Monday, December 31, 2012

AMERICA IS DEAD -FEELINGS OF AN OUTSTANDING AMERICAN ACADEMIC

COMMENT FROM AN OUTSTANDING AMERICAN ACADEMIC WHO WISHES TO REMAIN UNOFFICIAL AND ANONYMOUS

From one who follows the domestic scene with "great interest" I must say that in my unofficial opinion your observations are correct. America is dead, but just does not know it yet. Without putting too fine a point on it, the US is following the example of the Roman Empire both in internal and external affairs. Alexis de Tocqueville was correct in the 19th century when he observed: "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years." http://natural-beauty-pavocavalry.blogspot.com/2012/12/where-is-us-going-misuse-of-islamists.html

Saturday, December 29, 2012

Where is the US Going-Misuse of Islamists , demographic change etc ?

Where is the US Going-Misuse of Islamists , demographic change etc ?

Agha H Amin

It appears that regime change by orange revolution and armed insurrection was a strategic concept evolved in the later part of Bush the Second and implemented in Obama tenure ?

In Syria this new US concept of attack has not really succeeded as there is that " independent will of the enemy " ? My own take is that this is a dangerous strategy and will misfire . Hopefully in Syria and if not in Syria hopefully somewhere else ?

What I have seen as a small sub contractor is that while US gained as country from second world war , US has lost as a country from Iraq and Afghanistan wars.The only gainers in Afghanistan and Iraq have been the big US companies and the warlords and the Taliban who made big money from contracts ? The main loser has been the average US tax payer .

Obama regime represents a watershed and the US is now changing from a White Anglo Saxon type nation to a more immigrant-Latino-Black American dominated affair .Thus a divided US society and greater internal conflict ? Frankly I am not an expert on US affairs and americans can shed better light on it ? Comments are welcome for education of all ? With utmost respect ? -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------A COMMENT ON THE ABOVE POST FROM AN ANONYMOUS BLOGGER ON MY BLOG :--http://www.psmag.com/politics/there-is-no-common-ground-anymore-3412/ The United States has become very polarized over the last forty years. We think that the Republican party may not even be able to field a presidential candidate in 2016 due to their divisions. The Democrats are no more coherent, they merely get along better because they do not share the eliminationist views that have caused the Republicans such trouble. onWhere is the US Going-Misuse of Islamists , demographic change etc ? Publish | Delete | Spam COMMENT FROM GABRIELLE SUTHERLAND--I would agree with the above comment. The Republican Party is being chewed up from within, and doesn't realize it. Republican leaders are oblivious to the public pulse, and don't appear to care what is happening in the country. I don't say that as rhetoric, but as an observational aside, and what seems to be most commentator's viewpoints. It feels like we are living in an oligarchy. I don't know that the overall feel of the nation has an immigrant or minority "feel" to it, but the polarization is real, so I might not recognize something that I am living in the midst of. on Where is the US Going-Misuse of Islamists , demographic change etc ? COMMENT FROM AN OUTSTANDING AMERICAN ACADEMIC WHO WISHES TO REMAIN UNOFFICIAL AND ANONYMOUS

From one who follows the domestic scene with "great interest" I must say that in my unofficial opinion your observations are correct. America is dead, but just does not know it yet. Without putting too fine a point on it, the US is following the example of the Roman Empire both in internal and external affairs. Alexis de Tocqueville was correct in the 19th century when he observed: "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years."
Follow Agha

AMERICA IS DEAD -FEELINGS OF AN OUTSTANDING AMERICAN ACADEMIC natural-beauty-pavocavalry.blogspot.com

Obama regime represents a watershed and the US is now changing from a White Anglo Saxon type nation to a more immigrant-Latino-Black American dominated affair .Thus a divided US society and greater internal conflict ? Frankly I...
13 days ago

Like Comment Follow Flag More

Gregory Anderson, Syed Hassan Shah and 4 others like this

312 comments Jump to most recent comments

Follow Juan

Juan Bacigalupi We often fail to learn the lessons from history. Good points on the Rise and Fall of the American Empire.
12 days ago Like

Follow Mike

Mike Valley You say that like the US has fallen already. I would say that is rather premature.
11 days ago Like

Follow Agha

Agha A This is the view of a US academic I know since many years.He is ex US military and teaches in a US staff college . He is a run of the mill conservative , no Chomsky type character . Posting this does not mean endorsement at all
11 days ago Like

Follow Gregory

Gregory Anderson In my opinion Sir: you Can't say Black folks are a part of this shitty calapse, 1. We have aborted our selves into ablivian, 2. we are probably a scattered 13% of the total population. We just get USED over and over as the posterchild for the left to foward there causes, but no real power, not a serious purchasing power, no real strenght in numbers either. We have our moments, but not enough of us make any real polictical change. Now the Illegal and the latino make up 15%, and most of them will say the are White hispanic, rarely ever using thier country of origin to describe themselves.
11 days ago Like

Follow Agha

Agha A my dear friend , he is ha;f white . black is not the issue . with utmost respect
11 days ago Like

Follow Mike

Mike Valley Mr. Anderson, * of African Americans voted for President Obama's re-election.

And if that is not real political change, then I am unsure what you consider political change to be. In so far as a particular ethnic group being "used" (to use your vernacular)..Eleanor Roosevelt said "No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." I would ask that you please explain your comment regarding aborting yourselves into oblivian. I am not sure I understand where you are coming from there. I will close by stating all people in this country are part of this collapse. And deciding one group or another is blameless, is irresponsible to say the least. We all rode this horse into the ground. Now is the time to help nurse it back to health by making good choices with regards to our leadership and their plans. As Thomas Jefferson said, "I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them. Furthermore, in the words of Margaret Thatcher, "The problem with Socialism is that eventually you run out of the other guy's money."
11 days ago Like

Follow Federico

Federico Schiavio I wonder when the whites will start calling themselves European Americans? We must stop labeling ourselves ethnically if we want to evolve into a peaceful and productive society,
11 days ago Like

Follow Gabrielle

Gabrielle Sutherland I'm not sure what this means. I do not believe that America is dead at all! It might be the case that some Americans believe that their own particular dream of America is dead. . . but what of that? Maybe it should die! I grew up in a VERY white, conservative America where all the children played happily & safely in the neighborhood while the Daddies went to work, and the Mommies stayed home and visited with each other, while the servants took care of the cooking and cleaning. My Mother wore high heels and pearls every day as her normal dress. Did I inherit that world when I became a "Mommy" myself? Absolutely not! I purposely left it behind me. Some of it was nice, but other parts of it would have felt like a prison to me, as a woman professional with her own life and things to do and see. The world changes, and I am so very glad that it does. I did not see a person of color who was not a laborer or servant until I was an adult, and that's wrong! When I chose to become an academic and to

take my children with me in my travels around the planet instead of spending my life throwing dinner parties and arranging flowers. . . .my family didn't even know how to "understand" me! Maybe we each envision a different dream, and in America it's at least possible to do that. I am living the dream that I want, and I am VERY fortunate that I can. Others can not, and that needs to change. We all adjust and move on with our paths, and thank heavens for that. It's MUCH more important to deal with the bigger issues of the real world. Poverty has always existed. Starving children and people who hurt have always been in need, and if I have something to give; I should. It does not matter what flag flies over the person in need. To say that America is dead because of changes in ethnicity however is very strange. There was a time in America (not too long ago) when the streets ran with blood because of the influx of Irish immigrants--who also happened to be "dirty" Catholics--and this led to a government sponsored police force.....so let's get our History lessons straight!!!!! Do we seriously need to lament the FACT that the Founding Fathers set up a Constitution that was so dynamic and versatile that it could weather these changes and move and grow with the times? There is NO such thing as "Jefferson thought this, and therefore. . ." because the Founding Fathers themselves fought vociferously over what their own vision meant, and they knew this was the GENIUS of their plan....that DIFFERENCE was embedded within it. George Washington carefully staked out just exactly what the President would "be" and did it on purpose. Again, because he, too, was at those initial meetings and served as the President of the Continental Congress; as a man who was known to be wise and fair. These men are considered "great" not because they were some kind of "Judges in Israel," but because they envisioned a government that could grow and change and not "die." I'm sorry for ranting, but this seems shortsighted and silly to talk about the death of America, instead of the death of a version of the American Dream that perhaps each of us enjoy at some time for our own VERY SHORT life, that maybe SHOULD die. There have been many American Dreams that have gone by the wayside, and we can study them in any American history class. I myself am hopeful for the future. The United States is a baby country, not yet 250 years old! Does it make mistakes? Of course. Is there a political entity on the planet that hasn't? I'm so glad I live in a country where I get to challenge my leaders on their mistakes. I get to answer emails from the President and demand a response! I get to watch a peaceful revolution every 4 years. If I want to make a difference, then it is up to me to be involved and make a noise. A LOUD noise. WOW--so much ahead of us!!!!!
10 days ago Like

Follow Agha

Agha A some times academics can be wrong also , althought I have great faith in this academic whose summing up is under discussion. The following example about two recognised academics one from pakistan and another from the US is for all interested --

In 1960s a Pakistan Army general officer Major General Fazal Muqeem Khan made the historically absolutely false assertion that One measure of the lack of British trust in the Muslims was evident in the British Indian Army. While there were several wholly Hindu and Sikh infantry battalions in the army, there was never a single combatant all Muslim unit.The Muslims were ever mindful of their nobler past , resisted the new western influence at every turn.Most Hindus had no such scruples . This is from page .9 of Fazal Muqeems classic officially sponsored book The Story of the Pakistan Army published in 1961. All of what Major General Fazal Muqeem stated had nothing to do with the truth ! Not white lies as many erroneously state but lies in black ink on white paper ! Firstly Muslims were actually saved by the English East India Company from total political extinction in all parts of India ! Delhi the Muslim capital was in hands of Hindu Marathas in 1803 when the English Company captured it. Punjab whose Muslims later became martial thanks to British policy was ruled by a 8 0r 9 % Sikh minority and many Muslim mosques were used as horse stables and gunpowder magazines and plastered with cow dung and sometimes washed with cow urine ! Peshawar,Kohat,Bannu,Nowshera,Dera Ismail Khan was ruled by Sikhs whose French and Italian governors hobbies was cutting off and collecting heads of unruly Pashtun tribesmen ! Thus the Pashtun Mullahs of Peshawar and Bannu hailed English East India Company as liberator of Muslims in their Friday sermons ! Sindh was only saved by Treaty of Amritsar forced on Ranjeet Singh by the English Company in 1809 wherein the Sikh was ordered not to attack and occupy Sindh. Hindus constituted 80 % of the Bengal Army units which rebelled in 1857 although the leaders of the rebellion were the Hindustani and Ranghar Muslim cavalrymen who constituted just about 4 % of the Bengal Army.Note that the Bengal Army had no Bengalis by race. continued below-----in next post
10 days ago Like

Follow Agha

Agha A On the other hand Muslims from Punjab and present Pakistans KP province constituted some 40 to 50 % of all Indian troops who loyally fought for the British troops against the Hindu and Muslim rebels of 1857. Now the more specific distortions of Fazal Muqeem which were picked up without investigation by Stephen Cohen when he wrote his Pakistan Army in 1980s. That there were no all Muslim units in the British Indian Army ? Yes there were ! 1st Bengal Cavalry also known as Skinners Horse was all along Hindustani Muslim and Ranghar as early as 1857 and all along till First World War. 15 Lancers was all along all Muslim regiment from its raising in 1857 till 1916. 17th Lancers was an All Muslim unit in the reorganization of 1892 till the end of First World War. In addition the Bengal Army had six All Muslim infantry Battalions in 1893 i.e the 5th, 12th, 17th, 18th, 33rd and 40th. The 5th , 12th and 17th Infantry were entirely Hindustani and Ranghar Muslim units .The 18th and 33rd Infnatry were 100 % Punjabi Muslim units and the 40th Infantry were entirely Pathan Muslim. In addition there was the There was the 126th Harazra Pioneers an All Muslim Mongol Shia Hazara unit.

As late as 1945, there was the 4th Battalion of Indian Parachute Regiment , an all Muslim unit. The 15th Lancers was only made a mixed regiment after its Pathan Muslim squadrons refused to fight against the Turks in Iraq in 1916. The 5th Light Infantry was only disbanded after it rebelled under a false impression that it was being sent to fight the Turks and rebelled and captured Singapore for two days in 1915. After First World War only all Muslim units were discontinued as Muslim troops had bayoneted British officers , defected to German and Turkish lines in actual fighting and refused orders to fight. Fazal Muqeems total dismissal of existence of all Muslim units in the British Indian Army has no basis and should not have been re-confirmed by a man as eminent as Stephen Cohen without sufficient research. This is similar to the myth of 26 Indian consulates in Afghanistan . A total distortion of truth but much repeated and widely believe as the whole truth by a very large part of Pakistani media.
10 days ago Like

Follow Gabrielle

Gabrielle Sutherland that's probably why our own story is not "history" because we only see what is directly around us, and we see it through a very biased lens, right? Just like my mother's story is so different from mine, and my daughter's is so different too! Of course what we see is just a very small piece of the entire picture! When a future historian comes to the subject at a later date, he/she will gather all the stories and have a greater ability to place them together and construct the overall picture.
10 days ago Like

Follow Federico

Federico Schiavio History is written by the winners...Heavily edited...

10 days ago Like

Follow Mike

Mike Valley Federico, while I agree in theory, practice has shown us quite the opposite with regards to the written and verifiable history we have at our disposal. As we all know, the Greek empire was defeated and was replaced by the Romans, who were in turn defeated. You can track these and other empires (Huns, etc) back through ancient times. While the history may have been modified, it is always eventually verifiable...if one looks hard enough in the right places. As each of these civilizations fell, they left something behind in their bloodlines and in their cultures. One only has to look hard enough in order to see it.
10 days ago Like

Follow Gabrielle

Gabrielle Sutherland @Frederico, I have not found that to be the case--except for the "heavily edited" part. I am a cultural historian, and part of our methodology is to trace documents and writings. Even when the so-called winners demand a chronicle, for instance, we can decipher what's actually happening. A typical example of this is the scribe writing the [official] version of what happened. Usually the scribe will utilize formalized language, or, in other words, language that we recognize as coming from somewhere else. This makes rulers happy as it is fancy. The benefits of this though, are that depending on what the chronicler chooses, it gives us a clue, depending on which writings the scribe chooses. The choice will OFTEN point to a previous era that was NOT a good example or bad in some way or another. This is a clue. We take a note of that. If the scribe then SAYS that he is quoting from something specific but actually quotes it incorrectly or even quotes from something else (sleight of hand) then we know that something else is happening in the chronicle we are reading. Additionally, we are never limited to chronicles; we have so many other sources to look at now! We can look at breviaries, for instance, or travelogues, merchant accounts, pawn shop records. . . .the list is very, very long. We never have to take "the word" of a ruler "at his word."
10 days ago Like

Follow Agha

Agha A depends on which country won the war. in UK or US perhaps there is much more self criticism and self pity . this as a matter of fact was the great strength of the British . There was A.J.P Taylor and Liddell Hart and Fuller who praised the Germans for their superior military organisation. Van Creveld a Jewish professor teaching in Israel in his book fighting power proved why German military organisation was superior to the US military . Colonel T,N Dupuy in his book A Genius for War proved that one German soldier of Wwehrmacht was equal to 3 American soldiers. In Crisis and Command Gabriel and Savage proved that US Army in Vietnam at the higher level was afflicted with a crisis of morality and genuine leadership ?
10 days ago Like

Follow Agha

Agha A and there is no one more iconoclastic than Seymour Hersch , a genius of a writer .
10 days ago Like

Follow Gabrielle

Gabrielle Sutherland with all due respect dearest Agha, I don't know that an historian looks at it in the way that you are saying. In history, I don't think there is any such thing as "proving" anything, do you? How would anyone prove that except to set up criteria of one's own making and then list bullet points that "prove" it? Each of those writers have their own very strong prejudices, and when those prejudices are stripped, what are we left with? Who or what is to say is "superior"? Against what standard do we judge the idea of "superiority"? I'm going to pull the "woman card" here [sorry] and say that ALL armies are inferior because they have the wrong idea, and seek to destroy the others INSTEAD of feeding them cookies, offering blankets, and asking them if their children are ok. Maybe I believe THAT is absolutely and positively the #1 superior method for all armies. Throughout time, armies have believed the best method is to pray; to bathe oneself in the blood of one's enemy and drink it out of the previous enemy's skull; to worship at an altar before the sun; to hire mercenaries; to negotiate with treaties instead; to hold hostages of the enemies royal sons and conscript the people one conquers. . . what is superior? You used two examples of superiority in cases where the supposed superior army lost.

What does that mean? I agree with you on Viet Nam, and yet has the CIA changed? Is the CIA any less morally bankrupt, or is it in fact MORE evil than it was then? IF it is more evil, then what does that mean? Probably....the US got exactly out of the Viet Nam war what "it" wanted ...just like in the Christian Crusades. There is no way those who fought continued in the crusades if they were "losing." They continued because they were getting exactly what they wanted. So, my only question is "what is superior"? I think each person or entity would answer that according to his/her/its viewpoint. Don't you? And, I still like my idea of cookies, blankets, and taking care of children!!!
10 days ago Like

Follow Agha

Agha A proving in the sense that T. N Dupuy was very scientific and fair in his analysis and his motive was to improve the qualitative efficiency of the US Army .
10 days ago Like

Follow Gabrielle

Gabrielle Sutherland I'm smiling right now, because I don't believe in this kind of "proof." I grant you what you are saying. I grant his credentials and his desires/motivations. But I would also say that quality is subjective, and science changes. What is science in one time period quickly becomes something else with different words in another. Do you think that is so?
10 days ago Like

Follow Agha

Agha A ok my boss .
10 days ago Like

Follow Gabrielle

Gabrielle Sutherland ah, now YOU are smiling!!!!

10 days ago Like

Follow Mike

Mike Valley Maj. (Ret) Agha, in most things I tend to agree with your insight, with regards to the comparitive study of soldiers in this case, I do not. Germany has only existed as Germany since 1871, a year after the Franco-Prussian War, which Prussia ("Germany") won. Prussia, the head state of what became Germany has won several wars, including: Great Northern War, 1st and 2nd Silesian wars, Seven Years War, War of the Sixth Coalition, Second War of Schleswig, Austro-Prussian War, Franco-Prussian War, World War 1 (on the Russian Front). The term Wehrmacht generically describes a nation's Armed Forces, thus, Britische Wehrmacht denotes British Armed Forces. The term Wehrmacht is in Article 47 of the 1919 Weimar Constitution which established: Der Reichsprsident hat den Oberbefehl ber die gesamte Wehrmacht des Reiches (The Reich's President holds supreme command of all armed forces of the Reich). In 1919, Germanys national defence force was known as the Reichswehr. This name was dropped in favor of Wehrmacht in March of 1935. The name Wehrmacht is generally considered the proper noun name of the German army between 1935-45. The only reason the Wermacht hold such prestige is May - June 1940 battle between the French and German armies. And we all know how good the French are at war don't we? (Please read that last bit with a grin and then spit for good measure!) Historians can hold the Wehrmacht up all they want, the fact is they lost the war, because a soldier is only as good as his training and his gear allow him to be. With regards to every Wermacht being as good as 3 American soldiers, well my grandfather would cringe at that...after his time with the 82nd Airborne. After my brother and I joined the military, he sat us down and told us his story..most with tears in his eyes. During my career I had the opportunity to operate with the KSK Kommandos and I can tell you with out

reservation...there isn't a German alive or previously alive...who could match American fighting personnel 1 for 1. I know pride is one of the cardinal sins...but in this case...it was and still is earned!
10 days ago Like

Follow Agha

Agha A my dear friend . I have just quoted T.N Dupuys analysis in his book A Genius for War .
10 days ago Like

Follow Michael J

Michael J Moylan We are always in a evolution. Some times for the better some time for the worst. values change not always for the better
10 days ago Like

Follow Agha

Agha A The US Army in Second World War fought inenvironments of overwhelming material superiority against Germans in North Africa , France and Germany .So their victory was a foregone conclusion . The real fighting was done by Red Army with a lot of US material support and they suffered 90 % allied casualties. T.N Dupuy proved with his research that qualitatively the German Army was better than US Army because of superior organisation and operational philosophy . This is a book much respected in US academic circles too . Mike has his own perception which I respect . The discussion is complicated. However the key factor is that US victory was a foregone conclusion because of US industrial and economic might in both First and Second World Wars and West Europe was saved in both cases because of US aid and Russian blood . And again West Europe was thrice saved from Napoleon , Kaiser and Hitler with Russian blood .
10 days ago Like

Follow Agha

Agha A US money combined with Russian blood won the war since the Red Army sustained some 90% of the total casualties sustained by all allies! Japan was industrially too outmoded to fight USA. The fact that despite all these shortcomings the Japanese did well is no compliment to the US military role in WW Two! The Japanese industry took much longer to build aircraft carriers, the most important weapon of the war as compared to US industry. Thus Japanese cause was doomed after they lost four carriers at Midway. Industrially they could never recover from this loss. The industrial potential of the US armaments industry may be gauged from the fact that during Second World War US industry alone produced some 52% of world wide (including both allies and the axis powers) aircraft production, 36% of all artillery, 48% of all vehicles and 61% of all ship building!
10 days ago Like

Follow Gabrielle

Gabrielle Sutherland I agree with you that this and all discussions of war are complicated Do we not see throughout history that winning a battle or war is not always about the obvious factors like materiel, supply chain, having the high ground, higher numbers, etc., but a combination of many factors? Wouldn't it be the case that throughout time, leaders have not only used the pawns who are soldiers to fight (which are TOOLS), but also their RESOURCES, when engaged in war? If I am a Powerful Entity, and I want to win, then I will not only use my Military Tool, but also my Allies (let them die for me and my cause) Supplies, Assets of all kinds, Food etc. Other rules of war in this same line of thinking is that not only do I need allies whose soldiers can die for me and my cause, but I need allies whose land I can use so I don't destroy my own, who can supply war material for me, who will negotiate with THEIR allies. If I am at all a "worthy" player of the game of war, then I consider all these factors when I go to war, including the Pre-War game, and the game I play in one war that I am setting the stage for the NEXT war.
10 days ago Like

Follow Agha

Agha A war has lost its heroism and its glory . I saw 27 suicide bombings in 2002-9 , more than 40 IED blasts , that is from a radius of 1 to 5 km . I heard the sounds , rushed to the location , met the survivors. All had one complaint . They never or hardly ever saw their assailants face .
10 days ago Like

Follow Gabrielle

Gabrielle Sutherland that's the horrible split with modern war, right? I can't really imagine that war was ever heroic, but..... since WWI, we have this split in the psyche of humans killing without seeing the opponent or being killed in the same way and society doesn't know how to deal with it except, as you're saying, it just keeps getting worse
10 days ago Like

Follow Agha

Agha A the following analysis that i did on the financial aspects may be of some interest . http://natural-beauty-pavocavalry.blogspot.com/2012/06/audit-of-warfare-wars-in-financial.html
10 days ago Like

Follow Mike

Mike Valley Number of of American casualties during WWII - 291,557 If you count US Merchant Marines, the number is closer to 406,000. Of those killed, nearly 100,000 were due to action against the Japanese. So doing the math here, we have nearly 200,000 military casualties in the European theater. German military casualties total over 5,533,000. Russian military casualties are well over 11,000,000

Unfortuantely in the discussion...qualitative is subjective. Quantitative speaks for itself. Yes much Russian blood was spilled, but that was not the fault of the Russian soldiers...poorly trained and poorly equipped they were sent into the storm of lead. One man got the rifle, the next got the ammunition. Stalin's plan was to bury the Germans with his dead! So I agree with you with regards to the Russian blood, but I still disagree with the quality of the German Wermacht. Sure they were great against unarmed Russians and the French. I think the rest speaks for itself. All-in-all...it was a bad patch for everyone involved.
10 days ago Like

Follow Agha

Agha A well , I have seen that there is a blood lust . Van Creveld my favourite actually wrote a book celebrating the war lore titled " The Culture of War" . its difficult to define , although war is like hunting in some ways except that the adversary is far more tough . that is the thrill . fieldcraft , ingenuity , luck and above all destiny still counts . i started believing in destiny after a bullet passed between my legs in 2005.it actually grazed my trousers inner side. in 1988 in an accident on a firing range i actually saw a tank machine gun bullet graze a mans cap but he survived untouched although he was in a state of shock.
10 days ago Like

Follow Agha

Agha A my dear friend . I have never stated that Dupuy was right . I just quoted Dupuys findings . By the way US military idolises German military . I dont know , this is my observation which may be subjective.
10 days ago Like

Follow Agha

Agha A Von Mellenthin a respectable German officer in his book Panzer Battles ascribed Red Armys survival to US Lend Lease agreement . The most recent US expert on Red Army I believe is Glantz ?
10 days ago Like

Follow Gabrielle

Gabrielle Sutherland So now, what is your Destiny?

10 days ago Like

Follow Agha

Agha A your questions are difficult my dearest friend

10 days ago Like

Follow Mike

Mike Valley Well after 3 knife wounds, 2 bullet wounds, 1 IED blast, I personally believe my destiny is to teach my children how to survive...LOL Unfortunately I also believe I have fed my children to the military industrial complex as my eldest has joined the Army. Ever been proud of your child and ashamed of yourself at the same time? I don't recommend it. At any rate, what most people don't seem to understand about war and the military in general is, its not about the fighting...its about serving a cause greater than yourself. It is about placing your own life beneath the lives of others and knowing you may be the first, last, and only line of defense for the innocent. The last thing any real warrior ever wants is war...but to fail to prepare for it is folly at best and suicide at worst.
10 days ago Like

Follow Agha

Agha A war is hell - I think it was General Sherman " There are many a boy here who thinks that war is glory , but war is hell". This is a man who was one of the toughest generals ?
10 days ago Like

Follow Mike

Mike Valley Well like General Patton said (and I will paraphrase here), no one ever won a war by dying for their country...you win wars by making the other guy die for his.

From: Centre for study of Intelligence Operations

10 days ago Like

Follow Michael J

Michael J Moylan I am go in somewhat of a different direction. What is missing is ownership. We would have less wars if all Americans had direct ownership. The fact is only a few volunteer and the many stay home is a bad idea. Our politician do not face the pressure from the population. Mandatory service to this country would affect that. The voters who have children who serve would have a huge impact on those folks. You not have to serve in the military but you should serve your country. Freedom is not free and everyone should contribute to that freedom. Ownership of your liberty is a element that is missing today. That needs to change.Mothers would raise holy hell against Washington over the unnecessary loss of their children lives.
10 days ago Like

Follow Gabrielle

Gabrielle Sutherland I agree with you. What would you do about loopholes? I'm treating this as a serious consideration, so thinking aloud. . . . I think the key would be that somehow it has to become an HONORABLE thing once again to serve one's country, so that the 1% would not dare look "dishonorable" by not serving, and sitting at a safe desk in a university does not count. But how would you go about changing the ideology of it? (Part of where I'm coming from on that is the way the ROTC is thought of and treated on university campuses.)
10 days ago Like

Follow Mike

Mike Valley Mr. Moylan, I don't think you understand the size and cost of a fully compulsory military for a country the size of the US. Furthermore, a full 70% (at an absolute minimum) would not want to be there. And I don't know about you, but there is no way I am placing my life in the hands of someone who was forced into service.
10 days ago Like

Follow Gabrielle

Gabrielle Sutherland @Mike, what if the ideology in general were to change, though? As far as cost goes, we could balance that question with other factors. Four years ago 44% of college graduates were unable to find work. Last year that number was 52% and this year it is at almost 54%. The alarming growth of that statistic is scary. What is the solution for this generation and the families that they are also starting? We know the social consequences of poverty.
10 days ago Like

Follow Mike

Mike Valley It costs approximately $150K (on average) to train, outfit, and deploy (per soldier/sailor/airman/marine). Why do you think members of Congress is talking about downsizing the military and base closures? Not to mention this would certainly decimate college attendance. And after their service is complete...what do we do with them? You will have millions of recently militarized young people all looking for jobs at once. Under our current system this would be a catastrophically bad idea!
10 days ago Like

Follow Mike

Mike Valley Gabrielle, exactly what ideaology are you talking about? I personally served to ensure my children were free to make their own choices...you know, to "Support and defend the Constitution of the United States...". There is no way I want to take people's freedoms away with regards to making service compulsory. Choice is what this is about.
10 days ago Like

Follow Gabrielle

Gabrielle Sutherland @Mike, an ideology that has existed far longer than that which you are espousing: that Freedom comes with a price. That it is honorable to serve one's country. That the very idea of democracy and democratic reform was built on the premise that we owe a debt in multiple directions. That Freedom has never meant "I get to do whatever I want." That obligation, duty, responsibility, and accountability have ever been watchwords of people who want to protect the values of their civilization. That True Champions always and ever gather around virtue, then protect their society in just and honorable ways in order to establish stories which "the people" can pass on to their children so that civilization will continue. We know without any variance that when this process stops--FREEDOM stops. The civilization ends. The traditions and the culture which people thought was so precious, but were unwilling to defend or stand up for disappears and is forgotten.

Read you history my friend. The Founding Fathers did not agree with one another on many things, but they based the Constitution of the United States quite firmly on Classical thought tempered by the philosophers of the Enlightenment. The Social Contract in no way allows a True Human Being to renege on the commitments one owes to others. Else, life is "short, nasty and brutish." Whether that means serving in war or in some other way, it is necessary for us to serve, and right now, the generation that typically serves in the military (and has throughout history) is drowning. We are treating this generation as if they are entitled to a "free" education with no means of providing for it. That is NOT freedom. It is not virtuous. We have taught them false principles of what a people group does to secure a civilization's future. If society were to teach Virtue (I am not talking about morality) as an ideal, then we might have a future worth thinking about. We do not have to play "if" games. We can look at historical models which tell us this is so.
10 days ago Like

Follow Gabrielle

Gabrielle Sutherland @Mike, the cost you mention is negligible compared to the cost to take care of the devastating numbers of the young adults who are unable to find employment despite their college degrees. Poverty and mental illness costs will blow that number out of the water, as the say goes. Then we have the next generation of prison costs, and once parents of children go to prison, 83% of the children of those parents go to prison. That is not a statistic that says 83% are more likely to go to prison; it is 83% actually go to prison, with recidivism rates at 60+ percentages across the nation. I'm sure we're all aware of the drain on the economy for prison costs. Any talk of what a specific "solution" will cost is always relative as we have to look at the gains, which granted, we cannot know in advance. What we do know is the problems that are costing us $$$$ already, which will increase in costs if something is not done. "Freedom" to not participate or do something about it does not solve anything. Living in a nation where the people are sovereign means that we are each responsible for the feeding and protecting of each other: the two "jobs" of a sovereign.
10 days ago Like

Follow Mike

Mike Valley Heroes/champions do what is right because it's the right thing to do, not because they were forced into it. The military is a choice...take it from a career warrior...it's not for everyone! If you want to change the way Americans look at their freedoms...then get rid of "reality TV" and shut down Youtube! (Please understand I am not directing this part of my rant or the rant which will follow, to you personally, I mean it in overall US cultural terms.) If you want to make future generations realize what they have..then stop agrandizing people like the Kardashians

and the knuckleheads on Jersey Shore. These people are the worst kind of people! They are famous for having no skills and contributing nothing to society. Make sure people see the light with regards to them. You want to espouse the truest meaning of the freedoms I and others have shed blood for? Tell your (and I don't literally mean your personal children) "no" once in awhile. Tell them to earn what ever it was they wanted. See how much some material thing means to them then. But I digress...Teach your children (and again I do not mean your personal children) they are all part of a bigger machine...and they must do their part to make the machine run properly. I say to make sure they understand if they earn nothing...they get nothing in the end. My mother (a career US Marine) used to say, "Less than 1 one hundreth of 1 percent of the world is DIsney...the rest will try to grind you to dust!" I have raised my children (all 4 of them to date) in the same manner. Lastly, I am unsure where you were going with the social contract you were mentioning, but I assure you I fully understand the Constitution, in letter and spirit. I would not pledge to give my life to defend something I had not studied ad nauseum. So like I said, I am unsure where you were going with that paragraph. This seems like a text book ad hominem circumstantial fallacy to me, but maybe I am missing the point. It is unfortunate we are all debating this by text. Maybe something is lost in translation?
10 days ago Like

Follow Michael J

Michael J Moylan Again it does have to be the miliary Think Peace Corps Tutor children inner cities Empty bed pains hospitals Selective service is still alive and 18 you must register. National Parks need Maintenance for the military Swiss model is a thought. I favor citizen Soldiers like what Stephen Ambrose wrote about @ Gabrielle I am a product of ROTC Military Scholarship Vietnam era. You just take the heat. At Niagara every male had to do it for the first two year You learned Leadership US history. No pay but you did learn about your country. Think of it as civics lesson. Quite honestly that is what is missing in our education. Social responsibility, a understanding of our history and the good bad and ugly. How we evolved going back to my first post. As I have mentioned before part of my family was in North America mid 1600's part came much latter. @ Mike Think of why the interstate were built. Construction crews CB's Army Corp of Engineers Freedom is earned not given it is not a born right.I appreciate your service I just see things a little different
10 days ago Like

Follow Gabrielle

Gabrielle Sutherland I am speaking as an historian. You asked me about ideology, so I answered. In order to institute a draft, the ideology that drives America would have to change from what it is now, to something different. I am not speaking about religion or morals; but of what drives civilization forward. Social contract theory is no mystery; it is built into the theories underlying the Constitution, as it was part of the thinking of the time in which it was written. Classical thoughts on democracy and freedom are also a part of what is in that great document, as well. In Classical Greek, one who does not serve/participate = idios, or idiot. The Constitution did not appear as if by magic, but out of careful thought and research. I'm not meaning to argue with you; I'm disagreeing with you as to what Freedom means. I also am taking a long view of History, and suggesting that we can change the direction of our culture by focusing on the very thing that matters most. We ought to focus on ends not means. Freedom is not a means. I have taught multiple hundreds of university students who are STARVING for this kind of lecturing. They want to know what is really happening in the world around them, and they want tough, realistic assignments that make them want to weep with despair but rejoice when they actually accomplish it. They want to KNOW "stuff." They want to feel confident and competent because they are not being passed along with platitudes and easy tests. They want to be told that they need to get away from video games and go make a difference. It feels good when someone tells them they have to actually DO something or fail the class, and no, their Daddy cannot get their grade changed. They want to engage the topic and actually understand it because it feels good to use your brain. The young women love to be able to say that they stopped dating a certain "boy" because he didn't want to hear her talk about what she learned about the world and thus, what she had decided to go DO. . . and it feels good. I say all that because I believe we CAN make a difference and change cultual thinking. I don't believe the average person wants to wallow in trash and non-thinking. I believe there has to be something else for people to choose, and those of us who can, ought to find ways to provide it.
10 days ago Like

Follow Mike

Mike Valley Interesting numbers for shock value, but I see serious flaws in that logic as well. So you are saying crime will become rampant and of the people who will go to prison (I see no numbers there)..17% of their children will be free and part of working America? If that is true...I have to ask what prison they will be working at...because the remainder of us who have not gone to prison will have all the other available jobs right? So you postulate militarizing the population will change all this? Do you actually think training this generation to kill will solve the issue? Do you actually think forcing an entire generation or 2 into military service will do anything but drive our military into chaos?

We have the greatest military the world has ever seen...because of the people. By and large the people want to be there While you are suggesting I study my history, I recommend you study yours with regards to conscript armies. An easy place to start would be the Vietnam war. I hope you do this in the spirit of noticing what happend to our military during this time.
10 days ago Like

Follow Mike

Mike Valley Michael, I am nothing if not a realist. And again I ask...how do we pay for these services you are talking about? Good interntions are great...but these unemployed people we are pressing into service have still got to eat and find shelter.

The New Deal (which built all those roads you are talking about) was a miserable failure. It was a slight of hand job to keep us busy while we looked for a real solution. Time and time again, Socialism has proven it will not work long-term.

