. The issue is not THE MAN, but the majority of Americans don't give a f**k. If your goal is to get attention drawn to this fact, then I suggest your going about it the wrong way. Drawing conspiracy theories has never worked. Instead, tell the Americans how stupid they are for blindly voting based on "gut" intuition (like all my relatives do) instead of actually reading up on the contenders. Read up on the facts, support laws you like, vote down or sign ballots to get votes for bills supporting law you like. Americans have choice in this country... they just don't use the power they have. This control you allude to is nothing more than Americans blinding doing what they are told and fed through commercials, but nothing THEY cannot change. They are not being forced to live a certain lifestyle - this is how the country evolved based on the needs and especially WANTS of the majority, make no mistake. This country is what WE made it.

For them, misinformation and propaganda rule over truth, respect for authority and patriotism over critical thinking and creativity (in education), inequality and apathy over equality and justice, and superstition/religion over rationality, science and ethics are the order of the day.

The only true thing I feel you've said. The reason Congress needs a shake-up.

[FireIceTalon]

Once again, I disagree completely. An overwhelming majority of the GOP has those characteristics, and certainly, ALL the current crop of candidates for our so-called upcoming election have most if not all of these characteristics. If you deny this, well, then you are not watching too carefully. Or maybe what they say isn't deemed as racist or bigoted to you, but unless one doesn't read between the lines, I cannot see how one cannot come to that conclusion. Sorry to say. Shall I provide links of them making comments in the context of these things? Cause I easily can.

This has nothing to do with conspiracy theories, and everything to do with a fact of the material conditions of our society: We ARE forced to live a certain lifestyle. Your survival is dependent and tied to the economy in Capitalism. You have to work, usually long and very hard, just to ensure your basic needs are met, do you not? As I said before, it is a system that is the ridiculous belief that somehow the most corrupt and greedy of people for the most corrupt and greedy of reasons, somehow have all of our best interests in mind. This is laughable at best. If you want conspiracy theories, go watch nut jobs like Alex Jones or something.

Secondly, you seem to not understand my point at all. Americans who control the means to production, and thus control every aspect of our society DO have a choice, the rest of us, not so much. Both parties are puppets of the ruling class - how is that a choice? Sure, we can change it, but only through revolutionary means. Going to the ballot box wont change shit, and if you think otherwise, than you are just a tool of the system - no offense. Was Obama's election not proof enough for you that our system is rigged and controlled by an elite few, and that change will never come through "democratic" means? Americans are conditioned to think they have a choice. So, you can keep believing that we are Democracy and that we have a choice at the ballot box and that we can achieve fundamental change in our Capitalist society. I know better than to fall for such naivety though. This isn't rocket science. Those who control society economically, also control it politically and culturally too.

We didn't make this country, it MADE US. Human nature doesn't make society. Society, rather, determines human nature and behavior. There is no such thing as individual human nature that we are born with (other than to survive and procreate) that in turn determines the society we live in, many people think this is the case. But many people are also very incorrect. Human nature is something that can, and does, change as the material conditions around us change.

Getting rid of this Congress will do absolutely nothing. You will just get a new set of jerk wads in there to uphold the interests of the ruling class and then we are back to square one.

[kandrathe]

I don't wish to be rude...

The easiest way to "not be rude" is to refuse to feed the trolls.

[eppie]

The elite would have no power save for the Americans buying up all of "their" goods. So who's really to blame? Corporations are going to do whatever it takes to make money. If your going to blame anyone, blame the ignorance of your typical American, not The Man, not the person or institution out to make a buck. We, as voters, have options, have choice. Remember that 90's slogan, "Go Vote"? WE could reimage the world if we so choose. The issue is not THE MAN, but the majority of Americans don't give a f**k. If your goal is to get attention drawn to this fact, then I suggest your going about it the wrong way. Drawing conspiracy theories has never worked. Instead, tell the Americans how stupid they are for blindly voting based on "gut" intuition (like all my relatives do) instead of actually reading up on the contenders. Read up on the facts, support laws you like, vote down or sign ballots to get votes for bills supporting law you like. Americans have choice in this country... they just don't use the power they have. This control you allude to is nothing more than Americans blinding doing what they are told and fed through commercials, but nothing THEY cannot change. They are not being forced to live a certain lifestyle - this is how the country evolved based on the needs and especially WANTS of the majority, make no mistake. This country is what WE made it.