As a point to ponder...it took a World War to drag us out of the depression. And now that my children are joining the military...I am not so hot on that idea. Yes...it was different when it was my life I was dealing with. (I think I am strting to understand what my mother went through...God rest her soul!)

Furthermore, citizen soldiers will not be able to defend us against a true professional army unfortunately.

Michael, you are I may see things differently...but we will pay for them the same way. In this case...the math doesn't parse out.

From: Centre for study of Intelligence Operations

10 days ago Like

Follow Gabrielle

Gabrielle Sutherland Thanks MJM, and again, I agree. I must not have been clear @Mike. I was agreeing to the service element, and your reference to the military during Viet Nam only strengthens my contentions (from my perspective) that it requires a change in ideology. I don't believe that young people in today's world or even those who came after Viet Nam have the same viewpoint as the Viet Nam era "flower children." The Millenials are of a different mindset. The numbers I gave you don't equate to the argument you are throwing back, so let's just let it rest, ok? I was talking about the poverty faced by this generation, and the need for SOMETHING to be done. I have served on several national commissions specifically tasked with trying to figure out what to do. It's a serious problem, and it will not be simple to fix. It's not just a problem for right now; but a problem that will have lasting ramifications because we're talking about real people who are having families they need to feed & house and have a meaningful existence. Their parents are continuing to age, and we have to deal with these issues. There are no easy answers, but many people are trying to come up with solutions. Finding a better way is a good attitude with which to begin.Working together is also a good motto. @MJM I agree wholeheartedly. There are so many places in need, and service is after all a path to meaningful happiness. And one never knows.....my brother perches in trees for a living! But wait--...are you telling me your people were here BEFORE the 1600s? Mine arrived in 1623. In fact I'm very proud of the fact that my many-timesgreat grandmother (Winifred) came over and was immediately clapped into chains for "speaking her mind" on board. Her ship's name: The Defiant!!
10 days ago Like

Follow Mike

Mike Valley Well personally I am a university student again...and I love these ideaological debates. However I have seen alot more than your usual student in my 3 trips circumnavigating the globe. I have seen the worst possible case studies of humanity with my own eyes.

Luckily, I have also seen some of the most noble and righteous examples of humanity as well.

But afterall, it all comes down to realism. To the people who don't like it here, I like to remind them the borders are open! Go and try to find a better situation...I dare you. And if they do, I say they will be back...if they surviive the trip.

From personal and hard-earned experience I can say with full authority...we have it better here than anywhere else on the planet. Our system isn't perfect by a long-shot...but it's the best thing going...bar-none.

From: Centre for study of Intelligence Operations

10 days ago Like

Follow Michael J

Michael J Moylan Family lived in Acadia now called Nova Scotia Were forced to leave after the war of Spanish.Sucession Then escape to New Brunswick and Madawaska Money to pay for projects think of 78 weeks of Unemployment at least we get something for our money.
10 days ago Like

Follow Federico

Federico Schiavio Agha, regarding your earlier comment on glory and heroism. If you hadn't specified suicide bombings and IEDs one could have been fooled into believing you were describing drones.
10 days ago Like

Follow Federico

Federico Schiavio @ Mike Valley, I agree 100 % with your comment for I too can say it with full authority.
10 days ago Like

Follow Gabrielle

Gabrielle Sutherland authority /THrit/ Noun The power or right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience: "he had absolute authority over his subordinates". The right to act in a specified way, delegated from one person or organization to another.
10 days ago Like

Follow Mike

Mike Valley Gabrielle, I believe your definition of the word authority is rather narrow. As a self identified college professor, I am sure you know the word authority has many different meanings... I respectfully submit the following: And I draw your attention to numbers 4a and 8. authority (-thr-t, -thr-, -thr-, -thr-) n. pl. authorities 1.a. The power to enforce laws, exact obedience, command, determine, or judge. b. One that is invested with this power, especially a government or body of government officials: land titles issued by the civil authority. 2. Power assigned to another; authorization: Deputies were given authority to make arrests. 3. A public agency or corporation with administrative powers in a specified field: a city transit authority. 4.a. An accepted source of expert information or advice: i.e. a noted authority on birds; a reference book often cited as an authority.

b. A quotation or citation from such a source: biblical authorities for a moral argument. 5. Justification; grounds: On what authority do you make such a claim? 6. A conclusive statement or decision that may be taken as a guide or precedent. 7. Power to influence or persuade resulting from knowledge or experience: political observers who acquire authority with age. 8. Confidence derived from experience or practice; firm self-assurance: i.e. played the sonata with authority.
10 days ago Like

Follow Gabrielle

Gabrielle Sutherland Sorry @Mike, but the way the word was used was incorrect. A person does not give him or herself authority. We can (as in definition #8) act with authority (but not "full" authority), but the only way we can speak with authority is on behalf of an authority that has vested us with the right to do so. As you see in the example, the "authority" is granted by the viewer watching the player of the sonata. The sonata player does not tell people he played with authority. It is always up to others to grant it. It is prepositional and in the origins of the word, it plays an important role that has been preserved through the ages. We can speak with emphasis, we can say we absolutely agree, or have had the same experience, or vehemently agree. We can say we affirm what another says, but again, no one can give him or herself authority. I suppose, if @Frederico were an accepted authority in a source that everyone accepted, which would have to be an encyclopedia of words spoken by military men about their experiences that all military men everywhere agree with (Let's just say we could find such a source) then I suppose @Frederico could point to that and say: "I am an authority." He would be considered crass to do such a thing, but there are people with huge egos who do not follow etiquette and point to such things instead of waiting for others to mention it. It would even then be considered correct for him to say instead: "I am an expert on all things that military men everywhere believe." If you want to claim authority for traveling --was it 3x around the globe?-- and then making this assertion, what will you do with others who have travelled the same and possibly more (myself included) and have not come to the same conclusion? I am not saying I agree with you or disagree, but I will not say that I have the authority to state any such thing unequivocally! Where and how would I have been granted such a thing? I could, however, state my opinion. Authority is bestowed, granted, vested, specified, etc. It is closely aligned with power and jurisdiction. It is an ancient word: Auctoritas. Words mean things. Words themselves have power.
10 days ago Like

Follow W. Scott

W. Scott Malone @ Gabrielle - Above my Pay Grade, but fascinating, nonetheless. Thank ya'll. - Scott
10 days ago Like

Follow Michael J

Michael J Moylan Lesson that I learned from history of moms family Acadians were a peace loving agrarian society. Once a young couple got married they built them a house cleared so they could raise food. The government for a long time was the parish church. They had a sense of community.They worked hard every day to sustain themselves and their community. They could care less about politics but the wars in Europe and here in North America destroyed their lives. From the cultural experience we need three things. Strong work ethic, sense of community and a understanding that governments doesn't always do right by their people @ Mike Valley like you sir I served. However birth does make you an American. By law it does but not by action. I believe many US citizens feel they are entitled to a government that supports them. I don't. The work ethic and the error of our ways needs to be taught. Service to the country must be mandatory for every young American. This service does not have to be military. Some one before your service did that. Then you did it. Your children should not be exempt from that basic civic duty. Liberty does come with a ongoing cost and I favor we all need to contribute to our society After WWI we downsized the military. That was a huge problem WWII. I had family that worked for the CCC. To this day there are monuments to their work. That put people to work and gave them skills Yes you are a realist and I understand the expense. Question is can we not afford to do this? . Back to unemployment. 78 weeks. Lets get something out of that money that the job creators pay to the government to give it away Job training force them to do it before they get a check.. There needs to be motive. There needs to be skills. Two many people want good paying jobs but don't have the skills I put forward a plan. So please give me how you think we can make this problem go away. There are many Americans for a lack of a better phrase do not have a work ethic. Sounds like the Roman Empire all over again.
9 days ago Like

Follow Gabrielle

Gabrielle Sutherland I agree wholeheartedly Michael, This is an idea on the table, which addresses multiple problems currently present and looming. It also applies the topic posted above. Thanks for this.
9 days ago Like

Follow Mike

Mike Valley Mr. Moylan, I have already stated the only way to fix the issue we face in the entitlement society we are currently laboring under starts at home. However, lets look at why the "skills" needed for the good paying jobs are not there. 1. Poor motivation 2. Poor schooling/educational opportunities 3. Total lack of work ethic Again...motivation, work ethic, and schooling begin in the home! We want to change things, we have to push our kids to do better than we did. We do not require they follow in our footsteps, but we make every opportunity to work for a better future available to them. I believe large portions of our society have decided we have a right to be happy...however the Constitution only guarantees the pursuit of happiness, not the actual capture of said happiness. We must teach our children to pursue is with all legal means and costs. While the idea of making people earn their unemployment is great in theory, again you will be hard pressed to put your plan into action. First issue I see, all major infrastructure reconstruction plans require capital funding approval. Not every community will requires such improvements. Therfore we now have to ship personnel around the country...and house them...and feed them. Secondly, while having unemployed people working on the sites would be great, I am afraid almost alll jobs of this type are covered under union contracts, which in most cases are required by law in most states. Here you run into a legal fracas like you can not imagine. Thirdly, while these people are working on these projects, when are they supposed to be looking for a permanent job? Unfortunately the unemployment infrastructure will not support this type of action as it is currently devised. So you asked what I would do if I were in the position to make changes today. 1. Reduce/eliminate governmental "pork barrel" spending (can anyone say bridge to nowhere?). 2. Eliminate tax breaks/loopholes for corporations who send jobs overseas. 3. Eliminate laws restricting research and development of new technologies (therby creating new jobs). 4. Use the money gleaned from #1 to really invest in #3. 5. Use money gleaned form #2 to reinvest in emergency services (police/fire etc) therby creating jobs in that sector 6. Heavily invest in our schools thereby making our children more competitive in the global market (i.e. technology and applied skills classes) 7. Eliminate Congressional oversite of professional sports activities 8. Eliminate preferential healthcare treatment for members of congress 9. Suspend all Congressional raises and breaks until such time as long-term plans are put into place approved Ok, now 7, 8, and 9 are my "wish list", but I think you can see where I am coming from.

But again, the bulk of the changes we need to make start at home and will take some time for them to be effective.
9 days ago Like

Follow Laura

Laura Bozzay Wow this thread is all over the place! Going back to the original idea... is America dead? My take on it is that compared to the values in place in 1700s America 2000s America is a very different place and the values in place today have replaced those that drove the original Constitution. We are not a democracy... we are a democratic republic... which is different from a democracy. That means population centers alone do not run this country. That is hard concept for some to get. Are we polarized? I think we are more regionalized... the needs of those on the coasts are different from those in the middle of the country just as the North and South (remember the Civil War?) have different needs. Our form of government allows for all these needs to be taken into consideration. America decides via its voters who will represent them. If they don't like what those people do they have the option of voting them out of office. Just look at voter history in the past 20 years to see how this country's moods have been changing. The fact is, we have too many people still out of work. These are people who for the most part want to work but can't find a job. Social programs are dependent on taxes. Taxes come from people working. If you want strong social programs you have to put people back to work in this country. The government can't solve anything on its own... it has no money except for what comes in via taxes. Printing more money just devalues the money you have. Not a solution just creates a different set of problems. The first step is to change how our unemployment is calculated. Take the number of people between 18 and 65 and look at what % is working. Subtract those who are institutionalized in prisons, nursing homes, etc. Subtract full time students. Subtract those who are fully retired and drawing on retirement funds only for their expenses. The remaining numbers is your true unemployment number which is much higher than what is currently reported because so many people are no longer counted. I think the fact that we see Congress compromising right now is because in the last election neither party was given a mandate. The mood of the American people is tied to their financial security. Because our economy has been less than stellar it gives the impression that America is dead. I see it more as a giant whose focus has shifted to more internal than external things for a little while.
9 days ago Like

Follow Gabrielle

Gabrielle Sutherland @Laura, I agree with much of what you say. I would say, however, in accordance with the original topic, that America is not dead because the Constitution was set up as a dynamic text to be able to grow, change, and evolve with the values and mores of the times. Some of the values of the past seem better than we hold now, but some of ours are better than those of the past, because we perceive those of the past in a rose-colored-

glasses hue. Much of the past was more brutish than we would ever allow, and the way Congress tended to business would horrify us! Bribery was common womanizing was not scandalous, and they often resorted to physical violence in chambers. . .so there are things about the present that are MUCH better :) Things change for many reasons, and are country is purposely set up for constant reform in order to avoid revolution. @Mike, I think that's my response to you. The suggestion you pose would necessitate revolution, and that's not the country we have: our founders heeded the words of John Locke and purposely instituted a government of constant reform and institutional change. if we want change, I agree that it must come from deep within, and that include ALL sociological structures (which includes the family). That is why it must be ideological, for reform is an internal process that is organic and part of societal self determination.
9 days ago Like

Follow Mike

Mike Valley Laura, you are absolutely right with regards to the US being a democratic republic. In fact as I recall, from a Constitutional Law class years ago, the word democracy is never mentioned in the Constitution. Unfortunately a true democracy where the masses vote on every detail, will not function as it would be completely mired in constant voting and ultimately fail. Just a point I always thought was interesting from my years with the US military, I always thought it strange I paid taxes on my salary...that came from tax dollars. Always felt like they got me coming and going there. A humorous side note, one night while on duty, I had an irate wife on another sailor arrive at my post. She demanded to see her husband. Unfortunately due to the scope of the work we were involved in, I would not let her pass and was not able to contact her husband. The now completely irate spouse stated she paid taxes and was therefore paying my salary, making her my boss. Without missing a beat, I responded (quite without forethought) I also paid taxes and was therefore self-employed! She left in a huff...and I was forced to "chew my hat" to keep from laughing myself into hysterics.
9 days ago Like

Follow Mike

Mike Valley But Gabrielle, as you stated in an earlier post...we have a revolution in our country every 4 years. Now if you mean some sort of an armed revolution, exactly where are you getting that from? I never said anything about the forced use of arms...moreover I have advocated not forcing people to serve their country unless it is their choice during this entire debate. As I recall you were the one stating mandatory service would be the cure to all ills here. I might add mandatory service requires force or threat of some sort of force for implementation. Was something lost in translation here?
9 days ago Like

Follow Laura

Laura Bozzay On a side note, it is believed that Thomas Jefferson used many sources as inspiration for his drafts of the Constitution. One of the sources he may have used (there is disagreement about this) was the Confederation of the 1. Nations of the Iroqui. http://www.chegg.com/homework-help/definitions/iroquois-confederacy-or-five-nations-43 <http://www.chegg.com/homework-help/definitions/iroquois-confederacy-or-five-nations-43> Interestingly this government was a group of 5 tribes much like our states. It had 3 levels of government somewhat like we do. http://www.constitution.org/cons/iroquois.htm <http://www.constitution.org/cons/iroquois.htm> There was the local tribal councils (think local govt), then the Elk council which was comprised of members from each tribe (think Congress), and the woman's council who had ultimate decision on going to war as the women and children were most affected by war (think Supreme Court). Now what I find interesting is that if a member of the Elk Council abused power, the other members were obliged to beat the offending member with Elk antlers. Where did that get left out?! (Could not resist! I love history it is full of fun surprises). By the way if you look at the architecture of Congress before the 1800s there were lots of Native American motifs. These were obscured during the 1800s when the so called Indian Wars were taking place.
9 days ago Like

Follow Gabrielle

Gabrielle Sutherland You are right @Mike. I stand corrected. We do have a soft revolution in our country every 4 years by terminology used in political science. In the way of revolution vs. reform by way of societal constructs, that would be something different. I was mixing my discussion between political science and sociology, and forgot to state that fact when I changed hats. Please forgive my error. It is regrettable that we have so few words in the English language to use in these kinds of discussions, and that professional compartmentalizations utilize the same terms under different umbrellas.
9 days ago Like

Follow Mike

Mike Valley Ahh, Gabrielle, something was lost in translation and no appologies are necessary. So I believe we should start over here. *Hi, my name is Mike and I am a retired military, conservative, now working in corporate security.* But all joking aside, I have always loved the word "revolution". Unfortuantely is has so many meanings, it is almost as dynamic as the Constitution itself (with regards to its translation anyway). That being said, I would say you could use the word "revolution" with regards to our current societal debate. The word revolution means to turn, and perhaps what would satisfy both of our argments here would be if the societal VBAB's (Values, Beliefs, Attitudes, and Behaviors) would revolve back to what has been commonly called the "Greatest Generation". In my view, the societal norms of WW2 appear to have been formed by people who lived through the "Great Depression". So now on to the question as to how do we get back there. It is extremely unfortunate, but I believe we are headed for increased hard times and maybe another "depression". To further my point, let me say the world is currently in debt to the Chinese (I think we can all agree here). To compound the issue, the Chinese economic system currently requires a 12% increase annually, to stay solvent. At present they are only showing an 8% growth. I have already seen the effects of the global economic slowdown in my current industry. The orders for large mining equipment have severely dropped and we are currently in a "temporary shutdown" to be reevaluated next week. So with that in mind, I believe every industry will see this sort of issue in the very near future. And well...people will have to do alot more with alot less. While all of this is going on, crime rates will almost certainly rise, if only temporarily. This will force families to retreat to their homes and eventually families will be forced to pay attention to each other (Let's face it talking to your kids is so much cheaper than dinner and a movie or Disneyworld eh?). So as I see it, things will get worse, then people will realize they have to do something positive to improve their situation. This may take years, but eventually the "family" will start repairing the issues from the ground up (so-tospeak). As I said before, this is a revolution of sorts, well cyclical anyway, and it will go back the other way eventually. In these cases, natural selection will eventually weed out less than desirable traits (and people unfortunately) and things will get better, and then worse and then better again.

As I see it, my responsibility is to make sure my children are prepared for the changes and they come out on top with core morals (VBAB's) intact. Every generation has seen these changes, and to date, every generation has survived one way or the other. Maybe not the individual, but the generation survived.

So if you want to fix the entire situation, the way I see it, we add time with family, subtract the unnecessary BS from our lives and ride out the oncoming storm while teaching the next generation to do better. In the end we all emerge stronger, more focused, and more skilled with eachother. So how's that for a change of "umbrella"?
9 days ago Like

Follow Federico

Federico Schiavio Ha ha ha soft revolution every 4 years. If you want to know why I'm laughing, read Jesse Ventura's latest book Democrips and Rebloodlicans and you'll laugh too.
9 days ago Like

Follow Gabrielle

Gabrielle Sutherland Hi Mike. Pleased to meet you. As you can probably guess, I'm quite liberal as opposed to your conservative stance, which probably accounts for our differences. What we can agree on is the need for strong families. A strong family has an impact on the community, and strong communities can re-shape the world. I am a lover of Martin Buber and his words on the power of "the Spark that leaps across the Gap." He wrote about the need for communities that foster life, and I think with effort we can get there. We'll only do it if we learn to reach across the gaps that divide us, though. I don't believe we need to figuratively pound our chests and declare a presumed superiority over other countries and regions in the world. Maybe "the greatest generation" will be the one that figures out how to reach out without guns or bribes. To me, that means I need to care for more than just my own fabulous children, but also yours and others too. I like your umbrella in general. It's a good starting place :) What this topic brings out is how the world sees us, and that's a sad reality we need to fix. America has ever been a

nation full of differences. The changing list of what those differences are should not make us afraid to move forward.
9 days ago Like

Follow Michael J

Michael J Moylan Some interesting points We Have always been a republic House of representatives proof of that' Mike points 1 thru 6 no problem however you have families that don't work @Gabrielle you are right however most revolutions are violent Hobbes social contract based on the thought we give up some rights and pass them on to the government for civil order. Could make this longer but hope I have made my point. We need government to achieve peace and tranquility. They also must listen. The problem is they spend more time getting elected than being representatives . I said this before term limits. This is a nation divided but more red states than blue. Reds do not have enough votes because of population. That is a key issue. Gabrielle you know I pride myself in understanding the constitution They the two houses need to represent and stop running. Also eliminate lobbyist. Really changes big business influence Mike Valley good comments. However I still disagree with you at times Hope that is all right. Gabrielle hope I have helped thank you my friend
9 days ago Like

Follow Gabrielle

Gabrielle Sutherland I'm nodding as I read this @Michael. The response, the questions, what do we do about the not-so-good families and how do we take care of others? I believe we are responsible and accountable for our communities. And yes, I agree with you on Hobbes. Hey, do you think he was a very nice person to know? I always imagine him being the one who no one else wanted to play with! Not that that matters. And you're right...... the question of revolution vs. reformation, is not really a choice, is it? It must be regulated, else it's the former. Hobbes, Locke, and

Rousseau if you can stand him (ugh)....maybe I just want to choose James Madison" (ok, I'm a Madison fan!!!) I agree with you COMPLETELY on the too much time spent getting re-elected and not enough time (if any) actually representing--YES! You just gave me a new phrase. I would normally have said Legislating. From now on, it's "representing" YES :) I laugh (in a bad way) any time I hear a politician talk about retiring and becoming a lobbyist. Oh my . . .

Thanks, my fellow journeyer!

9 days ago Like

Follow Mike

Mike Valley I have always said the world need lovers and warriors. A one-sided society will fail. warriors need to know they are fighting for something beautiful. And the central meaning of that statement can be spread to liberals and conservatives alike. Well I believe the strong survive, and anyone who doubts that has only to study the flora and fauna about them. I also believe strength is not always in your "sward arm" so-to-speak, but often in your mind. With that in mind, I have taught (and continute to teach) my children, (all the way from my 18yr old down through to my 5 year old) how to fight, how to hunt, how to fix things, how to grow things, how to make fire, and how to work. In essence, how to survive if necessary in as many sitations as I can think of. And yes that includes academics as well. But more than that, I have taught them, we never, ever, ever give up. the moment you give up, you start failing. And they all know sometimes failing means dying. Another, and very important lesson I have taught them is we do not accept bullying from anyone, ourselves included. Now with that said (and yes Virginia there is a point to all this), bullies only respond to strength, and sometimes that strength must be utilized. You can not just tell a bully to stop and expect him/her to do so. Sometimes you have to fight. When it comes to nations (or just regimes within a nation) this is accomplished through strength of arms. With that, I postulate the following: "The Art of War teaches us to rely not on the likelihood of the enemy's not coming, but on our own readiness to receive him; not on the chance of his not attacking, but rather on the fact that we have made our position unassailable" - Sun Tzu In the days of Rome, the empire was thought to be the "shining light in the darkness". And now is our turn to hold the candle. No, we ar enot perfect, but it is far better here than anywhere else I have been. In this country, I have never heard of and entire town/village marched to a dug out pit or a natural gorge to be shot and thrown in. And I mean everyone...men, women, children, everyone. But I can tell you, I have seen this with my own eyes on 2 different continents. Actually I have seen far worse, but that is not a discussion for this venue. So, if a bully (or a regime) knows you are more than capable of stopping them, they are far less likely to cause you or your friends trouble. To put it in Mutual of Omaha Wild Kingdom language (still love that show!) Never poke a

sleeping bear! As we all know, there will always be bullies (and bad guys), it's just the nature of the beast. And with that, there must always be someone to stop that bully. And right now...that's us and our allies. If you can think of another country or body that could do the job...then I would gladly hand the baton/sword over to them. Until such time, it is our burden. And with all that said, I reiterate my sentiment, America is not dead, nor will it die on my watch! But more to the point, America is not dead as long as we remember what she stands for...Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Reading back over this, I realize the Star Spangled Banner should have been playing while reading this. Now I will take my soapbox and go home...LOL
9 days ago Like

Follow Michael J

Michael J Moylan @ Mike Valley to make it easier for every one MJM is good
9 days ago Like

Follow Mike

Mike Valley MJM, things fail everyday. We can never fix that, no matter how hard we try. Eventually we must all take responsibility for our own failures jsut as we have to take credit for our own successes. Remember what I said about natural selection? The weak ones, the failed ones will eventually be weeded out. You and I are not responsible for the mistakes of others, especially if they go against the societal norms/laws. Protect, prepare and educate the willing as well as possible and the chips will eventually fall where they will. Its a hard lesson, but a lesson all the same. Eventually we all "Pay the debt that all men owe", don't we? Oh and please disagree on any subject you like. If we all agree then we have done something wrong. Group-think is dangerous and there are always other options! As far as I know, none of us are omniscient are we?
9 days ago Like

Follow Michael J

Michael J Moylan @ Mike Valley There are many things we do see in the same light. I may word it different than you So the next point is a disagreement. We are only as strong as our weakest link. That is what I was taught in the infantry. Please don't make a comment about us Airborne guys. We go places that we need this believe We are a team we work together. That said I know I will lose some. At this time there is a better way to run this gang called congress. I will work to defend this constitution and I will fight like hell to get us back on course. That to happen takes all of us. So part of my plan does not work for you. Part of your plan does not work for me. Part of your wish list is on mark. However there is a bigger game. We all need to stand up and say I am mad as hell and I will not take it any more. That come from a trailer of a movie I never saw. News if I am correct but I think I was in a refugee camp after the fall on Nam. That is where I learned to give up is not a good thing. I understand your comment about the border but why leave when you get a free check. I Prefer to make them work for it If you are like me when I got out of the service IBM saw something in me they were willing to take a chance, So sir there are skills we can teach that will make someone else willing to hire them and give them a chance. My wifes cousin served in the peace corp in Africa. He came back a changed man. Sorry to say he is more liberal than I ( could never be that liberal I am a fiscal conservative and a social moderate)but it changed his life and he has done well. So I suggest some of what I say can make this happen. They are gonna spend the money anyways last for days proved that. So why not get what we can out of it? Pax Vorbiscum or Give them HELL Best wishes MJM
9 days ago Like

Follow Laura

Laura Bozzay This country's greatest strength is its diversity and the fact that you can express opposing views. This country's greatest weakness is its diversity and the fact that you can express opposing views. This forum is showing the resilience as well as the diversity of this country. We are not all alike, we do not all think alike, but we care and that is what ultimately makes the difference. We know one vote matters and can change the outcome of an election. We know we are stronger together and when people think we are weak because we may disagree with each other, they find out how strong we are if they push us. One of our strengths is

that we care about ourselves and the rest of the world even if people in some of those countries don't care about each other. We are not always right, and yes, we make mistakes because we are comprised of people and no one is perfect. And because of all of this we are not dead..
9 days ago Like

Follow Leo

Leo Laffittes AMERICA , no esta muerta ......

8 days ago Like

Follow Gabrielle

Gabrielle Sutherland A word about "Democracy" so that we can continue to discuss the supposed death of America, and maybe even parse the "umbrella" a bit more. While we do not have a governmental system of Pure Democracy as duly and correctly noted, we do practice and utilize principles of democracy. "Democracy" is at the heart of the foundation of who we are, and the governmental makeup is a modern variation of the classical form of Democracy. http://politicsandgovernance.blogspot.com/2010/06/aristotles-forms-of-government.html Historically speaking, the American version does not define the model, but rather fits within it: "Rule by Many." Since "Demos" is the people, technically, the word democracy means "rule or government of/by the people" so technically, it's an appropriate word to use for America, depending on the context of the discussion. The only time it is NOT correct is in a political science or government description. Just sayin'
8 days ago Like

Follow Leo

Leo Laffittes Lo escribo en Espaol , para seber a donde llega la Democracia ;;; " La Democracia es muy elastica" (todo depende del cristal con que mira y se analisa)

8 days ago Like

Follow Gabrielle

Gabrielle Sutherland I completely agree @Leo! And that, too, might be part of this discussion; maybe our vision of what America should be colors our response?
8 days ago Like

Follow Michael J

Michael J Moylan One comment unlike the Greek city state you can not get all the people to meet in one place. New England does have town meetings where everyone votes on every issue one a year. We are a republic by design the founding fathers understood for all of us to meet would just not work. I will say that is why the house exist. There is a reason the senate was designed the way it is. Had to do with balance of power and the ability to get the constitution passed. That is to long but think of them as modeled off the house of Lords. There is a book written by a Stanford professor May 30, 2010 Jack Rakove's new book tells the story of the American Revolution from a multitude of shifting angles. This is a good read and explains this better than I Bear with my spelling The name of the book The Revolutionaries: Next you can go to the ACLU Get a free copy of the US Constitution That may help
8 days ago Like

Follow Gabrielle

Gabrielle Sutherland Love this MJM. Great summation. I'm going to look up this book! Have you ever read any of the Icelandic Sagas that include the Allthing? Makes me think of your reference to the "multitude of shifting angles" as the various sagas and types of saga accomplish that same thing.

8 days ago Like

Follow Gabrielle

Gabrielle Sutherland Mindful of the Philosophers who influenced the Founding Fathers, and thinking about what we've been talking about...how do we understand ourselves in light of our constructed "memories" (and I'm thinking of "Memory" as written about by John Locke) a good friend passed this article to me this morning, and I think it speaks well to this discussion: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/04/science/study-in-science-shows-end-of-historyillusion.html?_r=1&
8 days ago Like

Follow Leo

Leo Laffittes "COEXISTENCE" , is a handsomely "word" key for "Democracy".... Philosophers, writers, of the past were great people for their times; and is good to remember them and the way our parents teach us how to conduct our self... but lets see how we can coexist and work together for a better and strongest democracy.
7 days ago Like

Follow Federico

Federico Schiavio America the Republic died in 1945 and gave birth to America the Empire which is very much alive and well.
7 days ago Like

Follow Federico

Federico Schiavio @ Mike Valley and Gabrielle Sutherland. RE: History is written by the winners. Sorry it took so long to re-comment on yours, been busy. I was not referring to ancient history but to more recent times. Have you ever heard of HSCA? It was the 2nd Investigation by Congress into the JFK assasination, United States House of Representatives Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA). The HSCA investigations by congress went against the findings of the Warren Commission and both reports are from the same source, Congressional Committees. Which is true? Why do we only teach one to our children in school?
7 days ago Like

Follow Laura

Laura Bozzay If America is an empire why don't all these other countries work like it? I think the reality is we are nothing like an empire. We do get asked to help in many ways including money, military backing in case of war (read that as NATO type alliances), and peace keeping efforts as part of the UN, as well as direct intervention in specific events. We are like the big kid who protects the little kids on the playground and that often makes us a target of the bullies, those who want to take over some of the little kids and push their way on the world. America does not go out and try to annex other countries. Most Americans would be content to stay here, watch sports, go shopping, and never have to worry about what is going on in other countries. But the world is not at peace today and that makes for a very unhappy playground.
7 days ago Like

Follow Gabrielle

Gabrielle Sutherland @Federico, I don't know how we would accomplish what you're asking for. FIrst, it is incorrect to state that History is written by the winners. . . and what you are listing here is not History. You are talking about events that happened in the recent past that are not yet "history." We cannot yet process them in a way that historical method allows because we lived during the time period; the necessary records that allow for what an historian does have not been released; and too many current issues and policies are still attached or tied into the study which would limit accessibility. An historian does not report facts or data; a journalist does that. An historian does not do the "who, what, where, when, why" thing. That's why newspaper articles are not history. A newspaper article about a specific subject can be a piece of evidence an historian uses as part of a study, but it is very low on the list for "good" material. No historian would ever use a news article as proof or even a substantial basis of an event or a credible idea. News articles occur to make a profit, and journalists sign no oaths, nor do journalists get trained in historiography. Historians research and investigate and gather evidence which is then analyzed and interpreted. The evidence is categorized and placed with other evidence which supports the direction of the hypothesis. Facts like the weather or provable topography or verifiable genealogy, multiple bank account records--all these have to support the stories that are also gathered, and government commissions, especially, are also a group of stories--albeit under oath. The historian always investigates every member who sits on a commission, the witnesses, and a number of other factors before making any kind of analysis. This can't be done during our own lifetime because we have too much bias

going into the study. In governmental processes, it can't be done during recent events because of the confidential nature of the subject matter. Why don't we teach these things to our children? What kind of classroom (and what age group) studies congressional committee reports and what kind of teacher is qualified to do this? The Warren Commission came out immediately after the events and were part of the event itself. 1964 is old enough that it has technically passed into a status that it can be placed into Social Studies, so it is. The HSCA findings are still too new for that. In a system where we paid teachers more and hired teachers who actually kept up with political events and kept current in their research like college profs do, you might see a LOT more being taught or discussed in the classroom-but what age group do you want to tailor this for? Perhaps if we allowed teachers to teach content instead of answers to silly tests. . . but that's a different subject. We don't live in a world that teaches children how to learn; we live in a worldview that teaches children answers to preconstructed tests in order to get jobs (that no longer exist).
7 days ago Like

Follow Federico

Federico Schiavio @ Gabrielle: History to me is anything that happened before now. Type in "history definition" in Google and this is what comes up; history /hist()r/ Noun The study of past events, particularly in human affairs. The past considered as a whole. Synonyms story - tale Type in "Ancient History Definition" in Google and this comes up: ancient history Noun The history of the ancient civilizations of the Mediterranean and the Near East to the fall of the Western Roman Empire in ad 476. Something that is already long familiar and no longer new, interesting, or relevant. Why is it wrong to state that history is written by the winners? How long ago does something have to occur to be considered history and who determines that? This link is an NBC news clip from 1978 and I consider it historical. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHNQdL9eImM&feature=player_embedded Do Historians pledge an oath?

I think enough time has passed now and the HSCA should be in Social Studies but I wouldn't bet on it. Anybody have a recent Social Studies book handy? I understand your explanation of how historians write history, they have to wait for the government to release classified documents. From which, in theory, they will glean the truth. I can't say that and keep a straight face at the same time. :) If as you say, " The historian always investigates every member who sits on a commission, the witnesses, and a number of other factors before making any kind of analysis. This can't be done during our own lifetime because we have too much bias going into the study. " In the JFK case they are all dead so what are they going to do? Dig up the grassy knoll? I would tailor it for 10th grade SS. And agree with your description of the school system, it's a sad state of affairs.
7 days ago Like

Follow Gabrielle

Gabrielle Sutherland HI Federico, I don't want to belabor this, so I will try to be brief. One of the distinctions for between someone having a degree in history, and someone being a Professional is a taking of an oath. I think this is true for professions with the title "doctor," so the answer to your question is yes. I think it's probably a good thing that professional Historians don't resort to Google. I would hope that other professionals --or any workers--don't resort to Google when they go about the course of their duties either. That would make for a pretty scary world. The reason history isn't written by the winners is because it's simply not true. We have too many ways to discover what happened--kind of by triangulation-- despite what rulers/winners/ wanted to declare. Even their chroniclers give us clues in the very writings commanded of them. To write properly it's not ONLY about waiting for classified documents; it's also about waiting for sufficient time to go by for the entire 'story' to play out. If the story isn't complete, then we don't know what has happened yet, or why. Your jest about the grassy knoll is not far off. If someone wanted to know, he/she might dig under the hill, (I have many times formally requested and then spent the requisite months waiting for permission to dig, uncover, take apart, remove, etc.) what I needed in order to research or investigate my source. Someone in the future might utilize the remains of the surrounding utility tunnels and go upwards. Sometimes we can get lucky and pick a lock or two, find a good tunnel, and find what we're looking for. Other times we end up in a flooded tunnel full of creepy little things that bite! The important thing is to get the photographs and have a witness. Who is to say what will be in the future Dallas? Material history is an important aspect of research; I spend most of my time in the summers crawling around in old tunnels, tombs, crypts, dusty ruins, catacombs, and other dark places behind "walls" or "hills" or places grown over for generations--even centuries. It's amazing what can still be processed with a good utility map or blueprints, or someone's journal/diary. What happens before now might become History if it's interesting enough and if it has an impact on something or someone, but for now it's simply the past--and most of it will never be recorded or known.
7 days ago Like

Follow Federico

Federico Schiavio Hi Gabrielle I don't want to belabor it either but why can't Google catch a break? I had also come up with the Merriam Webster definition; Definition of HISTORY 1 : tale, story 2 a : a chronological record of significant events (as affecting a nation or institution) often including an explanation of their causes b : a treatise presenting systematically related natural phenomena c : an account of a patient's medical background d : an established record <a prisoner with a history of violence> 3 : a branch of knowledge that records and explains past events <medieval history> 4 a : events that form the subject matter of a history b : events of the past And Dictionary.com has it as;

history [his-tuh-ree, his-tree] Show IPA noun, plural histories. 1. the branch of knowledge dealing with past events. 2. a continuous, systematic narrative of past events as relating to a particular people, country, period, person, etc., usually written as a chronological account; chronicle: a history of France; a medical history of the patient. 3. the aggregate of past events. 4. the record of past events and times, especially in connection with the human race. 5. a past notable for its important, unusual, or interesting events: a ship with a history. Pretty much the same as the simplified Google definition. As far as the Ancient History Definition, Merriam Webster has it as; Definition of ANCIENT HISTORY 1 : the history of ancient times 2 : knowledge or information that is widespread and has lost its initial freshness or importance : common knowledge And Dictionary.com has it as;

ancient history noun 1. the study or a course of study of history before the end of the Western Roman Empire a.d. 476. 2. information or an event of the recent past that is common knowledge or is no longer pertinent: Last week's news is ancient history. 3. an event, as in a person's life, that occurred in the remote past and has no practical relationship with the present: She was my best friend in high school, but that's ancient history now. Again pretty much in line with poor old Google...
7 days ago Like

Follow Federico

Federico Schiavio Gabrielle, one other historical triangulation miss to close with; The Gulf of Tonkin Incident is the name given to two separate incidents involving the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the United States in the waters of the Gulf of Tonkin. On August 2, 1964 two American destroyers engaged three North Vietnamese torpedo boats, resulting in the sinking of one of the torpedo boats. This was also the single most important reason for the escalation of the Vietnam War. After Kennedy was assassinated, the Gulf of Tonkin gave the country the sweeping support for aggressive military action against the North Vietnamese. The outcome of the incident was the passage by Congress of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which granted President Lyndon B. Johnson the authority to assist any Southeast Asian country whose government was considered to be jeopardized by communist aggression. In 2005, an internal National Security Agency historical study was declassified; it concluded that USS Maddox had engaged the North Vietnamese on August 2, but that there may not have been any North Vietnamese vessels present during the engagement of August 4. The report stated It is not simply that there is a different story as to what happened; it is that no attack happened that night In truth, Hanois navy was engaged in nothing that night but the salvage of two of the boats damaged on August 2. In 1965, President Johnson commented privately: For all I know, our Navy was shooting at whales out there. In 1981, Captain Herrick and journalist Robert Scheer re-examined Herricks ships log and determined that the first torpedo report from August 4, which Herrick had maintained had occurredthe apparent ambushwas in fact unfounded. In 1995, retired Vietnamese Defense Minister Vo Nguyen Giap, meeting with former Secretary of Defense McNamara, categorically denied that Vietnamese gunboats had attacked American destroyers on August 4, while admitting to the attack on August 2. In the Fall of 1999, retired senior CIA engineering executive S. Eugene Poteat wrote that he was asked in early August 1964 to determine if the radar operators report showed a real torpedo boat attack or an imagined one. In October, 2005 the New York Times reported that Robert J. Hanyok, a historian for the U.S. National Security Agency, had concluded that the NSA deliberately distorted the intelligence reports that it had passed on to policy-makers regarding the August 4, 1964 incident. He concluded that the motive was not political but was probably to cover up honest intelligence errors. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=weKmluVfrLE&feature=player_embedded I'm pretty sure the Gulf of Tonkin was in my US History textbook in 11th grade. Of course it was a long time ago so I may be mistaken.
7 days ago Like

Follow Gabrielle

Gabrielle Sutherland @Federico, what I would suggest, is if these topics interest you. . . that you follow @Agha A's example. History is a dialogue between the past and the present and the very best historical evidence is the anecdote from first person experience. When it is tied to analysis that's even better. When it is linked to historical events in the past, which are then interpreted: that's "History." If you want to talk about the recent past and make historical judgments in an ongoing dialogue as an informed, educated person: this is the way to do it. It takes a lot of work, and careful assessment, but Agha's example is perfect.
6 days ago Like

Follow Michael J

Michael J Moylan @ Federico History is not a science it is the art of interpretation of facts. Two historians can differ in their interpretation of the events of a particular event. Scholars disagree on a regular basis. I am simple a student of history a life long passion. So let me give you a short version of what I mean. The battle of Gettysburg causes great discussion. Why did General Lee do what he did. Why was Jeb Stuart off running across the countryside instead of telling Lee what he knew?. Point is some events you try to put the facts together. But are they accurate? Do we know all the facts. What orders did Stuart get from Lee?. Do we have a accurate copy of the order of battle. Do we know for a fact Stuart did not send runners back to Lee? What do we really know what Lee's Generals told him. We both could, and historians have come up with different views. Then there is what we call the fog of war. When all hell breaks loose you after the battle get a bunch of different views of what happen. Depends where you were. What part of the battle you were at changes what you see. Hiding in a foxhole, running for your life. Or shooting anything that is on the wrong side of the line. A times our view is based on what we read. Is it accurate? Bias? Credentials of who wrote it. Eye witness? Journalist that has political leanings? Government officials that too could have a bias? Constitution should be pretty easy to understand. I can put four constitutional experts in a room and they may agree on certain points but disagree on much more. This is a document not a event in history and they still disagree. That said what we are trying to do is look at the key question of this discussion and find answers to the many questions that are part of this discussion You say America is a empire. I say it is a republic. I can prove that by the constitution and the way it works. Read

some of my earlier post. So you say it is a empire. Define empire and tell me how you determine we are what you think. Take your time reread all the post made in this discussion. You may get a different view of where we came from and where we are now at. @ Gabrielle Boy Have I missed a lot in a few short days Pax
6 days ago Like

Follow Federico

Federico Schiavio @ Michael America is an Empire because of the military, cultural, and economic influence we have over the rest of the world.
6 days ago Like

Follow Gabrielle

Gabrielle Sutherland @MJM I know, right? I'm glad you brought up the disagreement part of discussions. That's an important piece that ought to be mentioned. One of the things that might not be apparent is how much FUN that is, and also how important it is to the interlocutors involved. We love sharing sources, information, and beating our heads against each other because that's also how we continue to learn. I've never met a scholar whose end game wasn't just knowing more and understanding more.
6 days ago Like

Follow Redouane

Redouane Bounejmate Does America ( United States of America ) really have influence over the world, or does the world have influence over the United States of America? Shouldn't rather say that there is a 'relationship' between America and the Rest of the World, and that this is perfectly normal, considering the role that America has on this Planet? Isn't that what makes 'America' what it is? Wouldn't it have been 'Iran' instead if variables were different, and is that even possible, since there is already an

'Iran'? Is there a 'misunderstanding' of our role in defining our own destiny? Perhaps we're trying too hard, or we're neglecting ourselves from Fear?
6 days ago Like

Follow Michael J

Michael J Moylan @ Federico I do not want a statement I want fact. You still have not defined a empire So you say we are like the czars,Napoleon, Bismark, Constantine? But you are still off message. Tell me you that you have read every word from the beginning of this post. Simple yes will work

@ Redouane I agree. That is my point. It is what our founding fathers wanted no involvement with Europe and their war because from the 1600 it impacted us every day while they waged war with one another. We have been dragged into this fight since WWI Do not get me wrong our economic influence does affect the world. Ask someone in Montana what they want is very different than someone in New York city. Question is now do we help our citizens have a better life, yet let our industries grow. Do we do harm at times yes United Fruit in South America proves that point. So we can point to harm we also we can point to a desire for all of our citizens to become who they want to be. Problem is it does not always go to plan. Yet we do good! ask Europe the french would speak German if we did not get involved MacArthur after defeating Japan did not abuse the country but created the ability of Japan to change its social and economic situation. They were a vanquish enemy that was not abused but given a chance to rebuild themselves. We learn that lesson from what the French and the Brits did to Germany after WWI . We do wrong however we do more good than we are credit for. This discussion is have we lost our vision. Have we lost our work ethic. Have we failed to teach liberty comes at a cost and that every American owes something to his country. I will let someone else quote Kennedy at his Inauguration. I would hope we still are the beacon of hope. We also believe at least some of us we are not a social welfare program for those that do not to take responsibility for who they are or for nations want money then kill our citizens. Pax Romanus
6 days ago Like

Follow Jon

Jon Bojsen Kvrndrup Argh! Awesome discussion, too many posts, too many subjects! I gave up reading up on current posts like four days ago. First to the stuff I know about... @ Mike Valley Red Army vs. Wehrmacht vs. US Army, and who were the best soldiers... The Russians were not "unarmed" by the time the Germans destroyed more divisions of Russian troops than they had done against all the other enemies combined on the western and Scandinavian front (yeah I know my people's division wasn't much of a threat, but at least some southern Danes who hadn't heard we'd surrendered, destroyed 12 armored cars and damaged 3 tanks, and racking up a ten to one ratio in kills. Too bad we're talking like 200 to 20... ) The Russians were suffering from a basic problem in leadership brought on by Stalin's internal war against his own people. He'd all but destroyed the Russian officer core in the years leading up to the Nazi invasion, at the same time he was ignoring every bit of intel warning him of the massive German military buildup, so by the time they came under attack, the Russian troops had to deal with green leadership, disbelief from the top brass on what was going on. AND facing superior coordination both on the ground and in the air. Not to mention the numbers that were on their side at the end of the war, were around four times greater, than they were at the start. But even though the Germans came within 15 (!) miles of the Russian capital, they still couldn't deliver the knockout punch, because by this time Stalin understood what he was up against and set the leaders who actually knew what they were doing in charge of defenses. And while they clamored for him to send in reinforcements, more material and so on, he denied them everything, telling them to stop the attacker or die trying. Because he was waiting for the winter of '42. When he would throw every last bit of reinforcements he had, every newly constructed tank, everything Russia had, in the face of the Germans. So why does your claims of the lesser capabilities of the Wehrmach than ordinarily thought, ring quite hollow in the face of these facts? Because even though they hadn't managed to knock out the Russian Army and were wiped out in the end by the Russian winter and slowly increasing, untill at the end, vastly superior forces, the reasons for the Wehrmach being probably the greatest army in history, followed by Napoleon's Grand Armee, Alexanders army and the Roman Legions, is because they managed to knock out first Western Europe, then contain Britain, intimidate Denmark, beat the Norwegians, then conquer their way almost 1600 km of Eastern Europe, which in US terms, if they'd started from your eastern coast, New York City, Florida, etc. would have gotten them just about all the way through Arizona and Utah, and halfway through Idaho. And mind you, more heavily populated areas than the Midwest. And we're talking a front 3100 km wide, so we can easily include large parts of Canada AND Mexico in that equation. Obviously this example is completely hypothetical, as the US is protected by the Atlantic, which I may add - both you and Britain were DAMN LUCKY to be across Germany from in those days. I could go on about the details, but suggest that you check out pages like thishttp://ww2total.com/WW2/History/Orders-of-Battle/Germany/fighting-power-Wehrmacht.htm

So why is this a rant for me? Because we're dealing with yet another case of delusional approach to history... The US Army has never fought a war on the scale that either the Wehrmacht or the Red Army did. The generals of the American Army of it's day were well aware that they needed to bring as many factors on their side, as possible, before they dared attack the Wehrmacht. And afterwards they didn't dare confront the Russians in

an armed conflict, because Europe was devastated and the ratio of US troops to Russians were something like 1:12, so instead the Cold War started.
6 days ago Like

Follow Jon

Jon Bojsen Kvrndrup Now a disclaimer... I don't believe in war, I believe in peace. I believe in the infinitely greater forces that are brought to bear when people just do it, whatever it is they do, employed or otherwise. We are part of the way and the light, our ways are legion, our love awesome! Whatever religion or lack of the same, we rock. Ah but words ain't enough, you need music http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jEyLLpYAb1I However our abilities at destruction are terrifying. And when I look at war and it's consequences, you get a sense of the amount of creation we are capable of. Every time a child is born, someone is putting in at least some amount of work, 200 years ago the amount would be different, because life expectancy would be lower, but it still doesn't change the view that each and every one of us do at least more and most of the time all that must be done, to ensure our children safety, life and a future to believe in. Consider Russia under attack by Germany. Even though Stalin had wiped out, exiled or imprisoned countless people, the Russians were still able to stop and destroy the greatest military force the world has ever witnessed. But what was the price? Stalin lied about the loss of life in Russia because he was a firm believer in endless strength. He claimed around 7 million had died, so nobody would think Russia weak, his predecessors didn't want to play the same game, so they admitted the number was somewhat higher, 20 million. Today we have access to census numbers, "In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world." Sorry :) Before the invasion 1941 - Soviet Union population 196,7 million After a certain cooling down 1946 - Soviet Union population 159,5 million

When people are talking about the Fall of The American Empire, perhaps they are alluding to a certain lack of historical sense. The Americans didn't win the second world war, the Russians did. The Americans certainly did win the postwar world, because they gave aid, built nations, helped people. Worked intensely for life! And that is the great contribution of America to this world. Unlike any other nation, they have actually done that. Helped others rebuild. Perhaps that is the true content of the American Empire! But if we stop believing in it, then that empire disappears and only power remains. And power is transitory...
6 days ago Like

Follow Federico

Federico Schiavio @ Michael To me, my statement is fact and where in my statement do I say we are like czars, Napoleon, etc? I have not read every post from the beginning, is that a requirement? I simply happened to jump in at various points with comments I thought were relevant at those particular points. America is not the Empire of yore where you had to have garrisons in the occupied countries to control the populations. The United States of America is a modern Empire that rules primarily through Economic might. The US dollar is the currency of choice, oil is priced in dollars not Euros, or Yen or Yuan. When the US Stock Market closes on US Holidays the rest of the world markets tread water until we open up again. And yes, sometimes we invade random countries and put garrisons to keep the locals in check. And we still have military garrisons in countries we are at peace with to protect them from? If you still don't like my definition of Empire too bad. Pax Americanus
6 days ago Like

Follow Federico

Federico Schiavio @ Redouane yes the rest of the world has influence on the US because the US is made up of ex citizens of the rest of the world. The US is a melting pot. Technically, the only real Americans are what's left of the American Indians that survived ethnic cleansing and have finally caught a break thanks to the casinos they built on their lands, with which they are now taking to the poor house the descendants of those who ethnically cleansed their ancestors. How's that for poetic justice? At the same time the US also influences the rest of the world culturally with coca cola and rock n roll, financially with central banks, and militarily with arms sales and the occasional invasion.
6 days ago Like

Follow Gabrielle

Gabrielle Sutherland @Federico, do you think you could perhaps be mistaking "empire" for "power" ? Power includes influence and control (among other things), whereas "empire" is something quite specific. Have you considered that when you ignore commonly held definitions or constructs, that you are labeling your self as ignorant? There's nothing wrong with not knowing a thing, but insisting on it within a group of educated people seems either foolhardy, or perhaps you have an agenda other than discussing the topic?
6 days ago Like

Follow Federico

Federico Schiavio @Gabrielle So basically you disagree with me that the US is an Empire. I'm perfectly amenable to that, but a divergence of opinion does not make one ignorant. On the contrary, it promotes the exchange of opinions and ideas. Maybe you also consider Niall Ferguson, British historian, the Laurence A. Tisch Professor of History at Harvard University, Senior Research Fellow of Jesus College, University of Oxford and a Senior Fellow of the Hoover Institution, Stanford University. His specialty is international history, economic history, particularly hyperinflation and the bond markets, and British and American imperialism Author of Colossus: The Rise and Fall of the American Empire, as someone who labelled himself ignorant, in which case I find myself in perfectly good company. Oh, and I do want to mention in passing, Gore Vidal's; Decline and Fall of the American Empire.
6 days ago Like

Follow Gabrielle

Gabrielle Sutherland @Federico, I am very aware of Ferguson's semantics and his presentations throughout his books. Are you answering @MJM's question and saying that you align your definition along with your position with Ferguson's?
6 days ago Like

Follow Federico

Federico Schiavio @ Gabrielle I'm answering your previous post which I am pasting here for clarification; Gabrielle Sutherland @Federico, do you think you could perhaps be mistaking "empire" for "power" ? Power includes influence and control (among other things), whereas "empire" is something quite specific. Have you considered that when you ignore commonly held definitions or constructs, that you are labeling your self

as ignorant? There's nothing wrong with not knowing a thing, but insisting on it within a group of educated people seems either foolhardy, or perhaps you have an agenda other than discussing the topic? My answer to @MJM is a couple of posts above and he can deal with it when he reads it, you don't need to concern yourself with it. What are you a tag team?
6 days ago Like

Follow Gabrielle

Gabrielle Sutherland I think you might consider that I was using that as a a reference point for the conversation, since you were asked more than once, and I, too, have been waiting to hear a definition from you. Perhaps others have as well. You have yet to define it.
6 days ago Like

Follow Michael J

Michael J Moylan @Federico your answer to Gabrielle is less than kind . I do travel a lot so there could be days before a answer from my previous post would prove this. Know one claims you are ignorant we want fact please do not use words of emotion just state facts Second you did not answer the question Before you get angry read what we have done So sir where is the fact Yes this is not a jump in conversation and there are a lot of folks who were working on a agreement till you derailed the train. I tried to make the point and you said we were a empire I ask the question did you think we were czars, Napoleon, did not say those were your words Next study Bretton Woods US did not make our currency of choice Off Gold Standard Think Europe Then Read Lords of Finance deals with central Banks the establishment of the FED after WWI Another thing I know is central Banks if you want to get angry pick a European country. WWII could have been avoided if 2 central banks were nice to Germany. We were not a player. Can you answer who . US empire lets see China test that theory Wall Street Journal every day will prove that theory wrong YOUR LAST POINT --your words If you still don't like my definition of Empire too bad. What is it I Guess I missed that one so I will skip I want to go back to mission Now can we get back to mission

Is America Dead What does it take to make our society productive again I take Liberty Gabrielle is the Moderator
6 days ago Like

Follow Michael J

Michael J Moylan Federico has raised certain points but is not read into the discussion and seems not to want to read where we all started. SO Key Points TO Follow ike Valley Heroes/champions do what is right because it's the right thing to do, not because they were forced into it. The military is a choice...take it from a career warrior...it's not for everyone! If you want to change the way Americans look at their freedoms...then get rid of "reality TV" and shut down Youtube! (Please understand I am not directing this part of my rant or the rant which will follow, to you personally, I mean it in overall US cultural terms.) If you want to make future generations realize what they have..then stop agrandizing people like the Kardashians and the knuckleheads on Jersey Shore. These people are the worst kind of people! They are famous for having no skills and contributing nothing to society. Make sure people see the light with regards to them. You want to espouse the truest meaning of the freedoms I and others have shed blood for? Tell your (and I don't literally mean your personal children) "no" once in awhile. Tell them to earn what ever it was they wanted. See how much some material thing means to them then. But I digress...Teach your children (and again I do not mean your personal children) they are all part of a bigger machine...and they must do their part to make the machine run properly. I say to make sure they understand if they earn nothing...they get nothing in the end. My mother (a career US Marine) used to say, "Less than 1 one hundreth of 1 percent of the world is DIsney...the rest will try to grind you to dust!" I have raised my children (all 4 of them to date) in the same manner. Lastly, I am unsure where you were going with the social contract you were mentioning, but I assure you I fully understand the Constitution, in letter and spirit. I would not pledge to give my life to defend something I had not studied ad nauseum. So like I said, I am unsure where you were going with that paragraph. This seems like a text book ad hominem circumstantial fallacy to me, but maybe I am missing the point. It is unfortunate we are all debating this by text. Maybe something is lost in translation?
5 days ago Like

Follow Michael J

Michael J Moylan From Michael Valley EARLIER POST I have already stated the only way to fix the issue we face in the entitlement society we are currently laboring under starts at home. However, lets look at why the "skills" needed for the good paying jobs are not there. 1. Poor motivation 2. Poor schooling/educational opportunities 3. Total lack of work ethic Again...motivation, work ethic, and schooling begin in the home! We want to change things, we have to push our kids to do better than we did. We do not require they follow in our footsteps, but we make every opportunity to work for a bettefuture available to them. I believe large portions of our society have decided we have a right to be happy...however the Constitution only guarantees the pursuit of happiness, not the actual capture of said happiness. We must teach our children to pursue is with all legal means and costs. While the idea of making people earn their unemployment is great in theory, again you will be hard pressed to put your plan into action. First issue I see, all major infrastructure reconstruction plans require capital funding approval. Not every community will requires such improvements. Therfore we now have to ship personnel around the country...and house them...and feed them. Secondly, while having unemployed people working on the sites would be great, I am afraid almost alll jobs of this type are covered under union contracts, which in most cases are required by law in most states. Here you run into a legal fracas like you can not imagine. Thirdly, while these people are working on these projects, when are they supposed to be looking for a permanent job? Unfortunately the unemployment infrastructure will not support this type of action as it is currently devised. So you asked what I would do if I were in the position to make changes today. 1. Reduce/eliminate governmental "pork barrel" spending (can anyone say bridge to nowhere?). 2. Eliminate tax breaks/loopholes for corporations who send jobs overseas. 3. Eliminate laws restricting research and development of new technologies (therby creating new jobs). 4. Use the money gleaned from #1 to really invest in #3. 5. Use money gleaned form #2 to reinvest in emergency services (police/fire etc) therby creating jobs in that sector 6. Heavily invest in our schools thereby making our children more competitive in the global market (i.e. technology and applied skills classes) 7. Eliminate Congressional oversite of professional sports activities 8. Eliminate preferential healthcare treatment for members of congress 9. Suspend all Congressional raises and breaks until such time as long-term plans are put into place approved Ok, now 7, 8, and 9 are my "wish list", but I think you can see where I am coming from. But again, the bulk of the changes we need to make start at home and will take some time for them to be effective.
5 days ago Like

Follow Redouane

Redouane Bounejmate I think we are looking at things from the wrong perspective. If the U.S. can be said to be a 'Father' to other nations, then it can't also simultaneously take on the role of 'Mothership', no puns intended. It is perhaps time to draw lines specifically and in my opinion the invasion on Iraq has certainly 'defined' the role of the U.S. relative to 'Democracy', even if there are certain grey lines involved. The U.S. cannot just 'step into a country and turn the lights on'. It can however ensure the lines are there to follow on the international level, by simply being a perfect example. If we look at the U.S. relative to Mexico and Canada ( closest neighbors ), then we can observe a kind of peaceful coexistance, despite the issues that present themselves on the table. If perhaps we all follow that example from the original premise of 'Democracy', perhaps we will all find our problems are deeper fundamentally speaking and that even the U.S. has got much to do in those terms. Only, we are not letting the U.S. solve its own problems, and of course the U.S. administration will be pushed to be hypocritical because simply put, it is being asked for the impossible, at least from 2003 until today.
5 days ago Like

GordonUnfollow

Gordon Fowkes This is a very long and interesting read. I seem to have missed that part where the United States Army was made into a large professional long serving standing army around 1980. All previous large armies were temporary and subject to the presence of a clear, present and active threat. The Founders at the beginning and all subsequent Federal Administrations stood to the concept that when the big war wss over, the big army went home at least that part that were Federal volunteers like Teddy Rosevelt and the 1st US Volunteer Cavalry in addition to the militias of the states called to Federal Service. About 1905 om in the Dick Act, all state miliitas were given a cover organizatoin whe know today as the National Guard. WW 2 was fought with that form of army. The Cold War extended the workings of the Dick Act And the early years of the Cold War a reconstituted national structure for mobilization created Reserve and Guard payrolls and retirement plans. They were then allocated in real war missions that forced a focus on deployment. President Carter established the mobilizatoin structure that goes down the the local Naitonal Guard or Reserve training center instead of big replacement depots rife with disease. Thus peacetime structure tested wartime missions and doctrine and the whole of US military doctrine started to come together as if for combat by weekend. This status terrified a evil presence deep within the bowels of the Pentagon, and the decades of doctrine developoment was shredded in billows in the wake of departing aircraft while sub contractors and Senior Executive Seviciers crafted in a jumble in disjointed and counter productive whimsy while the aircraft were aloft.

Fortunately for the Nation, the American military doesn't follow rules they didn't write, something the Germans and Japanese found very confusing. And our troops, finally brought into battle in their own units as the law required and did a credible job, given the Idions in Ox problem. At Present, the full time establishment constitutes the first time the US ever put faith in a Standing Army after centuries of considering that something that should only be tolerated in small doeses. What we see know is the emerging of a new American government with a fourth Head of Government (the Pentagon) struggling to gain independance or control over state and local government, along with domestic and foreign policies. For many beyond the 12 mile limit, this is business as usual. What the Pentagon forgets for they have no understanding of internal peace and quite, is that there must be counter balancing firepower with an overlap in authority to keep the Pentagon in line. That is also an old story: The SS countered the SA which counterd the Armhy until the SS put down the SA and got the loyalty of the Army to Hitler and hte SS. Russoa had the GRU vs the KGB vs the Party, vs the Govt. Our Founders put the militia to keep the Army out of the kitchen, and the milita out of ships of war and full time employment, and the US Army and Navy to cover the frontiers. We have never had a standing army before and have forgotten the old adage that a standing army is standing threat to civil authority regardless of how evil or saintily either are.
5 days ago Like

Follow Michael J

Michael J Moylan Glad to here from you Gordon

5 days ago Like

Follow Federico

Federico Schiavio Part 1 @MJM I guess I'm not saying what you want to hear. At least Gabrielle picked up on it right away. Allow me to try to make you happy. The term empire derives from the Latin imperium (power, authority). Politically, an empire is a geographically extensive group of states and peoples (ethnic groups) united and ruled either by a monarch (emperor, empress) or an oligarchy. This was the answer you were looking for when you stated, "So you say we are like the czars,Napoleon, Bismark, Constantine? "

As I said before, that is the definition of empires of yore. As times change so should the definitions of certain terms such as 'empire'. Contemporaneously, the concept of Empire is politically valid, yet is not always used in the traditional sense; for example Japan is considered the world's sole remaining empire because of the continued presence of the Japanese Emperor in national politics. Despite the semantic reference to Imperial power, Japan is a de facto constitutional monarchy, with a homogeneous population of 127 million people that is 98.5 per cent ethnic Japanese, making it one of the largest nation-states. [George Hicks, Japan's hidden apartheid: the Korean minority and the Japanese, (Aldershot, England; Brookfield, VT: Ashgate, 1998), 3.] Characterizing some aspects of American foreign policy and international behavior "American Empire" is controversial but not uncommon. Stuart Creighton Miller posits that the public's sense of innocence about Realpolitik (cf. American Exceptionalism) impairs popular recognition of US imperial conduct. Since it governed other countries via surrogates domestically-weak, right-wing governments that collapse without US support.[Johnson, Chalmers, Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire (2000), pp.729] G.W. Bush's Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said: "We don't seek empires. We're not imperialistic; we never have been"[Niall Ferguson, Colossus: The Rise and Fall of the American Empire] directly contradicts Thomas Jefferson, in the 1780s, awaiting the fall of the Spanish empire: "...till our population can be sufficiently advanced to gain it from them piece by piece". [Sidney Lens; Howard Zinn (2003), The forging of the American empire: from the revolution to Vietnam, a history of U.S. imperialism pp 63-64] [LaFeber, Walter, Inevitable Revolutions: The United States in Central America (1993) 2nd edition, p.19] [Max Boot (May 6, 2003), American Imperialism? No Need to Run Away from Label, Council on Foreign Relations OP-Ed, quoting USA Today, retrieved 2008-01-06] In turn, historian Sidney Lens argues that from its inception the US has used every means to dominate other nations Since the European Union began, in 1993, as a west European trade bloc, it established its own currency, the Euro, in 1999, established discrete military forces, and exercised its limited hegemony in parts of eastern Europe and Asia. This behaviour, the political scientist Jan Zielonka suggests, is imperial, because it coerces its neighbour countries to adopt its European economic, legal, and political structures. [Ian Black (December 20, 2002), Living in a euro wonderland, Guardian unlimited] [EU gets its military fist, BBC News, December 13, 2002] [Nikolaos Tzifakis (April 2007), "EU's region-building and boundary-drawing policies: the European approach to the Southern Mediterranean and the Western Balkans 1", Journal of Southern Europe and the Balkans] [ Stephen R. Hurt (2003), "Co-operation and coercion? The Cotonou Agreement between the European Union and acp states and the end of the Lom Convention", Third World Quarterly] [ Europeanisation and Conflict Resolution: Case Studies from the European Periphery, Belgian Science Policy] [ Jan Zielonka (2006), Europe as empire: the nature of the enlarged European Union, Oxford: Oxford University Press] Continues in Part 2
5 days ago Like

Follow Gabrielle

Gabrielle Sutherland Just a note: Imperium = Imperialism; Potestas/potestatis = Power; Auctoritas = Authority; Iurisdictio = Jurisdiction; Dominium = dominion. They are different words with very different meanings. I added the last two because they are is also used within similar discussions. Latin is a more specific language than modern languages.
5 days ago Like

Follow Federico

Federico Schiavio Part 2 @MJM In his book review of Empire (2000) by Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, Mehmet Akif Okur posits that, since the 11 September 2001, terrorist attacks in the U.S., the international relations determining the world's balance of power (political, economic, military) have been altered. These alterations include the intellectual (political science) trends that perceive the contemporary world's order via the re-territorrialisation of political space, the re-emergence of classical imperialist practices (the "inside" vs. "outside" duality, cf. the Other), the deliberate weakening of international organisations, the restructured international economy, economic nationalism, the expanded arming of most countries, the proliferation of nuclear weapon capabilities and the politics of identity emphasizing a state's subjective perception of its place in the world, as a nation and as a civilisation. These changes constitute the "Age of Nation Empires"; as imperial usage, nation-empire denotes the return of geopolitical power from global power blocs to regional power blocs (i.e. centred upon a "regional power" state [China, Russia, U.S., et al.]) and regional multistate power alliances (i.e. Europe, Latin America, South East Asia). Nation-empire regionalism claims sovereignty over their respective (regional) political (social, economic, ideologic), cultural and military spheres. [For the Okur's thesis about "nation empires", look at the article: Mehmet Akif Okur, Rethinking Empire After 9/11: Towards A New Ontological Image of World Order Perceptions, Journal of International Affairs, Volume XII, Winter 2007, pp.61-93] These are the Empires of today and as I stated earlier and you decreed that I was not "stating fact" I reiterate; America is not the Empire of yore where you had to have garrisons in the occupied countries to control the populations. The United States of America is a modern Empire that rules primarily through Economic might. The US dollar is the currency of choice, oil is priced in dollars not Euros, or Yen or Yuan. When the US Stock Market closes on US Holidays the rest of the world markets tread water until we open up again. And yes, sometimes we invade random countries and put garrisons to keep the locals in check. And we still have military garrisons in countries we are at peace with to protect them from? This is my definition and if you don't accept it please refer to the definitions in part 1 which includes the sources they are cited from. Now to the rest of your latest post. Next study Bretton Woods US did not make our currency of choice Off Gold Standard Think Europe Then Read Lords of Finance deals with central Banks the establishment of the FED after WWI Another thing I know is central

Banks if you want to get angry pick a European country. Breton Woods? Gold Standard? who said anything about that? I said the US dollar is the currency of choice, meaning of the world.You go to any foreign country and pull out some greenbacks they're legal tender. They'll accept them and thank you. The FED was established in 1913 and if memory serves me right that was before WWI The Central bank blurb is from my other post to Redouane and what I meant there was World Bank, my bad there and in retrospect I should have said the financial influence consists of Credit Default Swaps and bad mortgage loans. And these next two comments of yours I just plain disagree with. WWII could have been avoided if 2 central banks were nice to Germany. We were not a player. Can you answer who . I don't know, enlighten me. US empire lets see China test that theory Wall Street Journal every day will prove that theory wrong I am not the only one who diverged from the topic at hand as Laura Bozzay Wow this thread is all over the place! Going back to the original idea... is America dead? Stated earlier in the discussion.
5 days ago Like

Follow Gabrielle

Gabrielle Sutherland Dear Federico. I do not see definitions in either part. I do see a series of references, and I know these citations and have read them and others in their genre. Along with Niall Ferguson, these writers are posing questions about American hegemony, and we do well to heed the warning. None of them are calling The United States an empire, however; they are writing about imperialism, or empire-like behavior. Pointing to American imperialism is not calling America an empire. Books on economic history follow certain rules, and that's what you're looking at with these authors and some of the articles. Ferguson became famous for his knowledge and particular view of the British Empire, as an economic power. Successive books tend to trade off the previous work where he borrowed from Gibbons' phrasing on empire. Modern economic historians either take an imperialist approach or a Marxist approach; or they nod in the direction of both in order to approach the discussion. This is part of following the "rules" for good economic history. It is relatively new in political science, and economics to write and talk about "regional" zones and the power of "the polis" but this is becoming more common as an hypothesis in journal articles and scholastic papers. Whether we see this actually occur in history or not will be interesting to find out. We certainly are living in a volatile time period for economic discussions, and the World Bank is part of the construct. It might be an interesting topic for a different post to see what people think, but I don't know that it lends itself to "America is Dead" considering the state of the global economy and the many experiments currently in force.... in more than one country, and more than one region. These are experiments which we currently have no way of knowing the outcome. Based on the writers whom you have used, if I can guess at what you think an empire is? You think that a country that acts in imperialistic ways is an empire. I would say that we would have to open a new topic for that one, too, as

that does not lend itself to "America is Dead". I also think we would have to talk about MANY countries and regimes in the category of countries that act in imperialistic ways; not just the United States.
5 days ago Like

Follow Michael J

Michael J Moylan Banks France And England You are right Fed was established 1913 WWI started 1914 Full power of the Fed was not in effect till 1915
5 days ago Like

Follow Michael J

Michael J Moylan The United Nations Monetary and Financial Conference, commonly known as the Bretton Woods conference, was a gathering of 730 delegates from all 44 Allied nations at the Mount Washington Hotel, situated in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, United States, to regulate the international monetary and financial order after the conclusion of World War II ref wiki This should make it easy MJM
5 days ago Like

Follow Dale

Dale Harrison @Mike I'm coming into this conversation late, but you'd made the comment that, "In this country, I have never heard of and entire town/village marched to a dug out pit or a natural gorge to be shot and thrown in. And I mean everyone...men, women, children, everyone." In our history we've had two wars of insurgency on domestic soil that generated scenes as horrific (or more so) as anything out of Bosnia or Helmand Province. Insurgent groups who's members decorated themselves and their horses with the human body parts of the civilians they had slain. And these were not savages, but white, educated, native-born American citizens slaughtering other American (non-combatant) citizens. Much of this has been washed from collective memory, but the records are

certainly there. A couple of resources worth reading from academic Historians: 1. Michael Fellman's "Inside War" which examines the savagery of the Missouri Insurgency which resulted in the US Army de-populating vast stretches of the Missouri/Kansas border and holding the civilian population that supported the insurgents in concentration camps (not death camps, but camps of concentration, a technique later used by the British in Boer War) http://amzn.to/VRCJvC 1. Eric Foner's "Reconstruction", specifically Chapter 9 where he looks at the use of the early Klan (composed then of former Southern special operations units that never stood down at the end of the conflict) by the Democratic Party as an instrument of slaughter and terror to regain a political toe-hold back into the South (the opening paragraph of the relevant chapter is stunning to read). http://amzn.to/TK0mst As to whether the US is an "Empire", our conquest, cleansing and occupation of North America is classic empire. Since we were born into a world where everything's been nicely tidied up, with no trace of who and what came before, it's easy to not think too hard on that aspect of how we came to be...
5 days ago Like

Follow Gabrielle

Gabrielle Sutherland Hi @Dale, it's nice to see you on here! I was wondering if anyone was going to mention these accounts when @Mike first brought it up. As far as your use of Empire at the end, though, I think you and I will have to get our boxing gloves out (but it won't be the first time, will it?) :)
5 days ago Like

Follow Redouane

Redouane Bounejmate Mr. Federico Schiavio, Perhaps you see the problem from a different angle, because for me, at any rate, the administration responsible for the political and military decisions taken during WWII is not the same as the one presently residing the United States of America. And therefore, I contend to observing the U.S.A.'s role as a nation rather than an empire. It is impossible for an empire to exist, it can only be seen as a period of transition, due to opportunity, ambition, and talent. And at any rate, if history proves me wrong, it is only because we haven't been there. They did not have e-mails in 1908, and today, if we watch T.V., it's because we're hoping 'they invented something else'. This tells you about speed and while it is perhaps productive, sometimes it may be counter productive to see it in the

decision making process. Considering the U.S. as an empire is like signing the death certificate of every single person hither present today on the face of this planet. imho
4 days ago Like

Sadir Sr.Unfollow

Sadir Sr. Vanderloot Some of the comments really lack professionalism, how can the United States ever fall. This is impossible besides being a nuclear superpower it is one of the largest economies if not still the first, it has both domestic and international influence as well being a contributer to manyrojects worldwide that aim at help and developing third world countries. Comments like America has fallen, will fall are really very uneducated. Having said that it may not maintain its position as the number one nation of the world and this is a natural occurrence throughout history. Humanity has whitnessed a constant shift in the centre of power, which is ofcourse pointing towards China. Nevertheless the Chinese culture from what I have experienced, has tremendous prejudice, the only thing that was the drive to create today's United States. Overcoming this prejeduce enabled America to become the number one nation of the world even if this is symbolic. Many cultured Western European countries including the UK haven't been able to overcome this type of prejeduce and this might be the reason why the centre of power might miss Beijing and continue westward probably next stop is India, because India has less prejeduce towards different cultures than chine but this is my opinion I might be wrong.
4 days ago Like

Follow Gabrielle

Gabrielle Sutherland @Redouane am I correct in understanding you that you are saying that the advent of instant communication makes it seem--in today's world as opposed to 50 years ago, for instance--that America's actions and behavior seems longer lasting on the world stage than it in fact is? Are you saying that perspective might cause us to take a step backwards and view the behavior as "imperialistic" but if America were indeed a true Empire, then it would in fact rule the world? @Sadir, I agree with some of what you say here. I think I would temper it with a caution that no subject is all "this" or "that." When we speak of economics and point our finger at China and start talking about centers of power, we ought to also include cultural aspects, political considerations, and even the weather because these and other items all have an impact on the balance of power. Economics is not simply about debt ratios. To link your comment to Redouane's above, it's like watching the News on tv or reading snippets on the internet, and thinking we have learned something about the state of the world, simultaneously having our so-called knowledge reduced to sound bytes that tell us exactly NOTHING by people who are reading cur cards! I wonder how often this topic and others --judging by what the original posting uses, is actually just a sound-byte, and what is it's source.