Hej Meat, well I agree with what FIT says. But let me rephrase it.

It looks you are living in a democracy, a free republic etc. Whereas actually there is not much difference with Iran, or China. Some powerful guys just give you bread and plays and in return they can enrich themselves. The difference with China and Iran is that your powerful guys are a lot smarter than then ones in China and Iran. They know they have to give you the feeling of being free and have choices.
Of course if you want you can vote for someone else but they know 95 % of the people is basically pretty stupid and wont do this.
The reason you are much richer than your counterparts in China and Iran is because the US can run and manipulate the world economy (at least up till now).
The being richer is great for you, you have good medical facilities, enough to eat etc. but not really free. A country (and I have said this before) that votes a person like GWBush twice is not a free country, it is a sick country. Let's hope Obama gets 4 more years to try and clean up the mess again.

[kandrathe]

A country (and I have said this before) that votes a person like GWBush twice is not a free country, it is a sick country. Let's hope Obama gets 4 more years to try and clean up the mess again.

Obama is probably the best moderate Republican choice.

[eppie]

A country (and I have said this before) that votes a person like GWBush twice is not a free country, it is a sick country. Let's hope Obama gets 4 more years to try and clean up the mess again.

Obama is probably the best moderate Republican choice.

Yes I know what you mean kandrathe. Just that he is at least a serious person and someone that at least seems to be intelligent.

Anyway, also in Europe we have to deal with this 'smooth red Khmerisation' of the countries. Anti-intellectualism is hot and the new big thing in politics.

[FireIceTalon]

I don't wish to be rude...

The easiest way to "not be rude" is to refuse to feed the trolls.

Anyone who doesn't agree with YOUR opinions is a troll

Get lost man.

[kandrathe]

Yes I know what you mean kandrathe. Just that he is at least a serious person and someone that at least seems to be intelligent.

I still think he was too green for the job. He is articulate, and very intelligent, but does not lead very well. There is the problem... When it comes to leadership, you seek someone inspirational with the intestinal fortitude of a MacArthur, or a George Patton, but also the shrewd intelligence of a Harry Truman, or a John F. Kennedy. He sold himself generically as a unifier during his campaign which had broad appeal, but in action has only fanned the flames of political division during the past few years. 100 years ago, a President Calvin Coolidge warned, "Don't expect to build up the weak by pulling down the strong."

But, whether he's chosen, or has been forced, Obama's 1st term has mostly walked the GWB policy line. From the Geitner/Paulsen plan for dealing with the imploding banking sector, to the Clinton/Bush neocon foreign policy doctrines. The latest is the ( resurrected Rumsfeld) plan for downsizing the military. I guess "change" means something different in Washington DC, than it does where I live. His two Progressive stakes in the ground were the badly timed health care fiasco, and attempting to implement a Consumer Credit watchdog czar. The health care bill may unravel when it goes before the Supreme Court shortly, and the unprecedented recess appointment (bypassing Senate oversight) of his crony into the credit czar has already politically weakened that post before it's launched. We live in an era of banana republic politics, in a police state worthy of a banana republic. We are merely a hunta away from becoming exactly what we oppose.

Anyway, also in Europe we have to deal with this 'smooth red Khmerisation' of the countries. Anti-intellectualism is hot and the new big thing in politics.

The two ways you can appeal to populism are through reason, or passion. As your heroes Fidel, and Che learned, passion is far easier to ignite, and it makes the debates very short. As short as the firing of a pistol shot through the brain pan.