I think I will stand by what I've said before, and say [again] that America is not DEAD, but people might believe it is because their own personal vision or dream of what America is seems to be gone. Maybe the person speaking about the death of America does not know how to belong in the America he or she sees?
4 days ago Like

Follow Gabrielle

Gabrielle Sutherland Previously, @Mike proposed an umbrella for understanding, and @MJM agreed with some of it, but proposed some alternatives. @Dale suggested a counter to what you had stated as "fact" @Mike. I would be VERY interested in knowing if you can place these thoughts in your very patriotic version @Mike, and still keep an umbrella, And if you, @Dale, can offer an umbrella that somehow allows for what you said, but either pronounces death, or an ongoing ALIVE America? Then I would like to hear from NON-Americans about what this sounds like. I wonder if this sounds interesting, ridiculous, something else?
4 days ago Like

Follow Dale

Dale Harrison Is America Dying? There are two ways to look at it... As a student of Jacques Barzun (and anyone who's not read "From Dawn to Decadence" simply MUST: http://amzn.to/WObxOd) I firmly believe that "power" and "empire" are the wrong concepts. "Relevance" probably means more. If you look at the Catholic Church in the modern age, it has more wealth, more adherents and more reach than ever in it's 2000 year history. And never in it's history has it been so utterly irrelevant! Likewise, the British "Empire" and its monarchy has vast reach, wealth and military power (nuclear ballistic missile subs, aircraft carriers, etc.) beyond the wildest dreams of the Victorian Era...and yet the UK has at best only tertiary significance (if that) in the world. What Jacques Barzun examined was how disconnected concepts of wealth and power are from relevance and meaning; and how long-term changes in institutions and beliefs grind away the meaning behind what we think of as important. So will the US still be a vast and powerful entity in 200 (or 500) years...vastly more powerful and wealthy than we are today? ABSOLUTELY!

Will that mean anything? Probably not! It's not clear whether the very notions of nationhood and sovereignty will still possesses meaning...anymore so than the trappings of the Apostolic Palace in Vatican City still represent anything meaningful and relevant to the ordinary man. We're entering an age where such questions will be looked back upon as quaint and naive. With the rise of transnational corporations (the largests of which will soon cross the $1T threshold) and NGO's and TCO's (Transnational Criminal Organizations) and non-territory-based organizations such as Anonymous all vying for power and relevance and voice, then all the traditional notions of power (how many nukes, how many aircraft carrier battle groups, how much territory you hold) will come to be seen as simplistic at best...archaic and naive at worst. ================= On the other hand, it's also clear that America's BEST years are still ahead of it. Within 5-7 years the US will be the largest energy exporter on the planet and will remain in that position at least through the middle of the 22nd century (at which point petroleum will decline in significance to other energy sources not yet dreamed of...just as petroleum replaced whale oil 150 years ago). And with that, there will be a massive backflow of manufacturing away from Asia and back into the US as a result of the disparity in US domestic energy costs vs. global energy costs (especially the fully burdened costs including military). As a result, by mid-century, the US and China will jointly dominate total global export manufacturing. Along with that will be a massive pull-back of America's overseas military commitments. Within 30 years or less, we could well see a world with NO American military presence in the Middle East, but potentially see a couple of million Chinese troops permanently stationed in the Middle East and North Africa to "protect" the free flow of oil at market prices. With that will come a significant re-balancing of force levels between US and China. But that won't make China "more powerful" (or the US less so)...it will just mean that China will be pinned down in more places around the globe that they can't fully control (like the US is right now). ================= My conclusion: The US has a bright promising amazing future as it grows in wealth and power while sliding hopelessly into irrelevance...to be replaced not by China, but by organizational structures that we are not fully capable of even envisioning today...just as Martin Luther was incapable of envisioning the future he unleashed 500 years ago...
4 days ago Like

Follow Gabrielle

Gabrielle Sutherland @Dale, this is great. It opens a plethora of questions on my part. My first reaction is to say...Sic et non? This idea of irrelevancy; I'm wondering about Steven Lukes' "Power of Complacency" when he links it to slavery, or currently to the coal miners' crises around the world--including the USA.

Historically, we often see civilizations turn to fundamentalist options within a culture to the point where the options for the people within the civilization are so limited that they become, as you say, irrelevant to the rest of the world and cease to have any standing in the world court, on the world stage where any other culture can recognize their significance, and ultimately whee they even recognize themselves in congruence with their cultural memories. Is this what you're talking about? If so, then that would perhaps find an echo in what @Mike has said above, and even what @Gordon was writing about with the military. Do you find something here @Gordon that speaks to the death of America in looking at the future? We've all written so much about the economy, and I like your references to oil, etc, but in other posts in this forum, we can read knowledgeable people talking about pipelines that go well into the future. I wonder what that would mean in their eyes in regards to America and its death. I would like to hear from some of them---*gabrielle wishing* I don't know if I agree with you @Dale on future troop movements, but I might be thinking of Enders Game scenarios (Orson Scott Card) with yes, I admit it, archetypal generals at the head of internationally defined troops rising against hegemonic power?
4 days ago Like

Follow Redouane

Redouane Bounejmate @ Gabrielle Sutherland @Redouane am I correct in understanding you that you are saying that the advent of instant communication makes it seem--in today's world as opposed to 50 years ago, for instance--that America's actions and behavior seems longer lasting on the world stage than it in fact is? Are you saying that perspective might cause us to take a step backwards and view the behavior as "imperialistic" but if America were indeed a true Empire, then it would in fact rule the world? Dear Ma'm, Because our sources of information are conflicting - and because most of the population tends to create centers of focus ( rumors, unverified information, patriotic statements, spiritual-related rebuttals of certain events ) rather than wait for a unanimous plea, we might very well consider some actions of the U.S. Administration as Hostile ( not imperialistic though ) and retaliate as individuals by completely taking offensive measures against local governments and government figures, because the U.S. Administration tends to work through those channels. In other words, a single rumor might destroy the work of diplomats to diffuse a crisis for many years, within a few minutes. This is what is pushing most individuals to attack the U.S. administration knowing that this is the very same administration that is 'trying' to look out for their best interest on behalf of the very governments that represent them. For example, had Egyptians not retaliated against Pr. Husni Mubarak's regime, the U.S. Administration would have probably been able to work out solutions to more problems and thus present the Egyptians with better opportunities. However, because certain individuals use communication in a disorganized manner, diplomats were unable to act first and thus the 'masses' have indulged in actions that have set Egypt back a few years at least, destroying the fruit of labor of many who mostly were not trying to take credit in the first place, but simply see more people having access to the same commodities as themselves.

If the U.S. is trying to be active on the diplomatic level worldwide, it is not to start an empire, but rather to 'normalize' life on the planet. There are certain aspects that need relativity focus points, from industry standards to political premises and infrastructures that allow nations to be able to state their presence promptly over certain events on the global scale, as well as being capable of sustaining life from the perspective of 'the best possibilities present'. This can be true in the case of using resources, natural or human, abilities, talents and sharpening them ( education, legislation, ... ) as well as marking a presence diplomatically. It is the rumors in the street that get us in the end. Whether it is because a person doesn't like the way their day has evolved or their child has been treated in hospital, who they blame, how they blame them, and what they blame them for, will mark the future for several hundred years, for that one single decision and moment, for an entire nation. Rumors spread very fast, and unverified facts become national hymns very shortly after, especially when depression strikes and problems surface and difficulties that would otherwise require 'patience and forgiveness' find no guidance fibers of such caliber and instead tend to push people to 'riots' and rebellion. At the level of education to which we all have access, isn't it about time for humans to stop questioning the intents of other humans towards them, that in fact a relationship of any citizen in any country to a political figure in another, officially, cannot exceed that of the same kind locally ( i.e. the U.S. President doesn't want to kill Egyptians just as he doesn't want to kill Americans ). The political decisions taken are a social maze based on events and facts and an agenda ( - there is a bad word ), a plan of uniformity ...
4 days ago Like

Follow Gabrielle

Gabrielle Sutherland @ Redouane, I like what you're saying as a general idea for how the world ought to be. If you recall, I recommended earlier that the best way to fight a war would be to bake cookies, hand them out to our enemies, and love their children! Maybe I ought to add that I also believe in teddy bears and yellow balloons (like a song my Gramma used to sing to me). Nevertheless, I do have be reminded that the world simply doesn't work that way. Would you agree with me that a definition of Power could be; the demonstration of Resources, Tools and "Attributes [of]" a given entity for the continuance of its goals? I would further this definition by stating that power is derived in the same manner; that the active demonstration is a way in which power is derived. I would think that a power player is aware of what you say above, and acts with, in despite of, or because of, or along with this knowledge. How could any power player not (lest it become as @Dale mentioned, irrelevant). So what would that mean? Maybe that individuals don't matter? And if that's the case, then what? I think this is where we were in the discussion with you, @Mike individual choice vs. what we owe a country/the vision or dream of that country
4 days ago Like

Follow Michael J

Michael J Moylan @Redouane You can not force people to learn we can be creative in the way we teach but the learner must be willing. Social economic situations place many individuals at a disadvantage. In the current Economic situation even learners are having a hard time finding jobs. Why? as a employer I am not sure what is going to happen. I have no idea what my employment cost are going to be within the next three years. Even though we have not laid anyone off in the last six years my unemployment cost continue to rise because of government policies. So I have staff that gets overtime. They like that. My taxes continue to rise while revenues have no real gain. I have one employee who makes more than me in one business. My taxes go up on the business. How can I hire more folks. Smaller staff they get more hours they do not want me to hire more. I understand that. Once they reach that ceiling it lowers my unemployment cost We need to understand there are many that need our help. There our others who do not want to work because they can collect. Example my all round guy Cuts lawns Plows runs errands. When I travel he is my driver allows me to work. No this is not a big SUV or Limo it is a Subaru. Jimmy supports his mom and a brother. He was denied any food stamps because he earned three dollars a week to much. Went from 150.00 a month to zero. Twelve dollars a month cost you 150.00. Would you want to work? The problem is the system. As he drives me back to Vermont he asked me what I was typing. So I told him. His words were I just want to work but I would be better off if I did not. The system is the problem. We have become a society that our government encourages many not to work. That is wrong. Jimmy knows I gave him a chance when no one else would. He raises chickens for eggs and meat. Grows a garden Here in Vt that is very typical. Takes as many odd jobs he can. Works two jobs three nights a week stocking shelves for a grocery store. Works the 10 pm to 3 am shift then comes in and shovels snow and plows. If he did not work at all he would get reduce rates on phone, electricity free medical and food stamps. Why work? So would it not be better to say you show effort and work but still need help we will. Or a policy of all or nothing? We need tax reform We need to cut spending How would you do it? MJM
4 days ago Like

Follow Mike

Mike Valley So I hear my name was being taken in vain?...Or at least my "umbrella". What did I miss?..LOL
4 days ago Like

Follow Gabrielle

Gabrielle Sutherland @MJM I really like this example. Together with @ Redouane, we have this notion of what it takes to define responsibility (maybe?) on the part of the sovereign. This is overly simplistic, but I still think it works: if the sovereign's "job" is to feed and protect the people, then could we not say that one is domestic policy and the other is foreign policy. .. and that they are inextricably intertwined in both both government & politics? and that @REdouane you alluded to Foreign Policy and @MJM you gave an example of Domestic Policy and I'm still wondering about this irrelevance thing by @Dale. So NOW I'm wondering if irrelevancy occurs at both levels--in order to occur--or if only one or the other can set it in motion. The original post talked about the change in America as an indication of its Death. Are we still looking at change or our ability to change? I think so. I think @MJM you are asking for people to propose the way to support what is being suggested? If so, then I need to go back an underscore my previous agreements on the idea that all American owe a duty to the country in the form of service of some kind that will work towards a soft revolution in ideological change. I do not believe that political office is an exemption from service. Stories, songs, mores, values, etc., that we hold dear and point to (and reward in our cultural spheres and institutions) should support the idea and ideals of service to each other, emphasizing "the individual" as I do not think the individual is any more noticed or valued except as a rhetorical device.
4 days ago Like

Follow Michael J

Michael J Moylan @ Mike Valley we would not use your name in vain but I did post your comments because we had one member wanted to come in and out and I thought your points would at least let him get up to speed of what we talk about. You should look at Dales comments he does disagree with a few of your points. I would normally do this has a private reply but I want all including the Moderator to know what I am doing. I did not edit nor post my thoughts on your comments glad to see you back MJM
4 days ago Like

Follow Gabrielle

Gabrielle Sutherland :) I think it was a helpful process @MJM, and @ Mike, your "umbrella" has been a good thing. I keep thinking about @Laura's comment about the process of agreeing and disagreeing being the worst thing....and the best thing. That was a great "umbrella" worthy statement!
4 days ago Like

Follow Gabrielle

Gabrielle Sutherland @Sadir, you brought up China and so did @Dale, it might be interesting to hear more from both of you as it relates to this topic? I know there are others on here with expertise in this area as well (not me).
4 days ago Like

GordonUnfollow

Gordon Fowkes I never saw a tax reform that got simpler. Reagan's simplification changed the tax form from an IBM card to a pamphlet., Now it's a whole library. I never saw cost cutting result in cost cutting, rather the costs of cost cutting accelerated spending. Normally the additional book keeping and cross checking raises the total cost of acquisition of goods and services to a sum greater than the costs of hte goods and services purchased. Validated by study of costs in the City of Houston where I was the bean counting machine aparatus, and by cost-benefit analysis with the Comptroller of the Army. As the ratii betweeb the best paid ten percent versus the least paid ten percent of a US corporation exceeds several hunfred times vs the golden era of American enterprise in the Fifties, it was at most four for five times. The growth is super gluttony is accompanied by condemnation of the starving and contract slaves even with graduate degrees.

Twenty years ago, the typical corporate employee had a pension and a health plan. This had to go, of course, to compete with European and Asian companies with socialised medicine. In order to reduce the undeserved pittance the working stiff gets when lucky enough to work, the tax rate of the super wealthy becomes the number one above all other issues of the Greedy Old Party. Since the leadership of the Demented Party is so rich as to be deaf and dumb to those with too much month at the end of the money, there will be confusion when that one additional crystal of salt drops into the super saturated bucket of salted tears, than a new form of American fury will rise from the ashes of banked up fires of former flames
4 days ago Like

Follow Laura

Laura Bozzay A couple of thoughts here... 1. America is only as relevant as those in power want it to be. The constant bickering in Congress weakens us in international eyes. Until that issue is fixed we continue to loose ground.

1. If you look at Gross National Product per capita (I used stats from the World Bank which has been tracking this for years) we have slid in the past 1. years... We used to be consistently in 6th place 2002 through 2004. Dropped to 8 in 2005 then to 8.5 in 2006. Then off top 10 list 2007 through 9. We show up in 10th 2010 but the top two nations for some reason did not report that year. Monaco had been number 1 for 2002 through 2009 and Lichtenstein in number 2 for same time period. 2011 we were in 8th but once again Monaco and Lichtenstein did not report.

1. Looking at growth rates of GNP we are flat if not falling a bit. While China and Brazil are advancing as are France and Germany. So, I would ask, if we are such an empire or force...how is it possible that our growth is slowing as is our GNP? Most empires will see that increasing.

I think there are a lot of old held myths about the US that may not currently be true. We have the potential of being the great country we once were but only if Congress quits bickering and we put Americans back to work. The worst thing we ever did was allow so much manufacturing to leave the shores of this country. NAFTA helped Canada and Mexico but hurt the US. Ever try to send something to those countries as a business?

History is made everyday. History is just not stuff that is 100 years old

or more... But the analysis of current events is not as accurate because it is done by people being affected by the events. Hence died in the wool historians don't call the study of current events history but instead call it current events or political analysis. Objective distance helps in some ways but no matter what, everyone has a bias they look at things from. If someone has a pro US bias they will see the good the US does... if they have an anti US bias they will harp on the bad. All countries do good and bad things... in fact sometimes good actions can have bad consequences. The US is a conglomeration of ideas, thinking, and opposing viewpoints. Foreign policy is complicated and most Americans are not in the loop on why or how foreign policy works. It is confusing for most of us because it is complicated and at times seems contradictory. Of course we are not privy to all the information that those making these decisions have at their disposal.

America is one of the most generous nations in the world. http://www.nps.gov/partnerships/fundraising_individuals_statistics.htm <http://www.nps.gov/partnerships/fundraising_individuals_statistics.htm> http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/sep/08/charitable-giving-country <http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/sep/08/charitable-giving-country> When we were involved in wars we helped rebuild the countries who lost. We did not take them over and put our people in place to run them. Instead we looked for natives of those countries to help in the administration and helped them move into a democratic way of government. In some cases those countries have remained allies and in others they have been at odds with us for one reason or the other. Once again not the way an empire acts.

As to our relevance.... that remains to be seen. If we were so relevant why is the doctor who helped the US find Osama Bin Laden still in prison in Pakistan? How relevant are we? It would seem to me if we were that relevant that man would be held up as a hero not imprisoned. Where is the US in that? Why is that seemingly being swept under the rug? What message does that send to people in other countries about helping the US? Think about it...
4 days ago Like

Follow Redouane

Redouane Bounejmate @ Ms Gabrielle Sutherland "Would you agree with me that a definition of Power could be; the demonstration of Resources, Tools and "Attributes [of]" a given entity for the continuance of its goals? I would further this definition by stating that power is derived in the same manner; that the active demonstration is a way in which power is derived." I totally agree with you, Dear Ma'm, on this specific point. In fact, for this very reason, I defend the United States'

use of power to enforce Democracy from a global angle, and would like to mention that to categorize such acts as signs of imperialism does not conform with the realities of today's world.
4 days ago Like

Follow Gabrielle

Gabrielle Sutherland With these views @Redouane, and your post on relevance and the GNP and statistics @Laura, and personal experience in corporate decline for the individual worker @Gordon, how would you describe what ought to be under @Mike's umbrella? For those who arrived after the fact: Awhile back in our discussion, @Mike wrapped himself in the American flag and proclaimed what should be. Some of us did not fully agree with him (or at all) and some of us are not even Americans--so speak up!!--but it's become a good staging ground (under the umbrella) for discussion about how America is staying alive (or isn't). How would you three propose to extend life based on your comments? What if you had a REAL voice?
4 days ago Like

Follow Dale

Dale Harrison @Gabrielle (and @Gordon, @Laura, et.al.) To expand a bit on my earlier comment. The one great project that's occupied our species for the last 100,000 years is the creation of organizational structures...of all types. And in these organizations we find protection and shelter and a repository for our stories & beliefs through which we find meaning. Some organizational structures have proven quite durable...the family, the tribe, the church and cities (which will be around far after nation-states have disappeared). And some haven't been around long enough to prove their durability...the nation state, the corporation, the university. And some are being invented right now, such as de-centralized leader-less groups like Occupy and Anonymous. History is the inter-play not of people, but of the organizational structures (tribes, nations, churches, armies, etc.) created by people... And here is where I diverge from much of the talk in this discussion. The fact that organizations provide protection, comfort and meaning in NO WAY explains why they continue to exist (though it explains much about why they are brought INTO existence). Organizations all have one Prime Directive and that is their continued survival. Nothing else matters...PERIOD!

And organizations will do whatever is necessary to survive...even be kind and helpful (or cruel and evil) to millions of individuals. But they don't exist to be good or evil...kind or cruel. They are giant organisms with their own goals and intentions and motives...starting with surviving and growing. So just as your cat isn't evil for eating the mouse, or kind for purring when you pet it, the organizational structures we create and unleash on the world...and that completely and totally control and dominate the planet...do not see individuals as anything that contains meaning. Organizations are giant intelligent, intentional organisms. And though these organisms are composed of constituent parts...some of which are individual humans...they exist for the benefit of themselves, not their constituent parts. Just as I'm an organism composed of cells and organs, but when I sit down to drink a glass of Basil Hayden, I do it for "ME", not my constituent parts. The fact that a few liver cells have to die in the process is just a minor trade-off not even worth taking note of. So to talk about what organizations (in this case of this discussion, the USA) should or should not be or do, is without meaning. To talk about the US "helping" people as though it's being "good"...or attacking people as if that were "evil" is as meaningless as an ant trying to find meaning in the actions of a human. The human doesn't know (or care) if they just stepped on the ant...the human isn't even aware the ant exists...unless is stings us, then we kill it. There's no good or evil anywhere in it. So we are entering a new age...an era without frontiers to cross to escape the reach of the all the giant organizational structures that utterly dominate our world. So to wrap ourselves in the flag...to thump our bibles...is but to slot ourselves into our "rightful" place within the giant machine...just to be one extra liver cell. We are the mortals trying to divine the mind of the Gods...and the Gods do not notice we even exist. The forces that guide and control all these organizations are not just beyond our ability to control, but beyond our ability to envision. So is America "dying"...nope, it takes a LOT to kill off one of the Gods...even long after that God has become irrelevant (which America certainly isn't at this point). But every organism that is destined to survive must undergo evolution to adapt to it's changing environmental niche...and what it evolves into is likely to be something quite unrecognizable (but don't worry, everyone will still have a place...even dinosaurs still needed liver cells).
4 days ago Like

Follow Laura

Laura Bozzay I also do not believe America is dead or even dying. I see us more like in our late college years now... leaving school behind where we learned to be a country and started flexing some of our ideas into adulthood... and trying to figure out where we want to go and exactly who we want to be... We are evolving and that means some change. Will it be good or bad...remains to be seen. But in answer to Gabrielle's question of what do I want.... I will do this a little at a time... I would do the following to ensure the continued "life" of America: 1. Mandate that all Congressional bills cannot exceed 30 pages. Why? Because these 1000 page things are too much

for anyone to understand let alone put into practice. It would also stop the riders from being added and allow for votes on specific items rather than bundled junk. If you can't say it in 30 pages it probably should not be passed as a bill. (I really wanted to say 10 but am not sure that would work). 2. Mandate that all bills and laws must be written in 8th grade language. Why? Because everyone needs to be able to understand what is expected and there are people who do not graduate from High School. I wish that was not true but it is. 3. Stipulate that Congress must live by its own laws so no separate health care, pensions, etc. They should have to live and die with the rest of us. 4. Redefine how unemployment stats are calculated. Right now too many unemployed are NOT being counted. Take the ages of people between 18 and 65. Subtract institutionalized (jail, mental institutions, nursing home) folks. Subtract truly retired folks who are drawing SS. Now calculate the number. The last stat I saw on this had unemployment in the low 30s... much worse than what is being reported. I would also do two views. One with and one without military. When we bring a large number of soldiers back into the civilian work force it will affect numbers. We need to understand how that is going to affect the economy. That doesn't mean don't do it, but it makes no sense not to use military to help shore up infrastructure if there are no jobs per se in the civilian sector. And it keeps them employed. Tax dollars would pay for them doing something or getting unemployment if there were not jobs. I opt for employment. 5. No pay raises for Congress, department heads, or the President if the newly calculated unemployment rate falls above 10%. See point number 4.
4 days ago Like

Follow Billie

Billie Vincent Re-reading all of the foregoing comments we seem to have covered a number of subjects. Getting back to the original point that started this discussion a Democracy need not end as Alexis de Tocqueville projects provided - and it is a big "provided" that its founders have the foresight to place certain safeguards in its Constitution. For Instance, if our founding fathers (and they had great foresight) had the foresight to restrict voting to only financially solvent citizens. I do not mean strictly property owners - rather I mean that no-one on outright welfare should be eligible to vote. There are a lot of "devils" in the details on these thoughts, e.g. earned Social Security payments would not be considered as Welfare. However, the vast majority of our give-away programs would be considered Welfare. I would include under this those person receiving unearned funds for their education while doing so they would have to give up their right to vote. A number of other changes to our Constitution are necessary as well, e.g. restrict membership in either house of Congress to a maximum of 12 years total. We now have career politicians that amass immense power - we need to break that power base. Unfortunately given our current situation we appear to be close to the point that Tocqueville predicted the failure of democracy. Our only choice may be revolution as the probability of evolution back to the tenents of our original Republic's ideal appears unlikely.
4 days ago Like

Follow Redouane

Redouane Bounejmate I think that, if I were in the place of certain people, merely turning on the television would give me a heart attack. Some people really worked hard for peace. And there isn't enough time because these people's plan was realistic, knowing that they will not live forever. It is sad, all I can say is may God help us all see the light at the end of the tunnel. There can be Peace. It is the only acceptable solution to our existence as a human race. And for those who lost hope, I understand that, it is part of our weakness as human beings, because this universe is not forgiving, whether because of its physical aspects, or simply the spiritual ones, sometimes not even allowing the right conversation to take place at the right time, or in the right place, or under the right circumstances.
4 days ago Like

Follow Federico

Federico Schiavio @ Gabrielle My dear Gabrielle it would appear that your sense of innocence about Realpolitik (cf. American Exceptionalism) impairs your recognition of US imperial conduct. You are after all working on a Fairytale project, are you not? I think that is a wonderful endeavor and it is sure to make numerous people happy and joyous. For as you mention in your summary: "For the Fairy Tales to work in our lives as they were meant, as living, breathing cultural truths that tell us about ourselves and how to work towards meaningful change (for the betterment of the world), we need to start with a clean slate." Please do not misunderstand me, I am not being sarcastic as I truly believe it is a wonderful and gratifying project. But don't you think that due to your outlook on life you may not be the best qualified person to debate "Empires" for they are ugly, dirty, bloody things. I say this because it would seem you have fossilized your responses to me around the definition of "Empire". You go on to say that "I do not see definitions in either part. I do see a series of references, and I know these citations and have read them and others in their genre. Along with Niall Ferguson, these writers are posing questions about American hegemony, and we do well to heed the warning. None of them are calling The United States an empire, however; they are writing about imperialism, or empire-like behavior. Pointing to American imperialism is not calling America an empire." How do you know they are posing questions about American Hegemony as opposed to saying that America is the world hegemon? Is it because you have read their books cover to cover and interpreted them that way? Do you personally know the authors and discussed this with them? How, pray tell, is pointing to American imperialism not calling America an Empire? And could it be that you might yourself be a tad imperialistic as you keep referring to the United States as America? The United States are not America. There is North America comprised of Canada and the US. There is Central America and there is South America. But there is no America. There is, as our southern neighbors call us, Estados Unidos just another country in the Americas. Try bringing this little known factoid up to anyone from Mexico downwards and then report back to this forum with your findings. I think that the only satisfactory definition for Empire that will appease you is if the President of the United States called a press conference and announced that we are no longer a Republic but an Empire. That will happen, but not in time to resolve this discussion. Currently we are an undeclared empire that rules over it's unaware subjects by economic means, that is why I said we are a modern empire that rules through economic might. Our weapon of mass destruction is the "Economic Sanction" which we utilize to subjugate foreign countries. And if that fails we send in the Marines and then replace them with contractors. Do you have any idea how many civilian casualties occur thanks to economic sanctions? You wouldn't if you only watch CNN, Fox and MSNBC of god forbid that crock of

sh*t that passes for local news. We are a vicious bloody empire. Just like Julius Caesar cut off the hands of 20,000 Gaul warriors and sent them back to their villages to tell the tale and placate the rebellion and bring Pax Romana to Gaul, we bring Pax Americana when and where we deem necessary to our well being. You want to keep pumping cheap gas? Deal with it. When we steamrolled the Indian Nations and annexed the southwest from Mexico, would you consider that Republic behavior or Imperial behavior? Continues....
4 days ago Like

Follow Federico

Federico Schiavio @ Gabrielle Since trade ignores national boundaries and the manufacturer insists on having the world as a market, the flag of his nation must follow him, and the doors of the nations which are closed against him must be battered down. Concessions obtained by financiers must be safeguarded by ministers of state, even if the sovereignty of unwilling nations be outraged in the process. Colonies must be obtained or planted, in order that no useful corner of the world may be overlooked or left unused. : Woodrow Wilson, President of the United States, 1919 - Lecture, Columbia University (15 April 1907)
4 days ago Like

Follow Mike

Mike Valley Well Redouane, we can all hope. As for me, I prefer to prepare. I hope for the best and prepare for the worst. Humans are territorial by their very natures and I don't see us all heading for peace. EVEN THOUGH IT WOULD BE GREAT!! It has been my experience, the "light at the end of the tunnel" is most often, attached to a train, unless you have prepared and know when the trains come through!...LOL
4 days ago Like

Follow W. Scott

W. Scott Malone Still above my pay-grade, but some excellent historical trend-analysis. Very well informed and perceptive. Pray contiue...scott
4 days ago Like

Follow Gabrielle

Gabrielle Sutherland @Federico, I am so sorry that you do not feel that you have benefitted from "story" in your daily life. Indeed, dear sir, my ultimate proposal for a better world involves a revolutionary change in the way we value our cultural truths such that as the bards sing of virtue (and I am not speaking of rigid morality, but human virtue in the classical sense)... as the bards sing of virtue, the people will listen, and in turn teach their children. The children will respond and the message will filter back into our societies, and we will experience what is commonly knows as "flow." I'm sorry that you scoff at such power, as stories have lasted for centuries and more. I read approximately a dozen languages fluently, and this has allowed me to translate dozes of ancient and medieval mss. which I have personally uncovered over years of travel and research. I am so very, very blessed that I am one of the fortunate people who gets to work at what she loves, rather than having to labor in a field somewhere. My graduate degrees bring together a wide reach, and as a PhD, I cover the fields of politics, history, religion, economics, and philosophy. I can see that it bothers you when I bring my insight into discussions like these, and then WHAM...why would I care about fairy tales? Why would I care about stories? I care because those stories are about real life. They were written by real people in order to teach how to live during the ups and downs of conquerors, famine, economic turmoil, monsters roaming the land, indifferent gods, the interplay between good and evil, and the luck--or lack of luck --experienced due to birth...just to name a few. When I look around at the state of the world and I see --especially women and children--in dire straits, and then I ask myself how best I can serve the world: the answer at which I arrive is to bring this fabulous resource back to life in its authentic version. You, @Fecerico might scoff at learning from fairies, Kings & Queens, goblins and ogres, Hero Princes and Hero Princesses. Not I. I stand in awe at their wisdom, and am glad for the reminder that human beings in the 11th and 12th centuries had something worth saying....something so powerful they decided to write it down! When I read their stories in their own words--it sounds like me and other people I know! How is that? Because it's about the human condition! Much of what those fairy tales relate could fit in our discussion here, today. Forget about ridiculous Disney. Forget about the awful Grimm's tales. My project is bringing back the authentic versions of the tales as they were written (and told) before they were watered down, edited, and turned into something puny!

I would never force you @Federico to read a fairy tale, but I think you would be the better man for it. You might then stop screaming so much and breathe in and out just a bit. You might consider that as an historian, of course I've read the books you mentioned. It's part of my job :) I would hope that you do your job, too! Fairy tales are not a silly thing. They represent a type of writing from a specific time period. People do not change much over time. We find them in history acting pretty much like we do. Then and now, people search for answers as best they can, and in each of our hearts is a desire to help one another. We each are seeking a way to find a path and complete our Quest. I think we each hope we can pass on that knowledge as best we know how. I have lived a privileged life as an American with a good education. Why would I not want to pass that on? I apologize to the rest of the group for this aside. Maybe it fits in the relevancy category. As long as a group of people's story exists, they do too. As long as we recognize ourselves in the human endeavor, which goes back to whether or not we are human or part of a bigger enterprise. Or both.
4 days ago Like

Follow Federico

Federico Schiavio Mr. Redouane Bounejmate In your opening paragraph you mention "Perhaps you see the problem from a different angle, because for me, at any rate, the administration responsible for the political and military decisions taken during WWII is not the same as the one presently residing the United States of America. And therefore, I contend to observing the U.S.A.'s role as a nation rather than an empire." What makes you think they are not the same? Just because they are different people? Sure the people change but do the policies? I don't think so. If you recall at the end of WWII Europe was broke and had to relinquish its colonies (sources of cheap labor and raw materials) because it could no longer afford them. So as soon as we were done divvying up Europe with Comrade Stalin we then began divvying up the colonies for our own use of said resources, hence the Cold War. When it ended with the fall of the Berlin war did we suddenly not need cheap resources anymore? No we still do and so the game continues mostly with China now whom we are competing with for Africa. You then say "It is impossible for an empire to exist, it can only be seen as a period of transition, due to opportunity, ambition, and talent." Are you referring to the US or to Empires in general? <And at any rate, if history proves me wrong, it is only because we haven't been there. They did not have e-mails in 1908, and today, if we watch T.V., it's because we're hoping 'they invented something else'>. Ok if you say so. <This tells you about speed and while it is perhaps productive, sometimes it may be counter productive to see it in the decision making process. Considering the U.S. as an empire is like signing the death certificate of every single

person hither present today on the face of this planet.> Actually considering China as an empire would be like signing the death certificate of every single person on planet earth. While we may need to occasionally break some eggs to make an omelet we also do a lot of good.
4 days ago Like

Follow Gabrielle

Gabrielle Sutherland @Redouane, I would be interested in your ideas for hope. I see your comments as coming from a place of hope. I definitely see them as wanting peace, is that correct? @ Laura, I like your laundry list--wait, is this an umbrella list? I will disagree with you on what is history, but I've written about it extensively above, so will leave it for now. You and @MJM seem to have some agreements here. @Billie, so nice to see you here! You are addressing some similar points with limitations on government, so there seems to be some consensus. If we were sitting all together in one room--wouldn't that be fun?? @W. Scott Malone: I volunteer you for snacks! We could start an actual list! @Dale--would that make us an organization? or would we still be ants? Continuing, @Billie, it seems like you've made some pretty outrageous statements here. I don't know how I feel about them. I also wonder how enforceable they are? Excluding people from voting? Why do you want to do this, is my first question.
4 days ago Like

Follow Billie

Billie Vincent Alexis de Tocqueville's perspective was that democracy "can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury." We are nearing that point when we have approximately 50% of our citizenry not paying federal taxes and a significant minority on some form of welfare. A significant portion of our citizens are now voting for the candidates that will provide this largesse from our treasury and the candidates are playing to this constituency - hence the Alexis de Tocqueville prophecy. Once this happens how does one reverse the trend? An evolutionary process only takes us deeper into the welfare morass. One way to prevent this from happening again in any new democracy is to extend the privilege of voting only to those that are making positive financial contributions to the democracy's treasury - and deny the voting privilege to those on the public dole - for the period that they are on welfare. One question this raises is to what degree would this eliminate the "cradle to grave" of

some welfare recipients? Would this also work to incentivize those on welfare to become positive contributing citizens once again? Absent some catastrophic happening it appears that the only way to remedy our current situation is revolution because the current welfare recipients and their candidate will not willingly give up their life on the dole - nor will the beneficiaries of their votes willingly give up their political positions. So, given this current state of affairs - and the question that started this discussion - are we in the process of a slow painful death of our democracy?
4 days ago Like

GordonUnfollow

Gordon Fowkes The discussion of American Imperialism sounds very much like Relative Absolutiiveness insofar as explicitly ambiguous. The term "republic" is being portrayed as somehow inherently contractictory with the term "Empire" or imperialism. Republics, democracies, kingdoms, confederations, aristocracies, and even kloptocracies have some meaning in terms of how the entity is governed. Empire is a buzz word or icing on a cake. The closest the United States comes to Imperial definitions in vogue is its present configuration as "these" United States in which fifty states have traded in some governmental powers, retaining others, and provided a mechanism for making changes in the allocation. "The" United States is bad grammar but a nice buzz word. Being already a empire of one out of many, calling the US "an" empire is entirely correct, but of no particular value in current discussions. Remember that Athens was a Republic wtih an array of client states in the Delian League but kept the joint treasury to build fancy buildings. Rome was a republic but its change to Empire didn't change the relatations with their posssessions except as to absorb more Roman culture. The critical discriminator in inverse relativism is the Law of Inverse Attribution in which one brags of one's weakest virtue, and blames others with one's own worst vices. The Soviet Union accusing the US of being an Empire is typical, as was the notion that all people were equal but some more equal than others, a note writting by George Orwell based on his experiences with the POUM in the Spanish Civil War
4 days ago Like

Follow Redouane

Redouane Bounejmate 'I know thee, I have found thee, and I will not let thee go: Thou art the image of God who dwells in darkness of Africa, And thou art fall'n to give me life in regions of dark death. On my American plains I feel the struggling afflictions Endur'd by roots that writhe their arms into the nether deep. I see a Serpent in Canada who courts me to his love,

In Mexico an Eagle, and a Lion in Peru; I see a Whale in the south-sea, drinking my soul away. O what limb-rending pains I feel! thy fire and my frost Mingle in howling pains, in furrows by thy lightnings rent. This is eternal death, and this the torment long foretold.' William Blake America, A Prophecy
4 days ago Like

Follow Redouane

Redouane Bounejmate @ Mr. Federiso, You then say "It is impossible for an empire to exist, it can only be seen as a period of transition, due to opportunity, ambition, and talent." Are you referring to the US or to Empires in general? -- I refer to the idea of an 'empire' altogether. Mind you, even some multinationals ( companies, businesses, ... ) are likely to take on that title, and perhaps more rightly so, but I fail to see the link with politics since this seems to be of an evasive nature to authority rather than alliance with the latter. Perhaps in a metaphorical sense. Actually considering China as an empire would be like signing the death certificate of every single person on planet earth. While we may need to occasionally break some eggs to make an omelet we also do a lot of good. --- To answer your question, I do not see China as an empire either, this planet is made up of nations - as far as I am concerned, the only Unanimous division we have so far being the 'United Nations'... And yes, to consider China as an empire, would pose such a threat on the table of negotiations. What China is trying to seek under those terms is Global Victory. I would not allow them that.
4 days ago Like

Follow Redouane

Redouane Bounejmate By the way I think that Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghreib are totally different and shouldn't even be compared. The fact that both were 'questioned' is only because all the tables turned. Guantanamo Bay, in my opinion, was totally normal, and justified. * http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQi828Wqj30 This should suffice to explain my point of view. Human Behavior is sometimes ... Puzzling to say the least.
4 days ago Like

Follow Redouane

Redouane Bounejmate Only, there is a big difference between preparation ( perfection ) and aggression ( chaos ). We can argue that we may or may not like how certain people behave. But we cannot argue that we may or may not barbecue them because we hate their allegiance to the grouping 'mankind'. Certain individuals allow themselves these luxurious 'preparations'. History has had its tales of witch-hunts to tell, But very seldom have we seen the fruits of 'witchcraft'. This is not what Mr. G.W. Bush had in mind when he tackled Iraq's way of handling democracy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZ_Vxoyu8zY But alas, people always have their own opinion. By the way, democracy is only possible if you consider your opinion against others', and conform to 'orders'. Because certain soldiers had their own interpretation of their jobs, and because, down the line, the 'light' didn't find full conductivity, and because individual opinions seem to obtain their moral guidance using compasses imported from other galaxies, there may or may not be peace. And that is not so great. We are here by the way, and the 'screw them too' ideology is - beyond my vision. You would also be, using another compass, just as screwed. I do not question authority. That's the idea. If I wait long enough, you will come to terms with accepting the fact that it is necessary. Otherwise, "from the cradle to the grave" might also find another tunnel, and another light.
4 days ago Like

Follow Michael J

Michael J Moylan Go Gordon yes you are so right

4 days ago Like

Follow Michael J

Michael J Moylan @ Billie when you take away from the those who labor and give to those who do not labor you create more poor You also create more who say why labor?
4 days ago Like

Follow Laura

Laura Bozzay I cannot agree that only "productive" members of society should be allowed to vote. Many that are currently "unproductive" are there because they are baby boomers who were once very productive and have been laid off in a bad economy. Most people who are out of work would love to work if they were given the chance. Are there some lazy folks who just want a handout? Sure but there are also down on their luck others who just can't find work that they can do. Some are not physically able to do manual labor, some have disabilities, some have family obligations in taking care of young or old family and find it hard to find work with hours that work for them. I would rather provide supplemental income for those who can find part time work than create a situation that turns people into slaves to a government because of the way laws are written. If you work part time you loose unemployment... how ridiculous is that! Allow part time work and pay the difference...it would at least allow people to feel productive. There was a story on a young mother who could find part time work but then could not get assistance she needed for her family. Yes it makes record keeping more difficult but it is the right thing to do... let's look at ways of helping people get off of unemployment, welfare, etc without stigmatizing them. Not everyone who is receiving assistance wants to be in that position. Weed out the ones who are abusing the system and help the people who really need it and want to better themselves. I rent a culinary kitchen in a facility that has the mission to help homeless people. Many of these people work but don't make enough to rent an apartment let alone buy a home. Minimum wage does not really cover all basic living expenses especially if you have children.
3 days ago Like

Follow John

John Rosenberger Cross the North Korean border illegally, you get 12 years hard labor. Cross the Afghan border illegally, you get shot. Two Americans were condemned to 8 years for crossing the Iranian border. An illegal can cross the U.S. border criminally and get a job, drivers license, food stamps, housing, healthcare, child care, education, tax free business for 7 years. And Washington wonders why we are in debt.
3 days ago Like

Follow Gabrielle

Gabrielle Sutherland tsk tsk @John, if you want to change the topic, you'll need to start a new discussion.
3 days ago Like

Follow Gabrielle

Gabrielle Sutherland @Billie, looks like you have some responses from a few different directions. Do you care to answer? My question in this regard has to do with de Tocqueville and why we are circling back to an Agrarian past to model our continued shaping of "what is America?" for the answer to viability? If @Dale is correct and the future is about organizations, then what? I don't want that scenario; the posts above that speak to the power of the individual speak [to my heart] of all that is best, so what are our "umbrella" answers? If we don't look for tax reform @Gordon, then is there another way?
3 days ago Like

Follow Billie

Billie Vincent Gabrielle, et al: The origin of this discussion was - that the U.S. was in decline and on the verge of failure as a democracy (we are actually a Republic with quasi-democratic electoral processes). In the process you and others examined several associated intellectual viewpoints. My two messages returned us to the direct question whether we were on the verge of going into the as de Tocqueville stated abyss. I then offered a remedy to avoid de Tocqueville's assessment of democracies - obviously a traumatic remedy - at least for some. Laura obviously sees the world through another "filter" and we all see our world through our individual filters. Michael Moylan backhandedly confirmed my assessment vis-a-vis adding to the numbers of the "poor." Reality, may, however, be something else. You, Gabrielle, then raised the question of returning to an agrarian past as a model of what our future should be. It is most interesting that you raise that question and it begs the question of "is wisdom associated with any period of time or constraint?" Assuming, of course that de Tocqueville vision was, in fact, true wisdom? We are still the greatest agrarian nation in the world, a so-called superpower, and a technologically advanced country - in fact THE most advanced from a technologically standpoint in the world notwithstanding some advances elsewhere. Given our current financial/economic situation are we really on the verge of confirming de Tocqueville's prophecy? If we are - what then? Do we continue into an economic world of Socialism as the Europeans seem to be

engaged- or do we seek to re-affirm our founding fathers visions of the future of our country? In this process, if we decline, where will that happen, agrarian, technologically, etc., and what are the overall consequences of that decline?
3 days ago Like

Follow Mike

Mike Valley @ Laura, whoa there, who decides the measure of a person's "productivity"? I will not be making that decision and some "pie-in-the-sky" process is not going to meet everyone's definition of it either. And what do we do with the "non-productive persons" by choice? Personally I am not ready for "Soylent Green", so what do we do there? If I was in charge of that portion of the process, I say stop feeding them out of other's pockets and eventually they will get hungry enough or cold enough to learn to work, or die. It's cruel, but it is the basic of the law of natural selection now isn't it? Laura, I do wholeheartedly agree with your comment about welfare making slaves out of people...however in the words of Eleanor Roosevelt, "No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." With thos sage words stated, I further point out Mrs. Roosevelt's take on the following, "Freedom makes a huge requirement of every human being. With freedom comes responsibility. For the person who is unwilling to grow up, the person who does not want to carry is own weight, this is a frightening prospect." Along those lines, eventually we all have to pay for our choices. By this I mean, if the skills in a trade are no longer needed, then we as responsible members of a society have to take the initiative and learn new skills. Again here we see the lack of motivation with regards to learning new skills. Rather than feeding, clothing, and housing these people - ad nauseaum - why don't we use the money for job skills training programs? This is the core of my earlier "umbrella" statement, noted by other members of this comversation. I am sure my comments will be met with the usual aplomb. But honestly, how long do the rest of us have to pay for someone else's mistakes and lack of motivaton?
3 days ago Like

Follow Laura

Laura Bozzay Mike did your read what I said? I specifically said weed out those abusing the system. But help the ones who want to be helped. As to the productivity statement... I was disagreeing with Billie because I do not think only those who are considered productive (I took that statement to

mean working in that prior post) should be allowed to vote. There are a lot of former hard working folks who today are without a job, not because they want to be.... I have seen people who held nice jobs laid off who cannot find new work after 2 years. Some of them can't work at a fast food place because of feet, leg, back issues and high blood pressure issues where they can't be on their feet that long. We have to realize that the old stereotype of those getting government assistance has drastically changed.
3 days ago Like

Follow Mike

Mike Valley I must appologize as I misread your post ma'am. However my Pie-in-the-sky comment still stands with regards to a process for weeding out the system abusers. Who are the investigators and eventual deciders there? As a man who has moved several times following my career (yes even after I retired from the military), I have to respond to the people who can't find work after 2 years by staing..."The borders are open!" By and large American's do not need premission to move to another state. Well unless they are required to stay in an area for punitive or civil litigation purposes - and most of those can be waived for purposes of work. How long do you fishin one spot before moving to catch the fish...eh? Personally, I am not one who will sit idly by in an area and wait for work to find me. If you can't work in an area, go and find it elsewhere!
3 days ago Like

Follow Redouane

Redouane Bounejmate Well well, the 'weed out' abusers comes with certain benefits. You can't possibly start killing people before offering them a fair alternative. When they refuse to be reasonable however, what are the choices? That is technically speaking, the obstruction of peace... However, I would not want to be caught anywhere near a table where such things are discussed. People involved are more likely to be 'screened and filtered' for any flaws mention-able. Q.C. included.
3 days ago Like

Follow Gabrielle

Gabrielle Sutherland This is an EXCELLENT point @Redouane, thank you and I agree. Positive law seems to be forgotten here, as that's where legislation comes into play, and we forget that jurisdiction means that many of these decisions are allocated to 50 different states. And I agree that this discussion is hovering on a slippery slope of eradicating human life altogether.
3 days ago Like

Follow Laura

Laura Bozzay Mike, many of these folks have family here. Many of them are displaced Chrysler workers when the plant was dismantled and shipped to Mexico or was it Canada? In any event, they were once gainfully employed and now not because that was a big employer in this area. Moving to another state takes money and if you are living off of unemployment or have lost it and then your savings....well that may not be as easy if you have family to consider. I started 2 businesses after taking an early retirement package that was offered by the company I worked for, for 22 years. It was my choice to do it unlike some of the people I know who had no choice. I have 5 elderly relatives who depend on me so if I was one of the downsized I could not just pick up and go. Life is not that simple. Wish it was. I rent space for one of my companies from a social service agency that works with getting the homeless back into the mainstream. We have seen a lot of families living out of cars since the economy went south. Many of these folks have 2 working parents who still don't make enough to rent an apartment,feed and clothe their children. It is very sad. Some have high medical bills that eat up the minimum wages they make. I am not for turning people into slaves to a government system... and yes some our laws are doing that and I do not agree with it. But neither do I see all poor people as lazy and not wanting to work. I believe there is some middle ground that the polarized right and left like to talk about. I am in independent. Definitely not a liberal or a conservative. I think my views are very similar to many people in the US who are fed up with a Congress who do nothing but bicker and don't get the things done to make this a better country for its citizens. Thankfully they got something done on some of the fiscal cliff issues but, they need to do the things that make business flourish in this country... not the things that shut it down... As a small business owner I am tired of being regulated to the point of insanity. The forms and licenses I have to fill out and pay each year are truly daunting. Because of the taxation and health care laws we can't afford to hire more people...truly wish I could.... and we would if there was incentive instead of penalty to do so! Thing about that for one minute... there are literally millions of small businesses. If each one added 1/2 person that would employ something like 7 million people! Yet we have people who can't take a part time job because then they loose unemployment or other govt subsidies. Therefore we create slaves to a welfare state instead of one that helps people gradually get back into the work force any way they can. Mike and Redouane, As to who determines the abusers, I think you set up criteria. Things like assessment based on

physical limitation issues (wheelchair bound, heart disease kind of stuff) followed by skill set assessment and provide training or retraining as the case may be to get those skill sets up to marketable standards. I know of a company that works with people on disability to get them back to work and off disability. They work with health care, education, and social service professionals who gauge the ability of a person to get retrained and employed in a different field where the thing that got them classified as disabled does not matter. I would not leave it up to a govt agency...that would be truly frightening...
3 days ago Like

Follow Redouane

Redouane Bounejmate I think the number one priority for the U.S. right now is to handle the problems related to immigration. Many of the world's scholars end up fleeing their own home country and settling in the U.S. and, knowing that at a certain time this was justified, today, I see it as rather a treachourous act from certain individuals, while of course certain financial and marketing institutions tend to tackle the occasion with enthusiasm regardless of the consequences abroad. I know that in the U.S. this isn't given much thought because it's a 'freedom thing', but locally, people who for example abandon their local government job in exchange of a bigger salary or more benefits, are traitors, more or less. And I say that having certain family members in the category above, and I like them pretty much. But then again, they have their reasons for leaving. If in fact the U.S. were to offer more assistance in terms of helping and promoting justice abroad instead of the local ventures and opportunities for asylum, I would think that asylum should be considered a much more serious issue and that the line for making decisions be taken more prudently, and certainly as a temporary solution. What happens though is that the administration gets caught up in handling too many cases and deviates towards focusing its attention on intrrnal rather than external affairs and voila, emigrants come in, and they never leave. Of course everyone would argue that Americans are 'International Citizens', but I disagree. Those who helped build America, and make it what it is today, are Americans. All those who come after the work and just for the party are running away from work that needs to be done somewhere else. This is very serious, and it's in fact the only thing standing between other nations becoming as patriotically considered as the U.S., or not. When it comes to democracy, the U.S. has done its job. And to balance it, it has been more than generous and hospitable to many individuals back at home. And today, right now, is probably the time to 'Turn the Other Cheek', and show people where home is. It's also about time for those who have sought America for wisdom to embark back to their nations in order to use that wisdom locally, and help everyone benefit from it. Yes, they can argue that it's difficult, but these were the original intentions and plans. Plenty of people are eager to present a 'speech' for immigration officers when applying for asylum or a student visa, speaking of dreams for their 'patria', but very few go back. I only hope everyone understands me, because the more volunteers we have, the better. In fact, it would be a much valued reaction from the U.S. if it were to encourage people first, using some sort of campaign. There are really no more excuses for abandoning a home country today, seeing as this tends to be just a made up excuse that tips the balance towards non-sense and chaos.
3 days ago Like

Follow Gabrielle

Gabrielle Sutherland I want to ask if we are still on topic of the viability of America--how are we forming the "umbrella" in order to stay alive....is everyone ok with our direction? or do we need to start a new topic. I'm ok with the umbrella = this is how we envision America is alive and well. Everyone else?
3 days ago Like

Follow Laura

Laura Bozzay Gabrielle, I am not one to support killing people or taking away truly needed services. But, Billie brought up the idea of only allowing what was called productive members of society to vote. I adamantly disagree with that. There are people who abuse the systems. People who cash 3 and 4 welfare checks. That is criminal action and should be weeded out. There are illegal aliens who broke the law to come here and there are those in politics who want to give them the right to vote so they vote for a specific party. That is not something I can agree with either. I am not a Rep. or a Dem. I think both parties are too extreme now. We need more middle of the road people directing the parties and not these extreme liberals and conservatives. I am not advocating killing anyone. I do however think we need to get back to a government that works for the people and not against them. It comes down to this: The more Americans employed the more tax dollars available for social services and taking care of people who truly need it. The more businesses are regulated the less employees they will be able to have. Therefore you get higher unemployment and less tax dollars to fund social services. Which version would you rather support? Some regulation is good, but now we have so much it is daunting for a small business to operate effectively. I personally would rather support things that help this economy grow which means employing Americans gainfully.
3 days ago Like

Follow Redouane

Redouane Bounejmate Though I originally thought it was 'unforgiving', today, I see the Canadian Employment / Social Benefit system as perfect. If you have a job, you are totally covered. If not, there are certain risks. At any rate, everyone pays taxes, the problem is homelessness, in Canada, that is dealt with properly too, and if you omit cases related to emigration, you can see the picture clearer. Canada is a good example to follow, in my opinion. I am not suggesting that you 'kick out' people from the U.S., but at least consider those who have come in after the 90s with no reasonable justification, and also, those involved in drugs, criminal activity, illegal immigration activities, technically speaking, those who are abusing the system and do not have the benefit of the doubt. If you are going to be in the U.S. and have more problems than back at home, i.e., no employment, no health coverage, no

legal rights, then what is the point? To stay hiding, in hope that one day you will become an American Citizen, to go back home and brag about it? I don't see how the entire planet can become America... :) But for it to become like America, people need to contribute in other places too, especially if they come from there.
3 days ago Like

Follow Laura

Laura Bozzay Redouane, I cannot agree with this. If we ever stop taking people in who have something to offer this nation then we really are dead. We cannot solve all the problems in other countries. People in them have to solve their own problems. We have enough trouble solving our own problems. Part of the strength of this nation is it diversity that comes from a mix of multiple traditions and ideas. Some of our best doctors, teachers, and business people are visionaries who started life in another country but came here because they had something to offer us and we have something to offer them they could not get in their home country. Sorry, but I cannot agree to closing the borders to legal immigration. Illegal immigration is another matter. If you want to come here, take the steps to do it legally. If you are denied there is likely a good reason for it. There are immigration criteria set up to protect those already here from criminals and those carrying diseases not easily cured. Let the current laws be enforced.
3 days ago Like

Follow Redouane

Redouane Bounejmate "Some of our best doctors, teachers, and business people are visionaries who started life in another country but came here because they had something to offer us and we have something to offer them they could not get in their home country. " :) I am really, sorry, but would you mind giving us our doctors back? There are villages in Morocco where the closest hospital is 140 km away, through mountain treks and pathways and accessible only through helicopter ( please observe the irony ) in cases of emergency. Sometimes, ladies have to assist each other give birth in snow conditions and they have no education nor qualification to do so, and without supervision from medical staff or the ability to have access to a medical facility for days because the roads are closed due to weather conditions and lack of means of transportation. I do not mean to be rude, but if you have qualified people from other places, it means that the country which has

helped them attain these qualifications, are cheated. When a country raises a generation of airline pilots, it has a certain number of airplanes to fly too. Of course the problem is that in the U.S. people are offered more generous salaries, better health benefits and life insurance, and of course the conditions of work are more agreeable and comfortable as well as other benefits relative to life in the U.S. However, you wouldn't want the whole world to move in now, would you? I got a tent and I can build a raft within two weeks, but they'll beat me - they steal the airplanes:p
3 days ago Like

Follow Redouane

Redouane Bounejmate I also would like to mention that most of this is voluntary. I am acquainted with several professionals who have moved back home despite their qualification and experience, because they thought they could take a chance here just as well as in the U.S., and, despite the difficulty in recognition for their talent ( sometimes American/Canadian diplomas are not accredited ), they have persevered to obtain a position with the government or even start their own venture. It is really hard to leave a family behind and go to another country and start life from scratch, unless the reasons are absolutely serious, I personally wouldn't venture into those possibilities - war perhaps, disease, those are solid foundations for emigration. Otherwise, it would simply be tourism with the wrong intentions :) i.e. staying too long and bothering the host needlessly.
3 days ago Like

GordonUnfollow

Gordon Fowkes The idea of a productivity quotient to apply to the calculation of one's pay. Now this will required some innovative irreleancy to measure seat time less break time multiplied by the pay factor which is an extrapolation from the blood alcohol reading one hour after last recorded seating indicator reading. Important altitude adjustments of the chair altitutde above parking spot divided by the seat to urinal latera displacement factor. This takes into account the density altitude effect on brain vacuity. Now it is held in obscure quarters of the HR-Accounting Pergatory that such irrelevant measures are too difficult to measure from mean seat level inversely fluctuated by the age of the coffee in the last warm remant. Further it is irrelavant for productivity to be measured by such vague concepts like satisfiled customer absent the completed customer feed back report. One comforting factor for management is the vital role the Board Jester plays in maintaining corporate equanimity by laughing at the bosses jokes. This important role has been expanded lately by the expansion of the Automated Audience complete with updated curses and pejorative cacaphony to the stupid who didn't screw their bosses first.
3 days ago Like

Follow Gabrielle

Gabrielle Sutherland thank heavens for this Jester!!

3 days ago Like

Follow Agha

Agha A an americans thoughts on american history--http://themanumitterpapers.blogspot.com/2008/05/reality-of-it-all.html Monday, May 12, 2008 The Reality of It All We as a nation have lost sight of the realities. What was, what was suppose to be, and what is, are not the same. We are fighting wars in places we have no place being, and giving billions of dollars in aid to countries that are becoming rich, while our country becomes poor. We have lost sight of what America was supposed to be. We can't heal the world, while our own country lays dying in sickness and poverty, nor should we be expected to. At the same time, we shouldn't be trying to influence the whole world with our political and religious beliefs. I quit the church because they kept wanting money for the "missions, and building fund," while they were letting people in our own community who were disabled and down on their luck suffer. My grandmother always said, "Clean up your own backyard, before you start trying to clean up others," and I am a firm believer in that. As an American citizen, and a Vietnam veteran I am ashamed at what our country has become over the last century. All of this talk about a world economy, and the New World Order is going to be our down fall. We have allowed the left wing-liberals, and the right-wing fascist, to take over our government. Americans puts more money in other countries through government aid, and "Sunday School donations," than can be imagined, while the suffering in our own cities and villages never ends. We have allowed foreign powers, and illegal immigrants to come into our country and steal our very soul, and break our own economy. All of this as part of our desire to dominate the world through politics and religion, Sure I sympathize with the plight of people in other countries, but I believe that we have an obligation and a responsibility to take care of our own citizen first and foremost. We have become a country that is on the one hand afraid of our own shadow; i.e the "war on terror," and on the other, a fascist regime set on an attempt at world domination. In the process we are becoming a third world country, and a welfare state. We have allowed what were once American driven companies to become world power conglomerations, who have

take good jobs, that were once America's life's force, and allowed them to be sent overseas with no penalty, and at the expense of the American citizenry. We have allowed them in their greed to form monopolies and conglomerations that that make a few men and women wealthy beyond reason in the name of capitalism, and in the process we have become no better off than our forefathers who were ruled by feudalism, where a few rich elite held sway over the masses. We have allowed our leaders to send our children and grandchildren into foreign lands to fight, and for some to die while others become hopelessly maimed, not for prevailing threats against our life, liberty, or happiness, but for the enrichment of greedy millionaires, billionaires, and the multinational conglomerations they own. We have invaded sovereign nations, influenced elections, and overthrown freely elected governments at the expense of millions of lives, all perpetrated by lies and deceit, for the benefit of nothing but greedy capitalist who desire to control the world and make peasants of all of us, while they become rich and maintain powers no man deserves. continued in next post
3 days ago Like

Follow Agha

Agha A http://themanumitterpapers.blogspot.com/2008/05/reality-of-it-all.html

Are there solutions to these problems? Yes, there are, but it's going to take a whole new revolution and mindset to ever do it. Why is it so unreasonable to believe that there should not be limits on the amount of wealth that any one individual or family should be allowed to accumulate? Why is it unreasonable to believe that companies and corporations should be limited on the amount of holding they can have? I am not advocating that the government should own and control everything as in communism, instead I believe that there should be equal and fair limitations set to insure that there is a fair and equal distribution of wealth in this country. I mean how many homes and cars can and do one family use and deserve? Why should one family be allowed to own ten homes across the world, while another American can't even afford to own one? I am afraid that our forefathers and we have been sold a "pig-in-the-poke." Even our constitution was set-up and written by wealthy men, who were not willing to part with the wealth that they had accumulated at the expense of slaves, poor tradesman, and theft from the Native Americans. Many may be surprised to know that at the end of the Revolutionary War, George Washington was the richest man in America, and that men like John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson were all millionaires by todays standards. When they wrote all about freedom and liberty, it was about their freedom and liberty. Freedom and justice for all was a blatant lie. They never freed the slaves, they never gave the poor who didn't own property, and had fought alongside them in the war the right to vote, they never gave women equal rights, and they never made the Native Americans equal partners in the new venture we now call the United States of America. Only George Washington in later years was willing to free his slaves. They didn't, because they knew if they did, that they would have to relinquish part of the power and wealth that they had accumulated by their crooked dealings and at the expense of everyone they had trampled on, stole from and held in slavery. My friends and fellow Americans you have been sold a cheap facsimile, of what could have been a great nation, and received no more than a "pig-in-the-poke" in return. Everyone owes it to their children, and their coming generations to educate themselves to what really is, and what really has been in this country, and what lies have been told, and realize what fools we have been made out to be. We as Americans owe it to ourselves and our generations to stand, and fight by whatever means are necessary to insure that what has happened is no longer allowed to continue. We must put it all on the line, and realize that in order for our country to be ever be truly great, all men and women must be able to live in a country, devoid of petty prejudice's, with respect and dignity and a true possibility to live in

prosperity and freedom unabated with the shackles that now bind us. Then and only then can we rest assured that our children and their generations will have a future that is filled with hope and justice for all.
3 days ago Like

GordonUnfollow

Gordon Fowkes The American Corporate Culture and the Political Culture are not aligned as much as pundits would put it. The Corporate head office knows that to do a job that requires a skill not in the US, it has two clear choices: Export the Work, or Import the Worker. Take your pick.
3 days ago Like

Follow Agha

Agha A very interesting dicussion.brilliant insights

3 days ago Like

GordonUnfollow

Gordon Fowkes , Agha, my good friend you have bought into a fairy tale about the American Past, one not remotely related to either or accepted fancy. First is the notion that your peer group that understands you will look out for your own interests because of empathetic magnetism, when it is an old adage that says the opposite: No one knows better how to screw you than your own peer group, who are still furiously trying to distance themselves from you. In a curious variant of that theme that the failed a$$kisser who becomes the assassin or executioner of the heads on the other end of the a$$hole. Robespierre and the rest of the French revolutionaries were of aristocratic background if not blood. Stalin is reputed to have been the illegitimate issue of a liaison between his mother and a Romanov. Feliz Dherzhinsky head of the Bolshevik Cheka was a minor Polish noble.,

The same motives can work to positive advantage as General von Steuben of unrealized but tremendous military talent including one of the very few with a short lived but elite military training with the King of Prussia. He fell on poor times until he ran into the circle in Paris helping the American colonists who recognized his value, when few others did. He couldn't speak English to the colonial troops, so he wrote in French and the French was translated to English and thus was born the First US Army Field Manual. The least qualified Revolutionary based on class, age, and experience was Lafayette, who turned out to be a crackerjack field commander, and the social graces to deal in higher GHQ with style. The history of American millionaire politicians who were rich before their elections include Washington, maybe Jefferson (died broke), Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, JFK, and many others who are less influenced by the rich because they have already been there, done it. Also many wealthy leaders of note did not earn or inherit their wealth, they married it, including Washington, Lincoln, LBJ and a host of others. The security that wealth gives one, also serves as a coolant on avarice, save raw power. The guy to watch out for is the guy who worked his way to the top, and once in power, can't stop.
3 days ago Like

Follow Billie

Billie Vincent Whew - an extraordinary breadth of subject matter. Redouane Bounejmate's views on immigration are brilliant (because I share those views). When we accept either a legal or an illegal immigrant into the U.S. we impact that country's future. if that immigrant possesses unusual education and/or skills we have denied that persons parent country those precious skills and knowledge. If the immigrant is fleeing the economic or political conditions in their parent country - and we accept them into the U.S. - we have denied the parent country the dissident's energies to change that country for the better. Yes, you can argue that one person probably will not make that much difference - but the accumulative process will - and does. Our benefit - or the individual or family's benefit is the loss to the parent country. Agha's interjection of the 2008 blog by the Vietnam veterans views in "The Reality of it All," while initially stating lofty ideals, then descends into advocating the distribution of wealth, i.e. communism while claiming not to be a communist. Gordon Fowkes then re-sets the perspective to one more closer to reality although the Vietnam veterans viewpoints on the wealth of some of our founding fathers came close to reality. I note that our U.S. Constitution guarantees "equal rights" but it does not guarantee "equal opportunity." As I see it some of the actions of President Roosevelt in the 1930s and especially President Johnson in the 1960s - and yeseven President Nixon in the early 1970s and the respective Congresses tried to legislate "equal opportunity" with social programs. As a small business owner, like Laura, I have competed against some of the consequence of those social programs. They were designed with good intentions (at least most were) except the law of unintended consequences is always operative (you'll have to get my recent book to go deeper into this quagmire as space here is inadequate to fully address this subject). In our attempt to legislate "equal opportunity" as opposed to "equal rights" under our laws we have overburdened our economy with burdensome taxes, out-of-control spending on entitlements, outrageous uncontrolled welfare programs, and our elected representatives beholden to the welfare cognoscenti refuse to return our government to solvency. We have each articulated many of our social and economic problems - but we still refuse to come to grips with the

de Tocqueville prophecy that started this discussion. We either have to accept our current state-of-affairs and accept the inevitable consequences of over burdensome taxes and out-of-control spending placed on the working part of our society - or we take resolute action to return our economy to solvency.
3 days ago Like

Follow Gabrielle

Gabrielle Sutherland From Neil Licht: Neil LichtJanuary 9, 2013 9:09 AM Its not just the American democrcy that is facing these issues. BTW, Democracy is a political system, Socialism is an economic system so please dont co-mingle the words as one. In this case, the Democracy has "voted in" or legislated some "socialism" steps or programs. Look at Greece, Spain, etc where the government has essentially become the care taker of its populous. Now, its expected and its also bankrupting countries litterally. I'm entitled is the norm. We seem to see government as a social welfare concept not a civil issues government. Once the incentive to take care of yourself gets replaced by government giveaways, the life of that society and its strength-personal brainpower and initiative- dies away. With it, so does the society itself. What is the mix that works re soscial welfare v no minimum protections via government. Can the "let government do it" trend be undone? Comments please Neil Licht
3 days ago Like

Follow Federico

Federico Schiavio The word democracy comes from the Greek words demos the people and kratos rule, and therefore means rule of the people. As a political form, it is commonly understood as majority rule. For centuries, the U.S. government has upheld itself as the most advanced expression and international defender of democracy. It has launched wars and invasions in the name of democracy. But there are different types of democracy, so what type exists in the United States? The earliest European system commonly called a democracy was in Athens, Greece around 2,500 years ago. In a

city of 100,000 people, however, it is estimated that less than 10 percent of the population voted. Only men who had completed their military obligations and who were full citizens could participate. The system excluded women, immigrants (metics) and the more than half the population who were slaves. In a government based on the rule of the people, it was really a minority ruling class that decided who constituted the people. Much like the democracy of ancient Greece, U.S. democracy was founded by slave owners. It too excluded women and enslaved people, and initially gave voting rights only to men who owned property. As of 1787, the property-owning requirement to run for political office was so stringent that most voters did not even qualify as candidates. So the owning class used property ownership requirements to create a democracy that concentrated political decision-making power in their own hands. Since the founding of the United States, popular struggles have torn down exclusionary voting requirements. State after state eliminated their property qualifications for white male voters in the first half of the 19th century, with South Carolina being the last to do so in 1860. A powerful suffragist movement won white women the right to vote in 1920. African Americans defeated Jim Crow voting restrictions in the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s, winning the Voting Rights Act in 1965. But as this aspect of the democratic system "voting requirements" has been opened, the U.S. ruling class has carefully adjusted the political system so that informal rather than formal requirements keep power in the hands of the rich property owners. A bipartisan political system offers the appearance of a choice between two parties that fundamentally agree on the supremacy of the corporate exploiters at home (think Wall Mart or pick your own) and imperialist exploitation abroad (example: BP will drill 17 new exploration wells in Libya, a senior company official said Nov. 1, Reuters reported. Five wells will be drilled offshore and 12 will be drilled onshore, the official said. The diffusion of political power in post-Gadhafi Libya means investors must satisfy diverse regional stakeholders.) For instance, rather than formally requiring someone to be worth a certain dollar amount in order to run for office, as it was in 1787, candidates now must be able to raise tens of millions of dollars in order to run their campaigns. It is basically an informal requirement that one must be rich to win political office or be endorsed by the rich. Nearly all current senators are officially millionaires. It's easy to become a millionaire when you make the laws and get to play in the stock market and there is not one worker in the U.S. Senate and there have only been six black senators since post Civil War Reconstruction ended in 1877. Hardly a representative body.

Continues...
3 days ago Like

Follow Federico

Federico Schiavio Moreover, only the inessential parts of the U.S. political system are subject to the vote and majority rule. You do not get to vote on your wages or benefits (Congress does). You do not get to vote on whether the company you work for should lay off workers. You do not get to vote on whether the country should go to war, or if it should cut spending on social programs. There may be a vote taken on these issues, but it is a vote amongst millionaires in the corporate boardrooms and the halls of Congress.

Is there an alternative to this democracy for the rich? The practical basis for constructing a new type of democracy is

very simple. Whether in Ancient Greece or in modern capitalism, a minority class has controlled societys wealth and decision-making powers. Majority rule is a lie as long as a tiny minority holds the vast majority of the wealth. Under capitalism, the economy is not subjected to the will of the majority. It is driven by the quest for profits. Decisions are made by individuals and groups of individuals on the basis of how and where to maximize their personal profits. A democratic society would be organized so that the people have decision-making power over how to use the wealth of society, which is produced collectively. Subjecting the economy to conscious decision-making and to majority rule, in other words, bringing the economy into the realm of democracy is called a planned economy. It is a basic principle of socialism. Can anybody say "Mob Rule"?
3 days ago Like

Follow Gabrielle

Gabrielle Sutherland @Federico, your description of Athens is simply not correct. There is no way to encapsulate a complex civilization in so short a description, and the way you have chosen to describe it is not only an oversimplification, but a misrepresentation of the reality of what was Ancient Athens (which was never Europe, by the way). To make a valid comparison to the USA, you will also need to look at it in the way the Founding Fathers did, which was at its classical elements and to also compare like to like; and then contrast in the same way; otherwise your comparisons are invalid. To then bring your comparison forward, you will have to draw a clear line of distinction and understand more of your American history, including those people, events, or elements that you have left out or disregarded. False premises make for a false conclusion every time.
3 days ago Like

Follow Gabrielle

Gabrielle Sutherland @Neil, you might want to jump in here on Capitalism too, but @Federico, capitalism belongs in a different set of terms. We look at time periods for economic ideologies, and some are overarching, some overlap, and they intertwine with religious principles and truths as well. Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations would not have been able to introduce "the Invisible Hand" any earlier, but neither did it appear out of thin air. The practice of democracy is so old that when it was encapsulated into formal governmental theory as one of 6 forms, it was not invented, but rather just an observation. The way that it is practiced depends on the needs of the

time, but also the laws, values, expectations, and so much more . . from those who are involved. While economic and governmental or political ideologies co-exist and at time buttress one another, they are not in a cause-and-effect relationship. They also do not exist to benefit a particular group of people as such. Rather, each particular form of government is seen to have certain benefits and certain drawbacks. How the players utilize those, is part of the balance of power, within the system, which is something else.
3 days ago Like

Follow Michael J

Michael J Moylan @ Federico then we all would be poor. I can not make you learn I have no control over a family that is not functional. Yet you want to take from one for another. That is wrong also Where is personal responsibility? So do I take your children away from you? That worked well in USSR! Where is the moral imperative ?
3 days ago Like

Follow Jon

Jon Bojsen Kvrndrup @Gabrielle (& Federico indirectly who I agree with - also for Michael Moylan, and the rest of the world who're afraid of what happens if we don't make enough money...) I had the same thought on Federico's Athenian dissertation, but then I've studied Thucydides, so I know how few sources we really have on Athens (or anything more than 200 years old). And how troublesome it is to claim anything based on ancient history. However it is an interesting argument, if inadequate. What we know of Athenian democracy is that it was fundamentally different from what we know as democracy today - for one thing it was essentially smaller, dealing with what today would be similar in size to an ordinary town (but comparatively a metropolis of it's age). It was run by an assembly where every male citizen had a right to speak, it had a central group of around 500 elected to deal with daily business. And a group of non-citizens working for a living, as well as slavery which mostly came from populations of defeated enemies (but not quite the extreme version that the Romans later would use). It's workings are best described in the following contemporary excerpt from Plato's "Protagoras": The character Socrates in Platos Protagoras says that when the Athenian Assembly is discussing construction, the citizens call for builders to speak, and when it is discussing the construction of ships they call for shipwrights, but if anyone else, whom the people do not regard as a craftsman, attempts to advise them, no matter how handsome and wealthy and well-born he may be, not one of these things induces them to accept him; they merely laugh him to scorn and shout him down, until either the speaker retires from his attempt, overborne by the clamor, or the Archers

pull him from his place or turn him out altogether by order of the presiding officials (Plat. Prot. 319b - Plat. Prot. 319c). But, Socrates continues, when the discussion is not about technical matters but about the governing of the city, the man who rises to advise them on this may equally well be a smith, a shoemaker, a merchant, a sea-captain, a rich man, a poor man, of good family or of none (Plat. Prot. 319d).

This is, by the way, nowhere near the system we have today.
3 days ago Like

Follow Michael J

Michael J Moylan @ federico If you are citizen and you are poor there are more of you than those you think are rich/ So you collect yet the minority pay. I do not argue the point of senators or congressman that is one of my key points They buy your vote because you the poor buy what they say and they give you aid. The fall of the Roman empire began with bread and circus that is what you have how. Envy is the destruction of man. Give me a plan If you work should you not keep some of your gains? We are talking not about$$$$ super dollars we are talking every day I do my job folks If you do not willing work why should those who labor support you Where is responsibility for who you are? What about learning? I have a responsibility to help those through no fault of their own can't afford to support themselves Guess I also have to support illegals in this country car thieves rapist murderers pay you to have babies So you want class warfare you work hard make a million bucks turn it over to us that never gave a damn. Yet this country donates more money to help those that truly need help privately . I refuse to be the next Greece or Spain . Show me why the European Social system works You screw up I do not owe you a dime The pity party is about what the hell did you do for yourself It is ownership. My father was a junk man When I was a kid I sat on the rear of his truck in a dump. Now you want me to pay for someone that did not crawl out of that hole because I owe you, What about my effort what about my willingness to learn why don't I get to keep some of this' I just don't buy into this game. I got a education I worked my way up so I could educate my kids. This is not bull this is where I came from. Do you think I had fun living this way. Never a new bike All my cloths were passed down from family well worn but usable Been there done that
3 days ago Like

Follow Gabrielle

Gabrielle Sutherland @Jon, Socrates actually admired the constitution written by Lycurgus for the Spartan version of democracy, and Plato wrote a great deal more than just this through his teacher. We need to read more than just Thucydides, for Herodotus offers an earlier viewpoint much more in line with Dorian thought. When we read either the Theogony or Works and Days by Hesiod we also understand that we are reading the great debate between Dorian and Lydian Greek viewpoints. We view the past, and watch political reform...all democratic...as we see Kleisthenes, later Peisistratus push through reforms which serve as stepping stones. The compromises made by Solon were considered wise at the time, but we also --from our vantage point--see what this meant for democracy too. And yes, we see as it leads to what Thucydides will later write about, but not yet. We fall in love with Pericles and what is considered the Golden Age of Greece, and even laugh when all the men decide they need to wear Alcibiades sandals--and why is he so popular when he's a traitor to BOTH sides? Plato, in his time, was called "Plato the Great" and not many people are given that designation during their life time. He lived during the reign of the Thirty tyrants, and yet everyone still called Athens a democracy. The great confederate wars that continued later when Thebes, Delphi, and others ruled intermittently are also known to us through various writers including Plutarch who was born in Greece, and later wrote comparison works. What I have just listed is a teeny tiny list of what we know, because it is just about some of the written sources. So, I beg to differ; we know a GREAT deal about the time, for we know much about what happened in between what I just listed, too. We know the sociological conditions, the laws, the demographics, and we know the before and the after. We know so much more, too. You're right about the fact that it was not at all what we have today except that they were people who consciously formed a government based on classical principles, with a view of reform at its base, and a hope for elasticity, and probably shared with us a desire for dominance.
3 days ago Like

Follow Jon

Jon Bojsen Kvrndrup So what is my problem with your arguments against Federico? You aren't exactly taking on his many main, quite interesting points, f.ex. on US senators wealth and the state of democracy today infected by such obscenely wealthy people today... Since American democracy has been inextricably tied to anti-communism = anti-sharing the wealth = extreme wealth centred on a few people, while others live under extreme poverty

Then we the people, whereever we are, become split between the dictatorship of money and the dictatorship of the majority opinion (which Plato describes), and some have for 2 centuries hoped for a solution through the dictatorship of the proletariat. (Long Disclaimer: Communism in it's ideal form = perfect sharing of wealth = basically Christianity in a new shape (without all the useless, but impressive, loveable buildings, priests and discussions of dogma) which is why I like it. However you can't base a world religion on just any man - especially not someone like Yosef Stalin. Unfortunately Marx created the whole idea of the "dictatorship of the proletariat" for him to buy into and "overwrite" (but basically keep) his original orthodox christian upbringing, spiced up with the execution of his brother for anti-authoritarian activities et al. "Dictatorship of the people" is basically a complete governmental contradiction, a paradox that allows a person to believe that you are both the spearhead of and on the way to, the "dictatorship of the proletariat", an ideal of the perfect state of anarchy where those who don't try to take advantage of others, because they know better, make the rules (a primary reason to the question - who are the proletariat anyway? And do or did they even exist ever!?) You could also make the argument that Jesus wanted to teach us an ideal state of anarchy, where symbols of wealth; like coins, titles or temples, don't matter that much in comparison to doing the right thing - like helping people, whoever they are. Give all you can, whoever you are. That's the true greatness of Jesus. Obviously everytime people use him for politics, the crazy lizard at the centre of our brain, gets a chance to take over.

And that's why the US is obviously dying. One thing is the economic system of monetary consolidation on the fewest possible hands has, yet again, caused a worldwide economic disruption. Shown that the dream is dying with the rapid decline of the Middle Class since the early 80's (and there I go with another topic, but I basically agree with Paul Krugman's views). Because the rich are basically an anomaly, so different from the rest of us, that we have no way of ever coming to understand them - unless science brings us all to their level. Once they were known as monarchs and nobility, and they had actual roles that made sense. Now they arise either by chance or manipulation of a system that appeared more from opportunity, than from any kind of inevitable development. We are learning that we, as humanity, can't allow ourselves to follow the basic tenets of capitalism - growth. Because the planet can only sustain so much crap. And we learn that the eco-system, which we are a part of, is working on a level of complexity far beyond our ability to comprehend, is reacting violently to what we thought were complex solutions to simple problems - like food production increases keeping more people alive - actually proved to be destroying entire eco-systems... We can't believe in the American Dream anymore. The idea that prosperity is what it's all about, has to be - and hopefully will be - accepted as basically erroneous. We have to strive for balance! But how can that be done under the current ideals of capitalism? With the current system of democracy? With the strongest military power of the world, the one power that really defined what the world would be after WWII, ignoring the problem. That is a terrible terrible danger to the health of our planet.
3 days ago Like

Follow Gabrielle

Gabrielle Sutherland @Jon, if you want to use an argument with false premises, then the conclusions aren't going to be considered. @Fecerico hasn't yet used valid premises.

Standard Aristotelian syllogism. Basic logic is a primary requirement for any debate.
3 days ago Like

GordonUnfollow

Gordon Fowkes Political extremism has one significant advantage for the poiitical statistical analyst. It makes singe point regression analysis the way to go.
3 days ago Like

GordonUnfollow

Gordon Fowkes I have a hard time reconciling the burdensome tax pitch after the upper crust tax rate plummeted from the Golden Fifties to justify cutting benefits deemed basic to our overseas competitors leaving a dazed middle class muttering about which way did it go, which way did it go, which way did it go? Leaving some of the dazed to blame their job losses on the unemployed. During the French Revolution, the Rich skipped town, while the bulters, maids, and gardeners went to the Guillotine. The truly glib aomghst the Rich switched sides, and switched again and again when the Royals came and went again. What the situation calls for may not be what anyone really wants .... a Willy Stark!
3 days ago Like

Follow Gabrielle

Gabrielle Sutherland This might be of interest to all of you--from The Economist: http://www.linkedin.com/groups/RISK-CRONY-CAPITALISM-URGENT-NEED43593%2ES%2E202126030?view=&srchtype=discussedNews&gid=43593&item=202126030&type=member&trk= eml-anet_dig-b_pd-ttl-cn&ut=0lyRMVugEUkRA1
3 days ago Like

Follow Jon

Jon Bojsen Kvrndrup That'll teach me to jump headlong into an argument... If only Linkedin would allow one to post endless posts :-) then I wouldn't have to split them up. Gabrielle, I don't think you "get the point" (the point being my point, I'm sure you "get all of it, apart from my point" :). I'm agreeing with Federico on his whole approach to the capitalistic system, because I believe it is a fundamentally flawed system that we have to change, and the US is a central part of the problem, which is why so many speak of it's "death", (my point is - it's a death of a belief! Nations don't "die"...) but portraying his dissertation of the greek world, as wrong, because for one thing - it is - but for another, we won't find any solutions in looking back. And now you force me to explain why I both agree and disagree with you on your greek dissertation. We know a lot - you more than I on the greeks no doubt (though I have read some of Herodotus) - but what we know, still teaches us little of how it actually worked! Just as you won't get a proper idea of the dynamics of a conversation from reading someone's description of it, you have little idea of what greek culture actually was and why almost all of the greeks did what they did! History is as the word states - a tale. Not just any tale obviously, it is history after all, but nonetheless defined by the living being that is there, defining it. And so it is with the democracy of the greeks. We are 2400 years removed from it, from them, saying that we know what they were, is the same as claiming we know who our forefathers a 120 generations ago, were doing. All we can do, is guess - educatedly :) And that's all my point is... An educated guess. So I don't see where the "argument with false premises" comment come from? Do you have more than educated guesses on your plate? Or are you talking about my attack on the American Dream?
3 days ago Like

Follow Jon

Jon Bojsen Kvrndrup Sorry, didn't see your point about Federico :) I have most likely swooped through the whole discussion like a vacuum cleaner, sucking in whatever paved the way of my case :)
3 days ago Like

Follow Gabrielle

Gabrielle Sutherland Rules of engagement: Stick to the Topic Read enough of the previous posts to know where this discussion has been. It is long, but a few of us have stopped along the way to catch it up and also to regroup. The discussion has moved from it's original post as we have come together in some of our discussions. It is frustrating to explain to someone what has already been accomplished previously. As Laura said a few days ago, one of the great things about America is that we agree and disagree (I'm paraphrasing you, @Laura). We don't need to agree on content; we do agree, however on process Please back up what you say with actual examples or material. We do not attack each other. it is most likely that we do not agree on many things, but that is not important. Engagement is what we're about. If you decide to go off topic, please give a valid reason. @Jon, I will reply to you privately
3 days ago Like

Follow Neil

Neil Licht @ Frederico, You make assumptions without proof as in right to vote connected to owning property. Hamilton wanted that but could not get it adopted into the constitution. Your wording labels people in a way that we all know the meaning of as if we Americans were all a bunch of no good victims of the rich. Apparently you have not read John Lock upon which the modern definitions of democracy a created via the American Constitution were founded. I'm not sure you realize it but in the way you make your points, it looks like you are a propagandist with an agenda. The statement seem to look like you don't have the ability to differentiate between democracy as a governmental basis and socialism as a governmental basis. Did you intend these impressions? Now I'm going to address your views just in case you actually mean them to be accepted. My uncles were born .about 1910 or so not that long after my Grandparents came to the US via Ellis Island. One uncle became a millionaire and was not blockaded by the Rich in power. His brother became a respected realtor and he too did well financially, again without being controlled or blockaded by the Rich.

They both faced the challanges of taking on the role of building and growing their own businesses. In NYC. They registered to vote when old enough and funny thing, they along with other immigrant 1st generation Americans took political control of the NYC government. I'm sure you know about the Democratic machine era in NYC history and many other US cities like Chicago and Boston for instance. In NYC, that era ended with the election of Mayor Lindsey in the 60's. Those "disenfranchised", "powerless" 1st generation kids of immigrants like my Grandparents decided to use the Democratic process to get and keep political power so their entire generation would not be abused by the rich you say control America. Now, here in the US today, a new generation of 20-40 year olds have the majority and as my generation did with JFK, created and pulled off a changing of the guard via the democratic process from the old ways to the newer ways. And the rich enslave us how???? And democracy failed us how???? Neil Licht
3 days ago Like

Follow Laura

Laura Bozzay I do not think we can compare 21st America to Ancient Greece or Rome. The economics are different, the government set up and operation are different. Yes some people will make more money in a capitalistic society than others. But that is not necessarily a bad thing. If someone has a great idea and a great work ethic they deserve to make more than someone who is not as visionary and is not as willing to work hard. You can spend your life wanting what others have and feeling deprived or you can spend your life working for the things you want. Things you earn tend to have more value than things given to you. Entitlement dies pretty quickly when the money runs out. Government can support the businesses that employ its citizens and thereby through their taxes contribute to social programs for the truly needy or they can set up programs that make people dependent on them.... which do you want and which makes more sense in the long run? I vote for business because it not only helps people materially but psychologically, emotionally, and even spiritually as it allows you to have money to help others in need. Many rich people give a great deal of money and other services. Yes there are some rich people who are self-absorbed and stingy but far more are philanthropic and generous. Here are some stats on charitable giving in the USA http://www.cbo.gov/publication/42536 <http://www.cbo.gov/publication/42536> http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/18/which-americans-are-most-generous-and-to-whom/ <http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/18/which-americans-are-most-generous-and-to-whom/> Making business the big bad wolf is just not realistic and it hurts America because without business there are no jobs and without jobs the economy descends into ruin. In 2008-2010 more businesses closed than opened. That is not a good sign for America. To keep America from dying we have to support creating and sustaining businesses. http://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/FINAL%20FAQ%202012%20Sept%202012%20web.pdf Elected government officials need to be reminded of the old Chinese adage: "Give a man a fish and you feed him for

a day. Teach a man how to fish and you feed him for a lifetime." and these from Ben Franklin The Constitution only guarantees the American people the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself. and Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one. and I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I traveled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer. America will die if we continue to fund social programs without fixing the problem... unemployment.... not all recipients of government subsidies want to be where they are. Let's do the things we need to do to help them get back to work. That gives dignity to them and with a fair wage comes freedom of choice.
3 days ago Like

Follow Federico

Federico Schiavio @ Neil I am not a propagandist with an agenda, I'm a day trader, mostly commodities and before that an Internet entrepreneur. In other words a die hard capitalist. And all I'm doing is stating my views of the topic at hand. And what I find most interesting is that my points are totally overlooked in favor of bashing the historic validity of said points. I find that fascinating. But to get to your point of "making assumptions without proof as in the right to vote connected to owning property" Jacksonian Democracy based on several general principles: [Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., The Age of Jackson (1945)] Expanded Suffrage The Jacksonians believed that voting rights should be extended to all white men. By 1820, universal white male suffrage was the norm, and by 1850 nearly all requirements to own property or pay taxes had been dropped. [Alexander Keyssar, The Right to Vote: The Contested History of Democracy in the United States (2nd ed. 2009) p 29] I just listed the one relevant to the conversation at hand. And no I haven't read John Lock and it appears you haven't read Alexander Keyssar. As for the rest of your comments you seem to take my points as a personal insult to you and the rest of our countrymen. Why? If you so wanted, could you run for President? No, you don't have Ross Perot's millions. Shouldn't Congress get our permission to raise their wages? Considering we pay them, shouldn't we have a say in it? Please, if you will, dissect the points in my previous post like the one on property tied to voting and elaborate on any particularly heinous things I may have said.
3 days ago Like

Follow Gabrielle

Gabrielle Sutherland @Federico, a plethora of historical materials is available with which to study the US presidents and the evolution of suffrage. The reason why John Locke has been mentioned more than once during the course of this discussion is because an understanding of his works is vital for understanding the founding of our country. More than one Enlightenment philosopher's words were used by those who led the fight to form a new country, but John Locke's words more than any other set the standard. Our forefathers did not quote him in the way that you see on the internet; they understood his theories and philosophies as a group. They understood him in the way that @Neil is trying to explain; they immediately recognized his theories in the way that even today, educated people do. Our founders discussed his principles in depth and incorporated them not just into the Constitution, but also in their deliberations, their speeches and pamphlets. If you read the transcripts of the various sessions of the Continental Congress, along with the regional meetings that led up to it, the journals of the delegates and their friends, and The Federalist Papers, you will discover that universal suffrage, property ownership, and slavery were ALL discussed during these early days. If you are interested, you can find out for yourself who held what beliefs on these subjects and more. James Madison and Ben Franklin both were known to call the Constitution the Grand Compromise because so many of these issues could have been divisive to the point of their being no agreement. James Madison had to be convinced, and George Washington was instrumental in that respect. The founders chose to set aside their differences and make a nation based on what they COULD agree upon, many of them stating that it would not be long before they would have to come to terms with the other items. It's miraculous, really, what they accomplished, given how difficult it is to find agreement, and how VERY different were the states.
3 days ago Like

Follow Federico

Federico Schiavio This might be of interest to all of you--from RT: http://rt.com/usa/news/harm-country-percent-congress-593/

2 days ago Like

GordonUnfollow

Gordon Fowkes I went to the University of California (lower division) and graduated from UCLA just before California turned :Left. Before the Burning of the Bras and the Peoples Park. The Communist Overground had captured the Tenured and Tenured to Be. The Muscoviite agenda was just getting started.. And once launched in May 1960, it gained a permanent hold on the Academic departments other than the hard sciences and a weak following in Poltical Science. After the Fall of the Wall, a remnant remained still spewing out Orthodox Bolshevism with a few minor word changes (Captialist to Corporate) amd continued on causes harmful to the US energy and defense sectors on behalf of requirements of the Russian Energy and Defemse industries. Russian gas and oil is the new Operational Mobile Group aka Omigod to penetrated deep into former client states and any bordering state. The successful "Green" movement in Germany closed down the German nuclear power sector to create total German dependance on Russian OIl and Gas.. The utter failure of Russian weapons in Iraq in Gulf 2 punched a huge hole in their peace loving armaments industry, Thus the BS about depleted uranium contanmination of the ground water in the Iraqi sandbox. The Polar Bear Scam is a classic: Russian dirty industries east of the Urals lie in the watershed of rivers that flow north into the Arctic thereby reducing it by almost a third since End WW 2. The arguments used during the continueing reign of Red depend rely heavily on the False Paradigm Shift which poses the Thesei as Anti-Thesis to facilitte a False Synthesis which is the original objective. Example: American Imperialism is a betrayal of Democracy which requires Disarmament of the Empire to return the US to Democracy. This one is still around. http://gordonswar.blogspot.com/search?q=propaganda The basis Buzziological Dynamic there being no such thing as an Ideological struggle as the rational part of the little gray cells are no involved: The Dynamic is the creation of the appearance of existential danger to the biological survival replication reproducers: kids. Creation of imminent peril to chldren is the hot button in Buzziology as a Science (BS). The creates the need for the Hero and Heroine aka Father-Mother to Rescue and Protect the future (kids) against the Villain; Villains are the Dark Side of the Heroic with Father (murderous, vicious bastard), Mother (manipulative, vindictive bitch, and Child (mad, voracious, brat). But Wait! That's only half the story. The dynamic role shifting is not a Bolshevik exclusive: You see it on advertising every day. Once of the clues is the use of the Law of Inverse Attribution: brag about your weakest virtue, and blame others with your own biggest vice. Sturdy paper bags, the TransAm Canada-Mexico border race in sixties era gas guzzlers (18.9 mpg!), get a classic education and make a classic salary, the least tar of any cigarette, etc, etc, ad nauseum: A Now, from the Right Red Side (Freudian slip I think) : 1. No one like Congress anymore. 1. The Founders said this and that, and it's a lie, a betrayal, or something worse. 1. Supreme Courts are supposed to make law, that's for the corrupe Congress. 1. Disarm the National Guard so that Patriot militias default to the might of the New Model (Standing) Army. 1. Islam isn't a religion, it is a political movement not entitled to 1st amendment rights. B. OBTW 1. What will replace legislatures and the courts in this Plutocratic State?

2. Some of the Founders are still alive today. Last Amendment was in 1992 with more amendments added in the 20th Century than the 19th.
2 days ago Like

Follow Federico

Federico Schiavio @Neil Democracy is a form of government and socialism is an economic system, join them together and you get democratic socialism. Socialism in its essence is a state of society in which all people work cooperatively as equals for the common good of all. In recent times people who hold this principle have been describing this principle as democratic socialism, to distinguish the principle from authoritarian and undemocratic states which have wrongly described themselves as socialist in character. The word socialism, as it first appeared, was used in publications devoted to cooperatives in Great Britain. Socialism was used to describe a society in which people work together to increase the benefit of all. Another underlying assumption was that people are, by natural rights, equals. Socialists have always been recognized for upholding the principle of the equality of peoples as a highest value. Because Socialists value the principle of equality, persons truly socialist in spirit value democracy as a vital political principle. In a democracy, each person has the right to be heard and to be given due consideration. The government is chosen by a vote of the people. This is the basis for the label democratic socialist. This label is used to distinguish democratic socialists from people who improperly call themselves socialist and do not support the values of both equality and democracy. Democratic socialism implies certain other values in human conduct: No person should exploit any other person. This principle of opposition to exploitation is especially important in labor relations. Natural resources should not be exploited or wasted. Changes in society and its governments should be made by free and open elections. Thus, democratic socialism ought to be achieved through the ballot box. Widespread and full public education is essential to guarantee the equality of people. People must have information and be allowed to communicate their ideas. Public Enterprise in some economic activities is necessary to help people attain economic and social equality. The government should undertake to do for them what people cannot do well for themselves. Public enterprise leads to the common definition of socialism found in dictionaries: "the public or collective ownership of the means of production and distribution and the democratic management thereof." Democratic socialists support the principles of democratic collective ownership of the basic means of production and the priniciple of democratic management. Therefore, democratic socialists support not only public ownership, but cooperative ownership of economic functions.

Democratic socialists support the idea of democratic public control of those activities which are described as "the commanding heights" of the economy, but do not support the idea of state ownership of every human enterprise. Certain societies have sometimes disguised themselves by using the term socialism.. "National socialism" advocates a one-party dictatorial society. "Communism" has frequently been used by political parties advocating and implementing a one-party society with very limited democratic practices. However, a truly communal society would be very democratic, as were some early societies in the Americas. Capitalism describes a state of society which accepts and encourages private ownership of the means of production. Capitalism exalts the selfish individual. In capitalism regulation of self-interest is discouraged as a hindrance to the operation of a "free market." The United States is considered by many political and economic leaders to be a capitalist society with a free market. However, the U. S. political and economic system is in reality a system of private markets protected by the government against competition. continues...
2 days ago Like

Follow Federico

Federico Schiavio Further, to keep the faltering American capitalism functioning, the various governments step in to provide public funds and support for functions performed by a private enterprise. The United States underwrites the risks for banks and other financial institutions. Local and state governments provide assistance for real estate developers through construction and maintenance of roads and public infrastructure. Local governments provide tax incentives for local developers. In contrast democratic socialists favor government programs to help provide all citizens with their basic needs. Socialists have implemented improved parklands, unemployment compensation, social security, more equitable taxation, public radio and television, and improved educational opportunities. Democratic socialists have always favored PEACE and opposed war as a means of settling differences between nations and groups, thus, look to duly constituted courts to settle differences. Democratic Socialists knowing the world societies are interdependent, hope to establish a world of "cooperative commonwealths"-- a world of nations which will cooperate with each other for the common good. Thus, democratic socialism is the radical idea that people should live and work cooperatively in a democratic society. A socialist society will provide for each individual's basic needs for food, clothing, shelter, transportantion, and health. I bring this all up not because Im a socialist at heart but because we are debating the death of America and if America is dying, the cause of death will be its dysfunctional government. So all Im doing is presenting a possible alternative. continues...
2 days ago Like

Follow Federico

Federico Schiavio To address you question, and the rich enslave us how? In case you havent noticed, possibly because you yourself are well off as were your uncles, the US is an economy powered by wage slaves. I used to be a wage slave but bootstrapped myself out of it. Other people not so much, some because they are lazy, some dont care, others never got the education, and still others are just plain too stupid. A wage slave is someone who cant afford to miss a paycheck because they live paycheck by paycheck as they spend all their money on materialistic crap mostly built overseas where the corporations outsourced all the jobs. If you want to see these wage slaves in action drive by any department store on Black Friday or Monday or whatever the flavor is for that particular holiday. You will see hundreds of people standing in line waiting for the doors to open so they can stampede over each other to get their deals. And these are the people that sustain our economy with their spending. Another example of wage slave with much worse consequences is the married couples who both work to make ends meet and support their children. Have you ever given any thought as to why todays kids are so f*cked up? Could it be that through neglect in the early formative years which are the most important to ensure a well balanced individual, because the parents are too busy working to make ends meet that they just plop their kids in front of a TV for hours at a time, might have something to do with it? If the children are the future of a nation, what kind of nation are we perpetuating? If we had a socialist system like the ones some people decry as only good to support loafers, mothers could take paid time off to be with their children for up to at least the first three years of life, ensuring a more balanced individual. Instead, under our current system, women only get 3 months of unpaid maternity leave. Hows that for slavery? On the topic of and democracy failed us how? Democracy did not fail us; we failed to use it properly. Oh lets see now, how about the Electoral College? Four candidates who won the popular vote lost because of that system. Does that sound democratic to you? Remember the hanging chads? How embarrassing was that? Just recently the fiscal cliff negotiations, what a bunch of buffoons and we let them represent us? We should recall the lot of them and put them in chain gangs for the rest of their thieving lives together with the lobbyists they sleep with.
2 days ago Like

Follow Herman

Herman Wilkes America has always been an immigrant society. To deny this fact is to show a certain ignorance to our history. What has transformed is the way the immigrants have "melted" into the American society. In the past many immigrants chose to ignore their cultural heritage over some mythical "American" / English speaking culture. Now, we have a more culturally awake society. If the American cultural model cannot adapt, then it will surely die. I believe America will be fine as long as we recognize that we can become stronger through our immigrant populations.
2 days ago Like

Follow Eric

Eric Roley, MBA . While I do not agree that America is dead, I do believe we must, as an educated public, take stock of our politicaleconomic processes on a local and global context.

If we are to be best prepared for the present and future, we must be actively investing in our children's health, spirit and education by planning for and the wiser use of our given resources, to make effective changes for the better.

Ultimately, education and the wise of use what has been learned and or not learned, are the keys to Freedom, a Thriving Democracy and a more fulfilling purpose in life. Without it, we become enslaved to our own placated ignorances by those who are not. .
2 days ago Like

Follow Gabrielle

Gabrielle Sutherland @Gordon, thank you. You know what strikes me most from reading your post? We have to be around a few generations to even understand half of what you wrote, let alone all of it Maybe it takes a few or several generations to learn some of what you're saying. You and I don't always agree--that's for sure--but reading that post reminded me of all of that, yes. I would add--though I know you were speaking with your cynical voice--that throughout history, heroes have arisen and changed the paradigm. As I've stated elsewhere, I believe that a true hero's efforts will cause a shift in society that will radicalize the culture....and we will see grass roots movements for change. Don't you believe, along with me that communities (however we might define a community--a smaller unit within the larger) can, indeed make a difference and even turn "the monster"? @Dale, as I'm writing this, I hearken back to your earlier statements of the new gods. What about a community effort? You wrote about the Occupy and Anonymous movements, and I'd like to know if those would qualify--in your opinion--as the type of NOT ANTS that could be part of the umbrella we are working towards in this discussion? Early in the discussion the idea of dead vs. alive was discarded, and we instead moved on to the "how then shall we live"?

@Federico, you posted an article about Congress, thank you. I don't think there is anyone on here yet, who has

endorsed recent government activity, spending habits, etc. In fact, I think it's quite the opposite. (Although we have quite divergent views on politics represented here!!!) Our differences seem to be leading us how we approach the solution, or what we are calling "Mike's Umbrella." Most of our discussion has centered on economics and the individual's role. We started with a heated discussion on military service and then service in general, which has led us to what is the individual's part? @Billie brought in new arguments, and now @Herman joins his voice to @Redouane with the topic of immigration. A recurring theme has drawn our attention to federal vs states, and the need to pay attention to the Constitution, since we are searching for that umbrella, thus positive law (or enforceability) which is something interlocutors keep mentioning. @ Neil's reminder that dialogue and examples not only have power, but are essential to a good discussion is a good one. Our longevity as a discussion is due partly because of the posts of @Laura and @MJM and @ Mike that follow that process--thank you!! I believe most everyone has spoken about America's image or role in the world in one way or another. Other ideas have been woven, but these seem to be the lasting arguments. This is a long-running discussion--which is lovely. Thank you all! Let's see how we can work towards that Umbrella!
2 days ago Like

Follow Billie

Billie Vincent Homer - welcome to the debate - great to have another combat warrior in the mix.
2 days ago Like

Follow Billie

Billie Vincent Gabrielle, et al: I am unsure that we have addressed the origins of this discussion, We have certainly taken "bites" out of all sides of the equation - and it has been an interesting and an informative exchange of views and history - but have we really answered de Tocqueville's prophecy?. I have unquestionably benefited from the exchange but are we afraid of directly addressing de Tocqueville's assertion?
2 days ago Like

Follow Gabrielle

Gabrielle Sutherland OF COURSE you would ask that @ BIllie :) I think we have, but please add your voice! I thought we addressed it, looking at the idea of 'what is "dead."' It is certainly not the case that civilizations only last 200 years. It often seems that way from one individual's myopia, but great civilizations last thousands of years, and morph in the process. And . . .the names that WE designate to describe them are often the main reason they appear to change. I would add that de Tocqueville was hardly a disinterested narrator. He comes with his own baggage regarding democracy, and similarly: his ideas and experiences surrounding social classes. The social context of his text requires us to note that we are not his audience, so we ought to be mindful when taking the little snippets of his work that we tend to do.
2 days ago Like

Follow Gabrielle

Gabrielle Sutherland Here is a solution posed by @Eugen Finerman: (what he suggests was also practiced in Chinese history) http://www.thestreet.com/print/story/90331.html
2 days ago Like

Follow Federico

Federico Schiavio Here's what I'm talking about when I say kids today are messed up. THE DEATH OF DEPTH It's very likely that kids will find this column to be, like, totally stupid, and will conclude that they can write one sooooo much better. They will declare this on their Twitter feed, sandwiched between the hundreds of photos of themselves making that pursed-lips "duck face," then wait for the "friends" they've never met in person to tell them how hot they look.

That's because compared with 30 years ago, more American students think they're above average in writing, leadership, intelligence, drive and social skills, according to a BBC analysis of college freshmen data by psychologist Jean Twenge. A separate study Twenge published found that student narcissism increased from 18 percent to 34 percent between 1994 and 2008, with a significant spike between 2006 and 2009. That date range just happens to coincide with the rise of social media outlets like Facebook and Twitter. Continue reading at: http://www.chicagotribune.com/sns-201301081100--tms--amvoicesctnav-a2013010820130108,0,4136409.column?goback=.gde_4214738_member_203279266
2 days ago Like

GordonUnfollow

Gordon Fowkes The Castrology of Constantinople was in place centuries before, as in China and its famed Eunuchs. Their seeming lack of a reason to exceed the bounds of avarice and greed was only camouflaged and piety. Their modern equivalence is known as Civil Service whose political nuts were cut off by protecting their jobs by classification and a civil service commission. As a retired bureaucrat in addition to my military service, job protection is ceremonial obfuscationism which requires certain chants, dances, paper chases to ensure those with guns and money are kept in the dark. This is also called the indispensable Index. The other main power gesticulation obscurationism is in the military, which like the csstratii, have balls and a stick which must be shoved in someone's Arrogance Allocation Service or even better, the one that might be around hidden, lurking in dark corners primed to pounce on the family, children and little ones (Future generations). The imaginary threat is far more effective than real ones, because one can't conjure up a real threat, nor control one if it showed up. Case in point is the last decade of combat in the muddled East. The Cold War and the US Army was no longer justified with two dozen divisions plus the elephantine orgasm on top. In an organizational structure like the military it is conical with a few centuries of algorithmic normalization and allocation of ranks with fewer at the top and a really big logistics and support structure. The Command Cone had to be kept at Big War obesity, and the nonessential non-combat people trimmed. The logistics structure on paper from centuries of war was cut by two thirds during the late fifites and early sixties in anticipation of a purge of the week end combat vets that cluttered up the show. After 9-11, the logistics and support structure that would have flooded the floor were privatized and mercenaried. The Castrology of China and Constantinople plotted to keep the real warriors drained of effective firepower, or placement on the ground or in court that would interfere with the Rey Soleil's line of sight, This assures that field commanders were kept starved of supplies lest they march on the Capitol, which all too often they did. Another was the adroit placing of useful idiots in positions of command so they can fail. Sometimes they accidentally picked a field commander who could also bow and curtsey. These had to be cut down with rumors of sexual impropriety and/or financial finagling. None of this makes much sense to many, John Paul Jones called the Father of the Russian Navy was canned on accusations of financial diddling. This was in the reign of Catherine the Great whose sexual escapades set Olympic records. The Flying Tigers (AVG) at the peak

of their glory were double crossed by the US Army and tried to punish these pilots for making everyone look bad. The Constitution of the US was crafted by some very cagey and experienced politicians and warriors who understood more than any before the strengths and weaknesses of the choices of types of governance would work and embellished on the British system without aristocrats, princes, or kings. They also knew the weaknesses of mobs and legislatures. And in a world that has changed more since then than any time before to now. And the central modii is to cool down, work it out, compromise and get the job done. They had two fears of note: a standing army, and a partisan congress.
2 days ago Like

Follow Oliver

Oliver Rochford First off a Disclaimer: This is not meant as an attack in any way. I wish America all the best. But....America, as an Empire will fail inevitably, because that is in the nature any such construct, and through no fault of its own. The reason for this is simple: Any empire (or Culture, or Civilization) develops a dynamic that entails its own demise, due to ever increasing social complexity and diminishing returns on investment. There is no historical example that defies this, None. Beyond a certain level of complexity or scale, it is unavoidable. Joseph P. Tainter in his critical work "The Collapse of Complex Societies", as well as Jared Diamond in "Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed" both provide detail on this. See Collapse: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Tainter#Social_complexity as well as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Tainter#Diminishing_returns for a short rundown on the basics of the theory. Arnold Toynbee also had a similar take on this, which he elaborated on in "A study of History". These works are important for anyone interested in the theory of why systems of culture or civilization fail, and can help to explain many of the symptoms that we see today, be this in regards to the USA, or the West in general. But the real jyst of it is simple: What goes up, must come down. There is also another fascet to this. One must understand what made the rise of any culture/nation/system possible in the first place. In the case of America, very fortuitous circumstances and the ability to utilize these to maximum effect and advantage. Americans inherited a virgin continent (Virgin in the sense that Eurasia had had a longer history of intensive cultivation and pre-modern industrialization) and had in essence, an empty canvas to work with, with Ideas, people and energy being added from outside in the form of modern knowhow, people and ideas. it also profited from the very same advantages as western europe in general (again, Jared Diamon, amongst others, has some good theories and explanations for thishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns,_Germs,_and_Steel )

Let's not forget, that before the 1900's, the US was not really a global player. Those advantages do not last forever.
2 days ago Like

Follow Gabrielle

Gabrielle Sutherland Thanks for these comments @Oliver. I think we've covered the empire discussion above. Have you read what was said? I don't think we're arguing whether America is an empire or not. The question is one of civilization. Toynbee is a classic, for sure, but for historiography a little out of date, don't you think? Toynbee and his historiography falls more in the category of "history" himself. For Diamond and the others we might want to go to their primary sites--it's always good to go to source materials, I think. Particularly for Diamond, pbs funds an excellent site that educates as well as informs: http://www.pbs.org/gunsgermssteel/ As far as your argument in general, and the "umbrella" for which we are searching, you seem to be in @Dale's camp, so please read his comments above, and see whether and where you agree (or not). Thanks!
2 days ago Like

Follow Oliver

Oliver Rochford Hi Gabrielle: What I said of course applies to a Civilization or Culture more than an Empire, but I try to use all words, because generally most people do not really know the difference :( But for all intens and purposes, from Tainters PoV, it does not make much of a difference. Tainter specifically avoids that entire discussion by talking of Systems and energy levels. I referenced Wikipedia because of the short, concise summaries the articles offered. I am sure if anyone is interested in detail, they will read the books anyway. I mentioned Toynbee because his theories are similar in nature to Diamond and Tainter. I find it somewhat unfair to judge him as "History". He was a product of his time, and for his time his theories where well ahead, so it should not surprise that I do not fully agree with Dale: I do not believe in that Shale Gas or Tar Sands will actually ever yield the sort of

energy amounts that people dream of right now (seehttp://www.desmogblog.com/2012/11/13/shale-gas-bubblebursting-report-debunks-100-years-claim-domestic-unconventional-oil-gas or http://oilprice.com/Energy/NaturalGas/US-Shale-Gas-Bubble-is-Set-to-Burst.html ). I do agree with his synopsis that Nation States will lose any meaningfull importance, except in some holdout, throwback cases. Coming from a background of 4 different nationalities, and with a partner of entirely different cultural background, I see a future that is not multcultural, but where nationality and individual culture has no coherent meaning at all any more. I do think we have different ideas about the timescale involved though. I see a global crash and potential dark age first.
2 days ago Like

Follow Gabrielle

Gabrielle Sutherland THanks @Oliver for the more rounded-out explanation. I think on here, People DO know the difference and know it very well :) I'll grant Toynbee what you list, but I think we've moved well beyond his analysis and are the better for it. What I meant is partly what you have just stated: that he was indeed a product of his time. We no longer use his theories when we practice, however. So, these are good points you're making, and now I'm going to ask you if you can take your discussion points towards what you would do to save America; not let it die, since that where we're headed in this discussion. Hopefully you'll have some interlocutors on here as the day goes on, that will flesh out this new line of the discussion!
2 days ago Like

Follow Oliver

Oliver Rochford I think it would help to explain how America used to be seen. As a youngster, I recall idolizing America. It seemed that there was no limit to what Americans could do. More importantly, it seemed that America was a source and pool of fresh, rejuvenating ideas. One of the few, genuine sources of these in the world Alot of People wanted to be American. Europe, on the other hand, is old - really old. You can feel it, in the countryside, in the institutions, in the people themselves. Old notions, old ideas, old grievances, and old petty institutions.

If there was ever any hope in our lifetime of achieving any real change, it would have had to come from America. I mean, hell, I am surrounded by people here still arguing over Socialism, Marx and World War 2, holding on to past glories and past heros without producing any new. Failed notions, failed philosophies and failed events, influencing all from beyond the grave and memory. There used to be a greater consensus that America was the shining beacon of western thought - of western development - of western culture. I do not think that that is there anymore. For some maybe, but for most that at least is gone. Now America is seen as strong - sure - but not great. Not as a Leader - but as someone who tells others what to do. Or forces them to do stuff against their will. (Please do not take this as an attack, I am trying to say how I feel the world perceives it) It is one of the few places where real change has happened in recent history. And that change has, or had, the potential to change the world. For the world. Not just for the benefit of Americans and America. If America is to be saved, it needs the world to believe that again. Which would mean genuinely trying to be that. Instead of leading because of luck - because of circumstance and chance - becasue providence made it stronger for a while - but leading because of ideals. If someone was expecting some kind of strategy to dominate the middle east - or be the export leader - or anything similar - I am sorry to disappoint you. That will not happen. Even if it did, it would not stop the decline for very long. No nation can ever really win that race forever. There is no winning on a circular track that goes round and round. You need to break out of the circle to break the cycle. As it stands, what once started as something new and different, has stepped in to repeat the pattern of the old. However, I do think that the USA has alot of advantages noone else has. Land - Resources - Scale - Geographical Isolation, a healthy motivation and vibrant myth of being. So that what might not happen now, could still in a future lifetime. But to quote a chinese proverb - Unless we change direction, we are likely to wind up where we are headed. I think it is clear to most, which way we are heading. So that way has to be changed - not who to fight - or who to vote - what religion to practice. But the actual direction. And the funny thing is, the direction is already indicated by sign posts that america placed itself. The same myths and ideals that I and many believed once, as young people.
2 days ago Like

Follow Laura

Laura Bozzay I agree that America's image has suffered greatly even with our allies. I communicate with people all over the world every day and I hear it in casual statements that are not meant as attacks but said in trying to

understand how we have sunk to the level we have economically (sliding value of American dollar) and trying to understand what we are trying to do with foreign policy. We have too many people entrenched in a specific viewpoint and not enough leadership that understands why compromise is an art and one that belongs in leadership. If we all take positive steps to get together with others for a common goal, the work becomes easier because we are all pulling instead of working against each other (synergy). There is room for disagreement when all parties have a goal that is the same and a time frame in which to accomplish it (consensus). Have an agreement that the goal has to be reached in the time frame and then work through the various disagreements. Successful families and businesses do this all the time.
2 days ago Like

GordonUnfollow

Gordon Fowkes The US used to be the top of the hill after WW2 and the Cold War, but because American and Allied firepower flattened everything the Axis hadn't. And the Soviet model plundered but did fix what was broken.

In a message dated 1/11/2013 4:52:25 P.M. Central Standard Time,

2 days ago Like

Follow Dale

Dale Harrison @ Oliver Sorry, but you're entirely wrong regarding US energy resources. I'm a co-founder of a Business Intelligence company that's focused on tracking exactly these activities in the North American market and have a front-row seat on what's happening. Your sources (both links refer to the same two individuals) have no credibility and even less understanding of the current North American market. I won't bother to de-construct their "arguments", but suffice it to say they're full of bad assumptions, lack of actual data and wild leaps of logic.

The US energy market is really two fairly separate markets...one centered on the northeast New Jersey refinery complexes originally developed over a century ago to process crude from the Pennsylvania fields...the second centered on the Gulf Coast refinery complexes originally build to handle the Texas fields. The Gulf Coast region is already a major and growing net energy exporter (and this is based on new crude from secondary recovery technologies, not un-conventionals or gas, which have yet to come fully into play). Many of the pipelines that have for decades carried Middle East crude and refined product north from the Gulf Coast region to mid-continent markets have been reversed in the last five years and now carry crude from Alberta, North Dakota, Oklahoma and Texas south to the coastal refineries which are exporting significant quantities of refined product to Mexico, Central and South America. And the northeast New Jersey complexes will follow in step, becoming net energy exporters as soon as 2017. Vast fields all across North America are re-opening based on new recovery technologies...again, quite separate from the even larger un-conventional resources just starting to be exploited and the explosion of natural gas finds (whose exported is currently restricted by US law, holding down potential demand). Trillions in investment are being planned and deployed right now as we speak by the energy sector, power generation sector and heavy manufacturing based on these historic supply-side changes in the North American energy markets...
2 days ago Like

Follow Michael J

Michael J Moylan Even silver tarnish it is still silver and just needs some elbow grease and care and attention I would say the same about my country. May even need some one to bang out the dents. Anything worthwhile takes effort That is my 2 cents which if it was a real copper is worth much more. MJM
2 days ago Like

Follow Federico

Federico Schiavio @oliver I have to agree with Dale on your first link. Oil Price.com is a crock, if you ever listen to them you'll loose money, I day trade and have been following them for over a year. The other one not so sure, never heard of them.
2 days ago Like

Follow Oliver

Oliver Rochford @Dale: There are lots of other parties critical of shale gas/oil, due to reasons as varied as the vast environmental degradation involved in the process, doubts in terms of the economic long term viabilty and especially scalabilty in the long run,not to mention the potential impact on climate change. There is also the question of whether it will suffice to offset the decline in traditional sources, or the increase in consumption predicted for developing economies. http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/take/the-murky-future-of-us-shalegas/157http://www.energybulletin.net/stories/2012-10-26/shale-oil-the-latestinsightshttp://www.dailyfinance.com/2013/01/11/a-contrarian-view-on-the-shale-oil-and-gas-revolut/ .... .... Not fully understanding all of the technicalities involved, I have to admit that I have to take someones word for it :) I tend towards the sceptical side right now. I am not saying that there will be no new gains from these technologies. it is obvious there are. I am dubious though, when it comes to the supposed "Bonanza" that is being predicted, or if it will actually offset the decline of traditional sources enough I concede, I may be wrong. @Federico: I don't trade. At all. Ever.
1 day ago Like

Follow Oliver

Oliver Rochford I am also a fervent believer in the saying "Do not listen to what they say, watch what they do". US Foreign Policy currently does not seem to favor the possibility that the USA will be energy dependent or the world greatest producer again. The current administration at least does not seem sure enough to change the policy much. Similarly, other nations that must surely also have sources of unconventional energy are not investing nearly as much in the identification of courses and recovery. Especially the race for the North polar sea indicates that some countries at least, are also sceptical.
1 day ago Like

Follow Oliver

Oliver Rochford *energy independant

1 day ago Like

Follow Michael J

Michael J Moylan @ Jon your comment concerning Plato one small error on your part when the powers be in Greece got mad at Socrates they did make him drink the Hemlock All is not what it appears to be. I am still on the road I have reread all the post and when I get back to Vermont will have more to say but a few quick words. Plato Communism of women in that part of the republic that plan did not work either The founding fathers did understand the problems with short term knee jerk reaction to public opinion which was the reason for the longer term in the senate. That cool heads would prevail. That may not be the short term case now but after 200 years this is just a small bleep in the course of history. One must look at the time line. Citizens have the right to vote. The really question now is it just citizens voting. Since for another two years there is no national election we need to solve this problem. You go to a bank you need to show id to establish a account. You go to a hospital you need some ID. Apply for a job you need multiple ID,s So what is the issue. If the ID card is free it is not a disadvantage to the poor. They the issuer of these cards can travel to Nursing homes places of work Churches what ever. But for a democracy to work we need to insure the validity of the vote. Pax Vorbiscum
1 day ago Like

Follow Gabrielle

Gabrielle Sutherland Good points all --thank you! I think we're getting to know each other well, and to know each other's strengths, areas of expertise, and drawing upon one another for a great conversation! I love what's happening at both ends of this conversation with @ MJM vs @Jon on: Politics/Power & @Dale and @Oliver on Energy/Power. I'm aware of what lies underneath the "real" story in the first and ignorant in the second, so glad of the new knowledge.

What I would like to see--to keep this on track with the topic--is how this applies to keeping ANY culture/civilization viable (since that seems to be where we have been heading).
1 day ago Like

Follow Federico

Federico Schiavio It has been four long winters since the federal government, in the hulking, shaven-skulked, Alien Nation-esque form of then-Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, committed $700 billion in taxpayer money to rescue Wall Street from its own chicanery and greed. To listen to the bankers and their allies in Washington tell it, you'd think the bailout was the best thing to hit the American economy since the invention of the assembly line. Not only did it prevent another Great Depression, we've been told, but the money has all been paid back, and the government even made a profit. No harm, no foul right? Wrong. It was all a lie one of the biggest and most elaborate falsehoods ever sold to the American people. We were told that the taxpayer was stepping in only temporarily, mind you to prop up the economy and save the world from financial catastrophe. What we actually ended up doing was the exact opposite: committing American taxpayers to permanent, blind support of an ungovernable, unregulatable, hyper-concentrated new financial system that exacerbates the greed and inequality that caused the crash, and forces Wall Street banks like Goldman Sachs and Citigroup to increase risk rather than reduce it. It's a tad longish essay from one of the best (imho) reporters to have covered the bailout of 2008 that ushered in the latest changing of the guard via the democratic process from the old ways to the newer ways. You can read it here... http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/secret-and-lies-of-the-bailout-20130104
1 day ago Like

Follow Gabrielle

Gabrielle Sutherland Thanks @Federico......do you have a list of solutions?

1 day ago Like

Follow Gabrielle

Gabrielle Sutherland I believe that any society/culture/civilization must be willing to adapt and change in order to grow and develop. Fortunately the US Constitution was written with a view towards adaptability and growth,

within parameters. We can continue to benefit from looking back and learning from Great Thinkers as long as we apply their ideas to today's needs. If we look at Plato, then we need to be careful not to cherry pick his guidance, for he did not write in the days of sound bytes or internet with a "search" function. The Republic is not the only repository of his political agenda, and the Republic was written over the course of his lifetime, with different chapters written for various ambassadorial assignments he undertook. WE read it as one book; but it was not such in his day. To understand his thoughts on government we need to read the Gorgias, the Laws, and of course the Apology. When we look at suggesting "pure" communism or socialism; or theoretical experiments in either as opposed to what @ Gordon was referencing (actual examples in the past), we ought to look at when they were written. (social logic of the text). The examples listed above were excellent examples of Post Modern political theories, and have never been practiced anywhere in the world. Post modernism, as a theoretical outlook was nihilistic in its approach, and thus, was quite short lived.
1 day ago Like

Follow Michael J

Michael J Moylan The bailout occurred with a government in transition. To be honest it was a two party transition continued with its own flavor of the day by the current administration. It is not a simple let me point the finger at x. There is a y. The largest deregulation happen under the Clinton administration. Larry Summers Bob Rubin and the current head of the treasury department Timmy G oh I made a mistake on my taxes. They became part of the new administration and bear a lot of the responsibility of what is happening now . Two schools of Economic though We John Maynard Keynes let us get off the Gold Standard and the key voice at Bretton Woods a English Socialist economist that supports big government . His philosophy is the reason the print presses can run whenever and use central banks to control inflation. Of the school you spend you way out recession or depression. Money has no hard assets behind it. Then Milton Freeman who believes in a limited function of government. Also you do not spend you way out of debt. When talking about Freeman we must understand the term liberal and conservative have different meanings in Europe than here in the US. Consider one big government and another small government State governments rights are protected under the constitution first if not ratification most likely would not have happen You have the Jefferson Camp and the Hamilton Camp. States are like labs they get to try different things for their states that promote growth and also insure personal freedoms. What happens one state sees how something works in state why they then can adopted and promote a plan based on a idea that suit their states needs. They also see what fails in other state and can decide we do not want to go their. Without a huge social experiment that becomes too big to fail. Think the bank bailout was bad ? Well what we are talking about ismuch larger than what we have seen with the banks. States provide for local government more consistent legislation that meet the needs of their citizens that I would think most of us agree does not come out of Washington on a consistent bases They are close to the action and if they get it wrong they get fired because they can not hide behind the wall of fog. Part of the solution is let states do what they do best rule locally. Local voters will vote them out or in and have more control than a large central government

The National government was given a few mandates under the constitution Control commerce Tariffs on exports. National defense force ( Army Navy) and deal with foreign Nations Sign treaties that the states are specifically forbidden to do. How do we solve what we are facing? Go back to strong state rights Let them pass laws and regulations with in their borders that are not affected by the commerce clause. Limit Federal authority over state legislation that is not in conflict with National Government responsibilities. No black mail from the executive branch. If you do not do this I will not give you federal funds. Rule locally which is the Guideline of the constitution. My 2 cents
1 day ago Like

Follow Gabrielle

Gabrielle Sutherland I agree with you @MJM. I will also add that I think neighborhoods and associations which are fueled by volunteerism and activism can best be effective at the local and then state level, which is where we have our best voices. It is also where we can have a direct impact which can operate as a ripple in a pond. My 1 cent.
1 day ago Like

Follow Federico

Federico Schiavio @Gabrielle one solution would be to follow Iceland's example, they jailed their bankers. In our country, high-end banker criminals walk the street with impunity and are in every way treated as royalty, as Matt Taibbi attests in this article,http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/bank-of-america-too-crooked-to-fail20120314 But not in Iceland, where they jailed them, http://www.icenews.is/2011/04/07/first-iceland-bank-crash-prisonsentence-handed-down/ and

http://www.icenews.is/2013/01/07/former-glitnir-bank-heads-jailed-in-iceland/ As reported by Bloomberg.com Byr Savings Bank former Chairman Jon Thorsteinn Jonsson and the lenders exChief Executive Officer Ragnar Zophonias Gudjonsson were today found guilty of fraud and sentenced to four and half years in prison by Icelands Supreme Court. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-07/iceland-courtsentences-ex-byr-savings-executives-to-jail.html Icelandic journalists have even blamed the right culprits and spoke of inappropriate loans that were taken by their bankers. the publication of a parliamentary inquiry into the island nations profound financial and economic crisis signaled a turning of the tide, laying much of the blame for the downfall on the former bank heads who had taken inappropriate loans from the banks they worked for. http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hkg5VhwETJHWaiIqxwwj_PsHQ2Dg Imagine if we lived in a world where most journalists referred to IMF and World Bank loans as inappropriate, accurately explaining how a small, corrupt elite of central bankers tend to lend huge sums of money to a small, corrupt elite of politicians and bankers in vulnerable countries who profit from these transactions and then transfer the debt to their constituencies! This has happened for generations, time and time again, both in developed and in third world countries. But some small countries, like Iceland, are not built to, or willing to, endure this scheme. In the midst of what had, for the most part, been mainstream medias blackout of the events going on in Iceland, we had then been getting mixed messages: some said an all-out revolution was taking place there, others refute it. See this link for an explanation of why Iceland had and continues not being in the news: http://october2011.org/blogs/margaret-flowers/icelands-going-revolution The article then goes on to explain Icelands crisis in terms that the layman can understand, even claiming that the Icelandic people went through the process of rewriting their constitution online in a popular act of decentralized, participatory democracy never before seen in history. continues...
1 day ago Like

Follow Federico

Federico Schiavio To write the new constitution, the people of Iceland elected twenty-five citizens from among 522 adults not belonging to any political party but recommended by at least thirty citizens. This document was not the work of a handful of politicians, but was written on the internet. The constituents meetings are streamed on-line, and citizens can send their comments and suggestions, witnessing the document as it takes shape. The constitution that eventually emerges from this participatory democratic process will be submitted to parliament for approval after the next elections. However many of the assertions of this article have been refuted. An Icelandic contributor to Dailykos.com said: Its true; we had a referendum to elect a Constitutional Assemblya group of twenty-five people tasked with writing a new Constitution. But there were 500 plus candidates to choose from, and the results were nullified because proper election procedures werent followed.

Rather than hold another referendum, those individuals were appointed to a Constitutional Committee. They have now submitted a proposal for draft of our new Constitution, but we by no means have a new Constitution yet! This is definitely jumping the gun. Our old one still reigns supreme. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/08/24/1010295/-Naomi-Klein-buys-into-the-Iceland-Revolution-mythos# Having been asked to assume the responsibility to pay the debts of corrupt bankers and politicians, the people of Iceland opted against enslavement through debt at the mercy of the international bankers and even went as far as crafting a new constitution to guarantee their sovereignty in these dangerous globalized times were living through. The reports may not be entirely clear on whats going on in Iceland but whatever the case, we know that Iceland is jailing its corrupt bankers, popularly rejecting an immoral and unjust burden of debt that they did not in the first place assume, and ensuring the future preservation of their sovereignty through a constitutional process and showing everyone else how its done.
1 day ago Like

GordonUnfollow

Gordon Fowkes MJM - Lots of thinking in what you say, but exports are not taxed, imports are to protect US commerce. Only Argentina puts a tax on exports to raise the profits of the exporter. This Peronist punishment for producers in the name of the producers prices Argentine produce out of the international market. . There have been a number of popular ecomists of academic or fiscal renown whose philosophies are treated as economic systems, None of the big ones has reached a high state of renown before the Constitution was written, or most important were not accepted dogma amongss the wealthy and well to do whose business ideals were form in business before Wealth of Nations was published in 1775. The issues that the initial set of "Founders" of 1775 whose survived to write the economic rules of the road for the US in Article 1, Sectons 9 and 10 none of which have been replaced or modified save as in Case Law since written. These original rules have been the basis of some rather spectacular changes to meet shifting economic relalities including such bumps and pot holes as the Agricultural Revolution, the Industrial Revolution, and the Information Revolutions without changing the original design. Old Adage, it ain't broke, so don't go fixin' it.
1 day ago Like

Follow Gabrielle

Gabrielle Sutherland @Gordon, don't you think it's more complicated than that, with tariffs--whose laws have changed and been experimented with? Customs and port regulations are written such that they contain many loopholes, especially now, after 9/11. There are industries--sugar is one--that are a tangled mess in trying to discover

whether export or import rules should apply and sometimes they are hindered unnecessarily (like sugar) by the laws, and other times the laws that allow for investments to leave the country as if they were exports.
1 day ago Like

Follow Laura

Laura Bozzay Just saw this poll in the new AARP mag. It is pertinent to this discussion about what we think America needs to stay alive: Both 18-49 year olds and 50 plus respondents named Help More Americans Find Jobs as very important for the Congress and President to act upon. This had 87% for those under 50 and 85% for those over 50. It had the highest rating of what is important to Americans. The least important item was improve roads and bridges with the under 50 crowd showing 44% thinking it was important and the over 50 crowd had 51% thinking this was important. The rest of the issues deemed important fell in-between... they were things like reduce budget deficit, fortify social security, strengthen medicare, reform immigration, reform tax code closing loopholes and improve education. Needless to say those items all got over 50% from both groups except for the immigration issues, only 43% of those under 50 felt it was an important issue. Going back to immigration, several postings here imply that allowing doctors, scientists, business people, etc from other countries into the US deprives the native country of needed human resources. While that is true, if those countries did not practice genocide, imprisonment of the educated, and other human rights violations I might agree, but many of the countries losing their best and brightest are because those folks either dont feel safe or dont see a pathway offering them a better life. The fact is many of the countries in the world are not free and restrictive governments make it attractive for people to leave rather than stay. Yes we get a benefit but we cannot force other countries to treat their people correctly. When you say we should give aid, we do, but that does not make up for feelings of fear or deplorable living conditions. We also have many health care professionals who volunteer time with Doctors Without Borders a truly humanitarian enterprise. I for one am glad many of these folks have ended up here in the US. If you have ever sat and talked with any number of them you may come to a very different realization as to why they ended up in the US (or any other free country). It is naive to think it is only because of the ability to make more money here. On that topic, if socialism, communism, etc were so wonderful why do the best and brightest want to leave those systems and come to the US which is capitalism? Think long and hard about that because there is a very good reason. Those other ideologies may sound good in theory but in practice they break down pretty quickly. People are not equal in skills or talent. Equality of vote does not mean equality of everything. Yes there are flaws with our system. But at least we can disagree with the government and not be put in prison for saying we do. We can vote out those who we think are doing a bad job. We can choose to send our children to either public or private schools but educational opportunity is there for everyone through at least high school. The following quote is from Abe Lincoln in his Gettysburg Address but I think it is timeless one. "It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." The best thing we can do is to face the problems we have and work together to fix them. Not rhetoric them to death,

but work to make something happen that is better than what we had yesterday. We owe it to our children and our grandchild and those who continue to come after us.
1 day ago Like

Follow Laura

Laura Bozzay I can attest that inport export regulations and tariffs are not easy and some of the paperwork is at times daunting. At least here in the US the Commerce Department's International Division is a great help and resource.
1 day ago Like

Follow Madalina Virginia

Madalina Virginia Antonescu "the US is now changing from a White Anglo Saxon type nation to a more immigrant-Latino-Black American dominated affair .Thus a divided US society and greater internal conflict". I personally do not believe that this shift would provoke "a divided US society and a greater internal conflict". It is simply, just a challenge of XXI century and many governmental policies must be improved in the sense of insuring a better visibility in political field for those persons and just (more social-shaped) policies for those communities confronting with specific problems. Moreover, it is the unique chance for Obama administration to show flexibility and to respond to enormous hopes of the people, expressed during the electoral campaign. Those hopes (relating to immigrant-Latino-Black American communities general statute) are still unsolved in a satisfactory way. 2. Despite an entire school of thought about the decline of American empire, I believe we'll see a necessary stage of re-grouping, of re-shaping, of re-inventing democracy, in a more social formula (including more rights for immigrants, more responsibilities for rich people). Moreover, we can assist to a re-placement of military bases on the globe, or to the abandon of the concept of "globalization" (substituted, more flexibly, with "multipolarity") or to the decay of "global police-man" concept. US may abandon many of its already consecrated doctrines (both in internal and external policies), but this only express its normal capacity to re-invent itself in a consolidated democratic and social formula, appropriate to the general profile of XXI century.
16 hours ago Like

Follow Madalina Virginia

Madalina Virginia Antonescu 3. somebody gave the definition of history. His-story. Story of men. Nothing about women and about their force to create and strengthen civilizations. Those gaps need to be surpassed.
16 hours ago Like

GordonUnfollow

Gordon Fowkes Tariffs in the US are assessed against imports. The definition of the word, depending on which dictionary includes exports but that usage is rare in the US. In either event, the Constitution specifically forbids states from levying taxes or duties, period. Article 1, Section 9, Clause 5: No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State. Article 1, Section 10, Clauses 2 and 3: No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress. No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or .... (engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay) my parentheses. US workforce and safety laws price the US out of many global markets, so the requirement for the foreing competitor to adhere to similar work and safety rules is a form of duty that raises the import vs our export. @Laura, local mega corporations in Houston who do big contracts say that for every one foreign worker of talent that is denied a visa, 25 Americans don't get the jobs they bring to the table. Those jobs are exported to another nationa with more businesslike attitudes. The US in it's first renditon with a Constitution, the Articles of Confederation, found that states were waging trade wars with duties and tariffs on each others products. This made a mess of economic growth, and this experience was fundamental in getting agreement to ban interstate tariffs and to grant the Congress the sole power to regulate interstate trade. This is also known as the "elastic clause" which allows the Federal Camel''s nose into many a tent.
15 hours ago Like

GordonUnfollow

Gordon Fowkes The Irish were not considered by many as actually human, about the level of Blacks. This was added to in the years before the Civil War with not only

Irish, but Germans, Czechs, Poles, Hungarians, Serbs, and worst of all, Italians. The rhetoric used in the papers a hundred years ago show Uncle Sam backed up to a rock while a tidal wave of Immigrants washed away American Values. There was also the agreement with China and another with Japan to curtail immigration, that has never stopped.

The Reddest of Red States, the Cracker Crescent (particularly the Arizona Minnesota area) were amongst the last states to be admitted to the Union and who were inundated by immigrants from Scandinavia to Romania with funding of travel from over there to out here along the rail road easements. This was bringing both the workforce and the market to a barren area once called the Great American Desert. I only took fifty years to bring on the DustBowl

In a message dated 1/13/2013 8:25:27 A.M. Central Standard Time,

15 hours ago Like

GordonUnfollow

Gordon Fowkes Madalina, an emphasis on womens' rights is likely to expose the helpless put upon victim image as a brilliant scam to get guys to buy into breaking his ass making money to keep the missus doting on his checks. Women's lib that frees women to compete with men is having a terrible effect on male morale, There are more women in the hard sciences grad schools than men in many of the industrialized world. Now, if global man thoght this were true, the division of property, alimony and child suport must shift to a counterbalancing bias. Past injustices justify future counter injustices, doesn't it?
15 hours ago Like

Follow Billie

Billie Vincent Greetings to Madalina's addition - and the introduction of a previously unaddressed part of the History of Mankind (as opposed to Man), i.e. Females. Cleopatra ruling ancient Egypt and Catharine-the-Great (a German ruling Russia) was probably two of the most prominent - then there were the countless behind-the-scenes manipulators of many so-called-great men - including at least one Constantinople ruler.

Let me interject one new entrant into the discussion on the reported demise of the U.S., i.e. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYkl3XlEneA&feature=player_embedded I do not claim any knowledge as to the validity of the claims made in this presentation - but they sure are alarming if true.
14 hours ago Like

Follow Billie

Billie Vincent Apologies for mis-spelling Catherine's first name.

14 hours ago Like

Follow Federico

Federico Schiavio "the US is now changing from a White Anglo Saxon type nation to a more immigrant-LatinoBlack American dominated affair .Thus a divided US society and greater internal conflict". There is one person in particular who is trying to divide US society and cause internal strife. I'm talking about that sad excuse for a human being that is Farrakhan whose latest bile ridden projectile is: To me, the movie had a purpose, he said. If a black man came out of that movie thinking like Django and white people came out of that movie seeing the slaughter of white people and they are armed to the teeth, its preparation for a race war. I feel sorry for the interviewer, he didn't see that coming. http://nation.foxnews.com/louis-farrakhan/2013/01/11/farrakhan-django-unchained-its-preparation-race-war I saw the movie Django just last night and I thought it was a great movie and did not see the action from a racial viewpoint, I saw it from a justice is served viewpoint. Sadly in today's United States racism is alive and well and it isn't going away any time soon and we perpetuate it daily. Many times I have asked myself why is there a "Congressional Black Caucus"? Why is there a "Black Entertainment Television" channel? What would happen if a Congressional White Caucus came into being? Cries of "racists!" would go up like helium filled balloons. Same for White Entertainment Television. What a joke.
14 hours ago Like

Follow Federico

Federico Schiavio @ Madalina Let's not forget Pope Joan! I now await Gabrielle's comments with trepidation...
14 hours ago Like

Follow Federico

Federico Schiavio Someone just emailed me this gem of an article. America has collective attention deficit disorder, and in one way it's a bigger threat than terrorism, cybersecurity dangers and the never-ending Middle East drama: Those other problems at least have the potential to be solved. We witnessed this phenomenon last week during the first presidential debate. Washington pundits and policy wonks tried to sift through the rhetorical sandstorm for logical solid ground amid such concepts as Mitt Romney's revenueneutral tax cuts and Barack Obama's wealth-creation proposition of tossing more money into the fiscal black hole of "new energy." For much of the voting public, however, the debate seemed like a foreign film missing its subtitles. Twitter streaming of the event was rife with confused political science students calling out for help in trying to understand what they were watching under pressure of having to report on it for a class. Here's the animal-world equivalent: Behavioral studies have shown that when a wolf is placed next to a cage with food inside, the wolf will immediately try to figure out how to get at the food. But when the same is done with a domesticated canine -- one that follows its master around the house, drooling on the parquet until it's tossed a Milk Bone -- the dog will take one look at the cage before turning and looking to the nearest human to reconcile the injustice. Sadly, far too many voters have become helpless lapdogs in their civic engagement. continues...http://my.chicagotribune.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-72825718/
14 hours ago Like

Follow Michael J

Michael J Moylan @ Gordon I agree with your comments on Article 1 Sections 9 and 10 I did fail to mention Section 8 all so I understand ypur point about the founding fathers and economic theorist You know as well as I do that the

impact of these folks began in true earnest in Various forms under FDR. Yes they were around earlier but the monetary control elements became more evident after WWII because of the central bank failures after WWI
14 hours ago Like

Follow Gabrielle

Gabrielle Sutherland @Gordon (and @MJM) I agree on the Constitution and your comments per se, but I want to add that the Elastic Clause you mentioned, and also like all legislation, a study of casuistry will show us that it is not as clear cut as what you are stating @Gordon. Ports are problematic, and states do not interact with the federal government on an equal playing ground for a variety of reasons. This is complicated, but one of the primary reason boils down to regulation, or rather the lack of. We see this tendency in studying history all the time: it can be dangerous to assume that the existence of a law = reality. I don't believe there has ever been a place or a time when this has been the case, including our wonderful country [which I love]. The debate on the Elastic Clause is long and rages on both sides for obvious reasons. @Billie, the video you uploaded: I think it speaks very well to this topic.SCARY reminders. I like his conclusions-including the one with the wolf in the ditch-His Conclusions: 1. let's avoid the hard bounce 2. Be aware--he says that a great majority of people know/believe there is a huge problem and THAT is the first step--I agree 3. Make friends, we need each other 4. Build a community this is good @Madalina, WELCOME--it's great to have a new face!! You fit right in with some of what we've been saying, and I agree with you wholeheartedly; we need new paradigms overall. I think the path to the future lies in the way we think and believe. Of course, the word Historia is not English, so it has nothing to do with a male or female construct, nor is it a compound word, but some people like to do so for fun, I suppose. Many people have bemoaned the lack of the female presence in historical accounts--which is a part of historicity-and that is why Gender Studies is probably the best place to be if one wants to be hired in academia. Most universities are scaling back in ALL departments, but gender studies and other inclusive areas is a growing field. @Federico you're so funny. This is a good group....thanks to all of you!!
13 hours ago Like

Follow Laura

Laura Bozzay I find it interesting that Singapore is having a similar debate about foreign workers vs local workers and what it means http://theonlinecitizen.com/2008/06/local-vs-foreign-workers-unravelling-the-debate/ <http://theonlinecitizen.com/2008/06/local-vs-foreign-workers-unravelling-the-debate/> and in Japan http://www.academia.edu/1332809/The_Rhetoric_of_the_Foreign_Worker_Problem_in_Contemporary_Japan <http://www.academia.edu/1332809/The_Rhetoric_of_the_Foreign_Worker_Problem_in_Contemporary_Japan> This is a global issue in reality. There are extracts for this issue in Canada, Germany, Dubai and Saudi Arabia plus more. So every nation seems to be struggling with this issue in one way or another.

This is a debate forum focused on the issue of US exportation of jobs. In the debate forum it is loosing.. http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/Outsourcing_of_US_jobs_to_foreign_countries:_Bad_or_Good <http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/Outsourcing_of_US_jobs_to_foreign_countries:_Bad_or_Good>

I think we have to look at the issue by industry and job type to really understand what effect foreign workers have on our economy. In other words in some cases it is probably very beneficial while in others it is not. Depends on the skill set of workers employed to the skill set of unemployed Americans. It is naive to think that everyone can be retrained to fill all of these jobs. The higher level skill sets require higher level education and abilities. Not everyone is suited to be a theoretical scientist, a doctor, a translator, etc. When we look at manual labor there is more validity to the argument. The jobs in between are harder to assess. http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/just-facts/us-economy-still-needs-highly-skilled-foreign-workers <http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/just-facts/us-economy-still-needs-highly-skilled-foreign-workers>

According to the US Dept of Labor site "Foreign labor certification programs permit U.S. employers to hire foreign workers on a temporary or permanent basis to fill jobs essential to the U.S. economy. These programs are generally designed to ensure that the admission of foreign workers into the United States on a permanent or temporary basis will not adversely affect the job opportunities, wages, and working conditions of U.S. workers." I guess the real issue is how well does tbe Dept of Labor do this screening? Or is the idea that foreign workers take jobs away from local workers a myth?
13 hours ago Like

Follow Gabrielle

Gabrielle Sutherland Thanks @Laura I remember first encountering this reality when I was young, and so surprised that the problems we face in America are not so different than anywhere else. I think we see that now with the "global economy" issues, right? @Federico, I firmly believe we need increased progress in Civil Rights. With that said, the need for it is not the only reason for a Black Caucus et. al. The founding of our country was set up (as was the United Nations) with the notion that minorities would have some rights denied to the majority. This is a complex topic and probably why it's not part of the nightly news, but it also goes into the complexities of VERY important need for the electoral college (the minority states and the minorities or issues of those minorities in those states which would never be recognized or part of a federal agenda). This is why it is so important to be involved locally and in our factions. We were never meant to be homogenous. We are meant to be free to associate and assemble in whatever variety we desire, and thus have a voice. It's silly to think (I'm not saying anyone here does so) that an individual can or ought to be heard. Voices, plural, have power as they/we gather and speak for a common good toward a reachable goal with meaning. There's no reason why anyone can't form a caucus. It is important, however, that it not be formed by an oppressive group (perceived or real). @Gordon, I was going to ignore some of your remarks about women above, but. . . seriously!?!?!?!? Did you really say all that in your out loud voice!?!?!?!
11 hours ago Like

Follow Madalina Virginia

Madalina Virginia Antonescu to Gabrielle, who said: "You fit right in with some of what we've been saying, and I agree with you wholeheartedly; we need new paradigms overall. I think the path to the future lies in the way we think and believe. Of course, the word Historia is not English, so it has nothing to do with a male or female construct, nor is it a compound word, but some people like to do so for fun, I suppose". Yes, we (everybody, our world) have the need to take another real step into our evolution as Human society, and have the need to re-consider the history and the present concepts about history, about the role of women into this kind of history we educate present and future generations. Actually, "history" is based on the masculine patriarhalist perspective and it is not depicting a real HUMAN "themstory", let's say, changing this obsolete terminology. I agree we need another paradigm, and I actually work at this, explaining lato sensu into a book all this topic. Into the present American feminist school of thought (very well developed and respected) , the "game" his-story/ her-story is largely defined and explained. 3. I think women need to be more aware of their intrinsic value, they have as human unique beings, and not expecting to be defined, explained, recognized by men, like they preferred to do, for millenniums. We take about changing a paradigm very old, millenarian. That's a real challenge!
11 hours ago Like

Follow Madalina Virginia

Madalina Virginia Antonescu 4. about Gordon's assertions (about women). I think he only noticed some social and professional role that women were forced to play into a society structured on discriminatory levels (domestic level- as irrelevant, non-important, non giving political and social prestige; and the political and even familial levelsdominated by men, on many civilizational areas and for many historical periods, and offering them prestige, that is one pillar of their concept about history). Into the scientific field, at the beginning of XXI century, I think women play an important role, as researchers, teachers- I do not know the real percentage of women working and , moreover, being recognized as such, -and their scientific contributions- in US. Are there, women, in full access to positions of coordinating research projects, military projects, political strategies, inclusively in rigid systems as NASA, for ex.? Do you conceive structures, engaged into a national perspective about future and space, as NASA as a "rigid one", from this criterion? In XXI century, women struggled to access many fields considerated as taboos, but the general paradigm they working into is still hostile, patriarchal one. This need to be changed.
11 hours ago Like

Follow Federico

Federico Schiavio @Gabrielle Recently a Gallup Poll showed 62 percent of Americans are in favor of getting rid of the Electoral College.http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2011/10/electoral-college-galluppoll-popular-vote-/1#.UPMJeGeM70c For the first time Republican voters joined joined Democrats and Independents in saying that the popular vote ought to decide presidential elections. The Electoral College was created during the Constitutional Convention in 1787. intended to bring some stability to the thirteen states where communication and travel were slow. It was a horse-and-buggy idea that has long outlived its time. The Electoral College is not only antiquated, it's undemocratic. The most powerful elected official we have is the only one NOT required to have the most votes to win! Supposedly, in our democracy, every voter should have equal representation, but that's hardly the case. Campaigning for president pretty much now goes on in a few big swing states. If you happen to live in Ohio or Florida, where the race is bound to be tight, you're disproportionately important. A little rural town in Podunk, Ohio becomes more important than a big city like Minneapolis. In Article II of the constitution the founders guaranteed that if a state thinks it should give its electors to the national winner of the popular vote, they've got every right to do so. States representing 132 votes in the Electoral College

have gone forward to enact popular vote legislation, pledging that whichever candidate comes in first among the people nationwide will get all their electors. This is part of a National Popular Vote movement whereby the Electoral College would continue to exist but could be superseded without going through trying to amend the Constitution. Through an interstate compact, participating states agree ahead of time to automatically give their electoral votes to whomever takes the the national popular vote, not who gains the majority in their own state. So far eight state legislatures have passed laws endorsing this, along with DC. The latest to sign on was the Socialist Republic of California (pun intended). See; http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/ for more. The Heritage Foundation (and Gabrielle) say oh no! this would "diminish the influence of smaller states and rural areas and encourage voter fraud and radicalize American politics. Didn't the Republicans who are supported by the Heritage Foundation already do that? Isn't the crux of the matter whether every person's vote should count for something?
11 hours ago Like

Follow Oliver

Oliver Rochford @Federico "Iceland's example, they jailed their bankers." I wholeheartedly agree. It is utterly frustrating that we have managed to allow a system to be built in the form of the SEC or similiar institutions in other countries that essentially collude with criminals instead of regulating or punishing them. However, we are only scratching the surface there. Lobbying, Deregulation, Financial Campaign Financing, The revolving door effect in politics and so on and on and on. If is difficult to still harbour the illusion that the problems are not in fact institutional and fundamental. It is utterly corrupt, to the bone. Iceland has an advantage in this regard, that most nations lack - Scale. Similarly, Switzerland, Luxemburg and other smaller systems are able to act more swiftly, with direct democracy, because they are so small. For one, it is easier to arrive at concensus, the smaller amount of people make a shared outlook and worldview more likely, and the institutions that protect the Status Quo and its adherents are not so large as to be unassailable.

@Gabrielle "When we look at suggesting "pure" communism or socialism;." The problem with communis, socialism, or even democracy and capitalism, is that these are idealistic systems. Each of them declares people, indeed the world, to be a certain way - contrary to all evidence. We have enough evidence ( Thinking, Fast and slow by Daniel Kahneman is a good start) now to prove that these systems work on flawed assumptions on how people behave and react, and that the very way that these systems are modelled and designed opens them up to abuse and manipulation that is almost impossible to stop.

Most people do not act rationally most of the time - rationality is an attribute that varies strongly with mood, the issue at hand and the perceived stakes. To base any system on relying on peoples rationality is in fact then, highly irrational in itself. "we need new paradigms overall. I think the path to the future lies in the way we think and believe." Agreed, But see above :) As I said, even people that are rational more of the time than most, can still not be trusted to be rational all of the time. The majority of people do not "think" in the greater sense at all, and the solutions that these sort of problems would entail would not just be beyond most average people to comprehend - they would inevtiably not even be recognized or felt as such. One thing I always find interesting in that regard is the parellel development of Eurasia and the Americas. Here we essentially had two seperate laboratories - with "crosspolination" or pollution of ideas essentially ruled out. Yet the structures that evolved, and many solutions to common social and economic problems were eerily similar. There seems to be at least some validity in the 100th Monkey theory, at least in regards to certain dynamics that occur under different environmental pressures and circumstances. I often wonder if some of us are just unlucky enough to be able to intellectually understand that in reality, so little can be controlled.

"Actually, "history" is based on the masculine patriarhalist perspective and it is not depicting a real HUMAN "themstory", let's say, changing this obsolete terminology." This is such a flawed way of looking at it. The entymology of the word "History" has nothing to do with masculinity or anything else related. Nor is there any native trace of that in other languages (Such as in the German "Geschichte" or the french "histoire"). Really, at the end of the day, it is all a matter of definition. Most nations, and thus people, have chosen to make laws, governments and institutions protect and focus on property and economics. With that statement in mind, we have excatly the type of system you'd expect
11 hours ago Like

Follow Madalina Virginia

Madalina Virginia Antonescu 5.At one moment, Gordon said something very important: " Past injustices justify future counter injustices, doesn't it?" I agree that the solution to cover past injustice (millenniums of patriarchate covered under different systems of "human" organization") is not to built a radical form of matriarchate. I respect men, but I do not agree with the patriarchal perspective about how organizing humans and how defining "human history". There is the problem. The problem, actually, begins (as a subtle cultural foundation of the rising Occident in modern history) with interpretation of one of two (completely contradictory variants) of Genesis. The one inspired by Sumerian variant of creation of "Adamu" (as "worker"). And so on...
10 hours ago Like

Follow Gabrielle

Gabrielle Sutherland I am in full agreement with you about women @Madalina. In the US women have gained some access to the public square and are visible in the workforce. The sacrifices are too large for them and for families, and the gains are only incremental. The changes can be seen in particularities, but are by no means universal. There is no parity; we experience at best condescension in the workplace and at worst, well....we know the forces of patriarchy. We have a very long way to go. Do we want to add a feminist argument to our umbrella? It fits the topic and applies to our new direction of including not just America, but a global call for a viable future.
10 hours ago Like

Follow Madalina Virginia

Madalina Virginia Antonescu 6. Billie put the topic classically: " the introduction of a previously unaddressed part of the History of Mankind (as opposed to Man), i.e. Females. Cleopatra ruling ancient Egypt and Catharine-theGreat (a German ruling Russia) was probably two of the most prominent - then there were the countless behind-thescenes manipulators of many so-called-great men - including at least one Constantinople ruler". He recognized the reality of informal power (soft power) women have been forced to exert, during history, because they have not permission to rule directly. The institution of the "favorite" was a direct consequence of that political patriarchal framework. Those women who ruled directly, were in those top positions either accidentally, either due to several derogations from the masculine rule of acceding at throne, either as regents (protective and teaching -mother of the young ruler). In my opinion, Cleopatra exerted an informal kind of power (seduction), but not surpassing the general patriarchal framework. Hatshepsut was greater than Cleopatra, in my opinion, and the effect was her erasure from his-story. Pathetic gesture of little (as personality) men...
10 hours ago Like

Follow Oliver

Oliver Rochford "but I do not agree with the patriarchal perspective about how organizing humans and how defining "human history"" I will try to tread carefully now, because this is a very loaded topic :) Men ruled, because they could. Period.

And if men did not want to give that power up, in all likelyhood, women could and in fact, most would, do nothing about it. There is no higher power that can be appealed to here to right this, except to hope that most men would agree. But seeing as most men up untill recently could not even agree amongst themselves who is to lead without resorting to violence or intmidation, it seems a far stretch to have expected any other outcome. The few exceptions that we know of (and I mean "Know", not speculative theories such as from Merlin Stone or Marija Gimbutas et al) were precisely that - exceptions. There are of course plenty of examples of women playing major roles and more than equal in accomplishment, achievement and stature as any man. But a different dynamic is at aplay there. Men are brutes - they will try and rule because they can - not because they are better at it, for which there is absolutely no evidence. Personally, I am a fervent believer in sexual equality, we need both and the balance that that brings, and that we as a society can chose to ensure that both sexes get an equal input,but one has to realize that that always be a matter of choice - but the decision, right or wrongly must always rest with consent of men.
10 hours ago Like

Follow Gabrielle

Gabrielle Sutherland @Oliver, I like what you say about history. . . geschichte--yes. I love reading early histories of any culture that assumes the record is about "the people." I don't know if it's fascinating (yes) or a revelation (yes) but just the realization that every people group develops with this self awareness that mirrors every other group as "we are THE people" and that's how their self naming begins. It's so naive (in the beginning). It is also interesting what Nominalism tells us about word use and naming. I'm not really a fan of the man a friend of mine calls "Razortoting Bill" but he wrote some excellent texts. I agree with what you're saying and the parallelism. (Think about the Beaker people!) That's what I was trying to refer to with my historicity comment, not wanting to get off track here. Patriarchy is something we want to do away with in our own time because we are aware of it and do not value it as a virtue. To study the effects of it in another time, however, is not the same thing in any way. What we call 'patriarchy' is called something else, and usually a virtue. We do not get to impose our values on the past. Along this way of thinking, and something that could help in the Umbrella we are seeking is new research being conducted (and winning awards and funding) in the physics "world" on the collective mind and it's functions. It could explain much in the past, and also give us hope for the future.
10 hours ago Like

Follow Madalina Virginia

Madalina Virginia Antonescu Frederico, of course there is always a hidden sense in all "neutral" terminology , like "history". Why we cannot use , for example, the term "her-story"? Or "them-story"? Because human beings are not sufficiently flexible to play with terms, to think about that, to search hidden sense of it. We simply use automatically, all kind of terms, never putting them under discussion and thinking as "normal", "human", in fact what is ...a masculine history, a history based on selection of facts and accomplishments realized by men, in different key-functions, during times. Our civilization is not yet prepared to deal with profound roots of patriarchalism. Many "normal" paradigms, behaviors, attitudes, mentalities, social rules, customs, even juridical norms are not so "neutral" and "normal" as they claim to be.
10 hours ago Like

Follow Gabrielle

Gabrielle Sutherland @Oliver. . . . ok...yes, too loaded a topic, and WAY TOO MUCH HERE that could be said by people expert in the field of how it all began . . .and continued over MUCH time. Let's stick to the topic. We're searching for solutions, and if you are saying that a dominant group oppresses because they CAN, then let's go with that, and use that toward a meaningful future or viable change.
10 hours ago Like

Follow Oliver

Oliver Rochford @Madalina "Why we cannot use , for example, the term "her-story"? Or "them-story"?" See my abvoe posting. You are mistakingly thinking that the word has anything to do with the words "his" or "story".
10 hours ago Like

GordonUnfollow

Gordon Fowkes Women, forced into demeaning roles? They live longer than men often because the dumb bastards worked themselves to death. They also are richer longer, same reason. Real women know that they run things, and continue to do so, as long as men don't know that. Recent combat operations in Afghanistan using all female or largely female Civil Affairs teams are visiting Afghan villages, meeting with the local women power structure to get what the village really needs. This bypasses the men's machismo mantra and gets things done.

The Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution was sandbagged by women who energized the Moral Majority to shoot down women's equality. The only reason that makes sense is that said "equality" would expose what goes on behind the Lady's Room door.

In a message dated 1/13/2013 1:49:28 P.M. Central Standard Time,

10 hours ago Like

Follow Madalina Virginia

Madalina Virginia Antonescu Oliver put the discourse about history in classical terms of dominance (men run because they could). Such primitive eves,no? Exactly the sense of his-story, like I said> dominance, aggression, destruction, necrophilical civilization, destruction of great feminine sacred images. Men defined, explained, put names, rules, interpreted in monopolistic regime the divine messages and they did not allowed to women to put in question their perspectives about "humanity" and "history". I also think to the stereotypical, pathetic tablets sent "by us in space"(as model of presenting human civilization, ha, ha ), with the human couple , where the man is greater (physically) like the woman, and, most important ( "...to see ET who is the one empowered to speak, here"), the man "says hello" by rising his hand. ...and so, it starts "human cosmic saga". Ah, so pathetic!...
10 hours ago Like

Follow Oliver

Oliver Rochford "We're searching for solutions, and if you are saying that a dominant group oppresses because they CAN, then let's go with that, and use that toward a meaningful future or viable change.

Consensus. In larger systems the ruling elite is always far smaller than the ruled majority. Hence we developed "Democracy". Except that democracy relies on the ability of the voting class to 1. Make rational decisions 1. Be able to analyze and assess any potential consequences of these decisions Those are the prerequs, and the flaws. Think about this way: we have democracy And yet the people still have no real say. USA, UK, Germany, France, Australia, India, these are all democracies, and yet there is a privileged elite that gets away with crime and fraud. "Oliver put the discourse about history in classical terms of dominance (men run because they could). Such primitive eves,no? Exactly the sense of his-story, like I said> dominance, aggression, destruction, necrophilical civilization, destruction of great feminine sacred images." The system being patriarchal is a false line of inquiry. It denies the fact that the majority of humanity suffered from oppression by elites, not just women I know, I know, you will now claim that that is because it was PATRIARCHY and I am a male chauvinist blah blah blah. You have a sense of logic that goes around in circles, without seemingly understanding why the status quo has changed in recent timesYou also seem to have such an axe to grind, that you are not listening at all, and are just projecting whatever prejeudices you already have. I am not even sure what you have to say has to do with anything we are talking about. You are arguing about something, noone is really disputing.
10 hours ago Like

Follow Madalina Virginia

Madalina Virginia Antonescu Oliver, of course, we cannot generalize about men, neither about women. "Men are brutes"- I do not agree. Education (in this case, the state- unfortunately, ruled preeminently and for long periods

of time by masculine elite- as princes, kings, emperors, diplomats, Councillors, high priests etc.- ) , inclusively in the sense of cultivating the non-discrimination principle and the principle of equality of chances and of treatment between men and women is very important. We talk here about the social and political roles of women and men in many societies, along very long period of time, that confounded themselves (the roles) into the human collective mind with the history, with the normality.
10 hours ago Like

Follow Gabrielle

Gabrielle Sutherland @Federico, on the Electoral college, it's sooo much more complex than that. I almost didn't say anything because I was afraid of this side trail starting. The Electoral College has been "changed" twice, and both times nothing near all the expectations of what could have happened that any prognosticator predicted, did indeed happen. This is not just a complex topic, but a complicated one. It is not best discussed by the average American who understands his/her civics via the nightly news celebrities or radio show host. Not just changing, but eliminating something this fundamental would have consequences and require other necessary changes that are monumental. In history there are times we can look at when some well-meaning ruler or entity "changed" something fundamental, and then we can watch as war and legal entanglements ensue for centuries as it gets sorted out. It's just not that simple.

If we want to discuss this, it's best to open a new topic.

10 hours ago Like

Follow Billie

Billie Vincent @Laura re Singapore. Of all the places around the world that we have worked Singapore was the country most free of corruption in government as well as business. Working with the Singaporeans was like sitting down with our in-company team of aviation experts. There were no hidden agendas or ulterior motives - the Singaporeans were totally focused on the merits of what was best for their country. Of course it is an Autocratic country and they make no apologies for how it is run. Singapore pays its head executive about $2M annually - we pay our President $400K. One of their senior police commanders related some history to me about how they solved their problems with people illegally entering Singapore by sea in the 1980s/90s. He said that they studied the problem and realized that each night under the cover of darkness a number of boats discharged illegal immigrants onto Singapore's shores. He said that they designed some go-fast boats - including the capability of their boats ramming uncooperative boats with illegals - purchased a number of these boats - established radars at strategic points around their island - and within one year's time had cut the illegals to zero.

And, if you have ever tried to enter Singapore illegally through their ports or airports you will find their security services are exceptionally successful in controlling illegals. On the other hand you can arrive by airplane and clear customs and immigration and be in a taxi on the way to your lodging in 15 - 20 minutes from walking off the airplane - anytime of the day. Singapore Changi International Airports is one of the most secure airport in the world. AND, Singapore's penalty for smuggling drugs is execution - and you have about 2 years to live at most from your date of conviction. Working with the Singaporeans was a delight after having worked with a number of their neighbors - and one of their regional neighbors - virtually all of whom were rife with various forms of corruption. Another country that takes a no-nonsense approach to illegals is New Zealand - and they, like Singapore make no apologies for their laws and enforcement. .
10 hours ago Like

Follow Madalina Virginia

Madalina Virginia Antonescu Oliver, you cannot put in my mouth your words. I do not think you are chauvinistic or sexist, because I understand the deep root of a false history. Of course, for men it is not such pleasure to recognize such sensible dimensions and topics. They are tempted to consider that generally, women agreed (tacitly) to their perspective about history, because masculine elite (not all men) forced or put under taboo, the women to involve/to discuss/to define/to built/to affirm themselves. Men preferred to neglect many sensible dimensions of human being (the feminine dimension), by claiming that masculinity is the single dimension of humanity. This is an arrogance, of course. But I still consider you an open spirit,capable to see that and to appreciate this problem in its very profound essence.
10 hours ago Like

Follow Oliver

Oliver Rochford @Madaline: What you just said is that I am essentially too caught up as a man in the patriarchal system to even recognize it. Aside from being incredibly insulting, it is also plain incorrect. You cannot seem to see past this paradigm you use to explain all and everything, not even seeing the limitations you have placed your outlook under If this topic moves you so, please open another thread on it and let us get back to the actual discussion.
10 hours ago Like

Follow Gabrielle

Gabrielle Sutherland @Madalina, I think it's important to speak of different time periods according to their own value systems and not place our own onto their structures. We can often mistake what is a virtue or a strength for another people group, and call it a wrong-doing. I think it's okay to say we deplore the fact that the practice of patriarchy led us to where we are today, and we now have different ideas of gender roles, but that doesn't make the ideas and attitudes of the past inherently wrong. If we are going to work towards a viable future we need to appraise our situation as it stands and work towards something we can call good. We want to point at the past to learn and to say we are not going backwards. IMO And we are not discussing feminism here as a TOPIC, remember; we are using these points to help us forge our way forward to stay alive as viable societies and civilizations. What didn't work before--let's toss it. So what didn't work?

@Billie, are you proposing these measures?

10 hours ago Like

Follow Madalina Virginia

Madalina Virginia Antonescu Oliver: all this discussion was started from debating term "history". Many questions were than put, and I simply tried to respond. The topic is too complex to debate here, and I perfectly understand that it is not a pleasure for men to recognize a millenarian unjust behavior and system regarding women status. If you want to make fun about patriarchate, I do not enter into this "amusement".
10 hours ago Like

Follow Oliver

Oliver Rochford "@Oliver: all this discussion was started from debating term "history".

On your incorrect understanding of the entymology of the term "History", which has nothing to do with Men, Masculinity or Patriarchy. It only sounds that way.
10 hours ago Like

Follow Oliver

Oliver Rochford @Billie in regards to Singapore - I think once again, it is about scale. There seem to be definite upper limit to how large societies can be without a resulting segregation of class that ultimately leads to what you term corruption. Advances in communication and management/government theory has increased that limit in modernity as well, and there are of course exceptions (although these may occur due to outside stimulus, such as first contact with outsiders or a temporary imbalance in resources). But overall, I maintain that above a certain critical threshold consensus will not be achievable for long enough or consistently to prevent abuse and manipulation.
10 hours ago Like

Follow Madalina Virginia

Madalina Virginia Antonescu Oliver, I really do not consider as "insulting" being simply, a man caught into a patriarchal system. It is millenarian, so, it is very, very hard, for men and women, also, to become aware of it and to try to separate from it , by choosing another paradigm. If you agree that this new paradigm cannot omit the non-discrimination principle, than, we are on a common ground. It was never my intention to insult you, but to explain better my position.
10 hours ago Like

Follow Oliver

Oliver Rochford ....... .......... ............... * tumbleweed*rolls across the street*

.................. ....................
10 hours ago Like

Follow Madalina Virginia

Madalina Virginia Antonescu and I really do not know why you are so aggressive, when I never intended to insult you. I do not confound masculinity with patriarchate, believe me. Men and women are different, but complementary. Patriarchalism put a relation of hierarchy between us, that created discrimination for millenniums. As woman, I should be the offended one. But I tried to be elegant here ,not "aggressive", as you probably want to think...
9 hours ago Like

Follow Gabrielle

Gabrielle Sutherland Scale is a great word. . .

9 hours ago Like

Follow Madalina Virginia

Madalina Virginia Antonescu Gabrielle, what do you mean?

9 hours ago Like

Follow Madalina Virginia

Madalina Virginia Antonescu 2. to Gabrielle: if the foundation is wrong (patriarchate), the whole building/system is wrong, and beliving into a wrong system, into wrong values, is a serious error.
9 hours ago Like

Follow Gabrielle

Gabrielle Sutherland We are looking for a viable future, and have opened up the topic to include a global future. "How then shall we live." @ Oliver made the suggestion that some solutions (like that presented by @Billie) would be tempered by scale. I am fascinated by the word, because I think every discipline and field uses it. When professionals and interlocutors come to the table they often think they are talking about the same thing because all are using the same word: SCALE. However, if you ask the group, they will each give a different definition of the word, and if one puts a mathematical equation to the definition, the graphs will come out completely different! Nevertheless, scale is important to our future if we are all of us going to arrive there alive! We hear it more and more in public (and private) discussions and debates.
9 hours ago Like

Follow Federico

Federico Schiavio @ Gabrielle I don't think Billie is proposing these measures as they have already been proposed. War on Drugs, Mexican Border Fence. As for the War on Drugs how can we possibly even attempt at controlling them for the entire country when we can't control them in Maximum Security Prisons where we control (in theory) what goes in? The scale argument obviously is not applicable hear @ Oliver as Prisons are pretty small.... @Gabrielle open up a new topic on the Electoral College if you think there is enough interest or else please email me your counter points to mine. I'm curious to see how complicated it really is.
9 hours ago Like

Follow Billie

Billie Vincent Oliver: Scale as it relates to corruption can indeed be a factor - but in the case of Singapore and my experience it is irrelevant. Our experience in Singapore's neighboring countries was that they were rife with corruption - in all levels of the society. Not so in Singapore - so scale had nothing to do with my comments - there was just an absence of corruption in any of our dealings or associations with Singapore. Singapore works because of that factor - they actively control their system to eliminate corruption. Now, if you ask me whether there is

corruption at the very pinnacles of Singapore - I cannot affirm that there is not - i.e. in the multi-millions of dollar contracts but I certainly did not observe or hear of any such corruption.
9 hours ago Like

Follow Oliver

Oliver Rochford "When professionals and interlocutors come to the table they often think they are talking about the same thing because all are using the same word: SCALE." That is so true :) But that is what makes it such a convenient word, especially in this context. Scale here wil not be a definite hardcoded number, but a value derived at by a formula based on multiple different factors: Size of area available, scarcity and abundance of resources (which can also be luxury items for the elite, example feathers in the case of the Aztecs), the size of population and so on. And the effects would als vary depending on environmental factors such as weather or climate etc. Gabrielle, you mentioned Oligarchy to me earlier. And Oligarchy is important, because it is so common as to be considered a permanent factor, if not a state of quasiequilibrium. Most people will associate Oligarchy with injustice (rule by the priveleged), which is of course incorrect,- that is a Plutocracy. @Billie "Scale as it relates to corruption can indeed be a factor - but in the case of Singapore and my experience it is irrelevant." I meant that the small scale of singapore works in its favor. Much like in the case of Iceland or even Switzerland. As I stated earlier, small scale allows for more concensus on outlook, worldview and action. The more people there are, the less direct the input and influence of the individual, and thus the elite get more detached, regardless of the actual form of goverment. A King or Chief of a small state is still bound by kinties and directly sees his subjects, and thus is influenced more by them. In a democracy with a great amount of people, instead, we tend towards representative democracy, which also dilutes direct will of people, whereas at smaller scales diect democracy is the norm.
9 hours ago Like

Follow Gabrielle

Gabrielle Sutherland @Madalina, I don't really know what you're saying here. I don't think we can approach history as a "right" or "wrong" topic. The entire history of humanity? The great gift of historians is non-bias. We are trained to approach our subject matter without judgment. Since it is impossible to have NO bias, we are required to alert our readers what we think and feel so that our readers will be able to weed out our biases where we have failed to shine a light on those places where we make a judgment. I cannot compute what you are saying. How would we bear the weight of existence if everything up to now was "wrong."? All that has occurred made us who and what we are, and at each point, people stood up and said, "Wow, we can do better than before." We cannot judge people in another place or time by our knowledge, our mores, our standards, our religious viewpoints, our sense of moral outrage, or our knowledge of the consequences of their actions which they did not possess. In general, people do the best they can. They get up, feed & clothe their families, take care of that which they have stewardship over, hope for love and affection, make decisions based on a better future, look forward to play time, like to keep their brains actively engaged in something worthwhile--whatever that means, seek spirituality, live within an hierarchy of some sort, obey a system of some kind, try to explain nature, and live in predictable societal units. HOW they do that is not for us to judge. We are NOT gods, and there will be many people after us who will inherit all of what came before in addition to what we do with it. .
9 hours ago Like

Follow Laura

Laura Bozzay The word men and women both contain the word men, and man in the singular form.. The fact is we are one species and cannot exist with out the other gender very well. I personally find it makes more sense to look at things in light of human equality rather than separatist views like racial, ethnic, religious and gender specific stances. By doing so we tend to alienate the rest of society and that is the last thing we really want to do.

My gender neither helped me nor hurt me. I think you find what you look for....if you look for acceptance and equality you find it... if you prefer a victim view you will find plenty of things where you can decide you were snubbed or not valued the way you wanted to be. I was the first woman on a board here in town. I used to have great fun saying "the token is here".

The men finally got I was teasing them and using a time old tradition of pointed banter used by many men. After the realized they could joke with me we were able to get a lot of stuff done instead of them walking around on tiptoe trying not to offend me...

I grew up as what we call a tomboy. Played a lot of sports and did a lot of stuff with my Dad. He taught me that I could do anything I put my mind to. So I don't see men as the enemy any more than I see other women as an enemy. My husband is great. He works hard but also helps around the house. He is my best friend even after 36 years of marriage. Why would I as a woman want to advocate something that would hurt either of these two people? Rather I would prefer to work for total human equality without bringing race or sex into the picture as it clouds the issue and creates additional sub-classes that is counter productive to reaching true unilateral equality.

I understand Gordon when he says feminists scare some men today. I have seen the confusion when a man who was raised to open doors for a woman gets rebuffed for doing so. I make it a point to always thank someone who is showing manners and politeness. That does not make me a weak female. Ask anyone who knows me how weak they think I am! I also understand when Frederico points to the issues created by the concept of a black caucus. I also understand why these came into being. But the question is, is it time for us to step away from the hurts and methods of the past and walk into a new future working together to achieve true equality of all of the people no matter their race, religion, sex, or place of origin? As I see it we have a choice, wallow in past hurts and historically bad decisions or allow the law of forgiveness to work toward making a better future that does not repeat the mistakes of the past. I for one opt for a future view. One of my favorite ideas comes from a science fiction book, Dune... in this book the main character muses that it is not where we have gone that determines our present, but rather where we are trying to go... the decisions we make today are with an eye to where we want to go.... use the past (history) for the lessons it has to teach but build your present on the things you are trying to do to build a future.
9 hours ago Like

Follow Oliver

Oliver Rochford "In general, people do the best they can. They get up, feed & clothe their families, take care of that which they have stewardship over, hope for love and affection, make decisions based on a better future, look forward to play time, like to keep their brains actively engaged in something worthwhile--whatever that means, seek spirituality, live within an hierarchy of some sort, obey a system of some kind, try to explain nature, and live in predictable societal units. HOW they do that is not for us to judge. " That is very profound and spot on. Most people throughout history would have spared very little thought for the type

of discussion we are now holding. Liberal thought, of justice and equality, is almost a byproduct of leisure and luxury. Thus most of the earliest tracts and treatises we have of it are really from members of an elite. It is one of the ironies of the past, and one that is difficult to discern today. Even many of the poorer in western societies have far more time, resources and education than at almost any other time in history or prehistory.
9 hours ago Like

Follow Billie

Billie Vincent @Oliver: Thanks for the perspective but I knew what you meant by scale when I responded - but in this instance you "are grabbing at the wrong limb." Singapore's standing appears to be far beyond your view of its importance. I believe that if you check you will find it ranking in the top 5 seaports in the world (maybe #2?). I am quite familiar with large-scale corruption - for instance each country usually has it endemic corruption system. I discarded one whole chapter in my recently released book (too long) dealing with the forms of corruption in some 15 countries that we worked in over the past 26 years - and the impact of that country's corruption on its economy and its citizens. I lost several millions $ in business because I refused to take a bribe in one of those countries. In our case here in the U.S. the most insidious corruption takes the form of campaign financing - e.g. rich individuals, corporations, associations, etc. simply buys the candidate! I realize that some will disagree with that assertion but to me it is reality - you have the money you buy the candidate! That doesn't happen in Singapore. Neither does the corruption exist at lower levels. Not so with Singapore's immediate neighbors where we saw endemic corruption at all levels - I mean ALL levels - of those societies.
7 hours ago Like

Follow Oliver

Oliver Rochford @Billie I think we are misunderstanding one another. I was referring to the fact that it has a population of less than 6 million and a very small geographic footprint.. Not it's importance. Even if there are neighbirs that are just as small, and are more corrupt, that does not nescessarily invalidate my theory, if such a country has had recent (as in the past 50 years) upheavals, conflicts or external parties influencing them. Vietnam and Laos come to mind. These nations are then stil in a state of flux from the external or environmental factors.

Otherwise, is there another theory or explanation for the differences?

7 hours ago Like

Follow Gabrielle

Gabrielle Sutherland @Billie, I thought of something different in reference to scale reading @Oliver. A smaller country (in every respect, or can we introduce "scope" ) means that each issue is easier to deal with, for one thing because it is defineable.
7 hours ago Like

Follow Billie

Billie Vincent @ Gabrielle/Oliver - I am not sure that one can easily draw that difference based solely on the size of the country. Singapore as a very high-technology country - much more so than many of the other 190+ countries most of which are far larger in physical size - many are nevertheless far less complex than Singapore. Having done four projects in Singapore I find it one of the more complex societies around the world - Chinese societies after all go back several centuries BC. An excellent book on the Overseas Chinese is Sterling Seagroves 2010 book Lords of the Rim. I get your "drift" in that scope can indeed be a defining issue. For example, locals have explained that Singapore rigidly controls the number of automobile/trucks within the city. They simply make it impossible for too many people to get approval to buy a vehicle. As I understand it one has to put up a substantial amount of money to be part of a lottery drawing. If one wins the lottery they then have to prove that they have a place to park the vehicle off the street. They can then purchase the vehicle at about four times what it would cost in the U.S. And, one cannot simply drive a vehicle into Singapore from neighboring Malaysia - they have to have prior approval. So, from this standpoint "scale" might be more appropriate. @Oliver - some of my foregoing comments to Gabrielle would apply, i.e. the complexity of Singapore itself as a technological society. Singapore had some considerable turmoil in the 1960s - some serious police problems and some riots as I recall - some 50 years ago - they are a very stable controlled society now. Comparing Singapore with two of its immediate neighbors that have small segments that are technologically advanced reveals a gulf of centuries in the thinking of the majority of their citizens - just no comparison - but the two neighbors are thousands of times larger in both physical area as well as in population. But then I could be wrong - for the first time ever - ha!
6 hours ago Like

Follow Michael J

Michael J Moylan I want to avoid the male female conversation but you will see I won't From a historical perspective the Hunter Gather construct. There is another point about the family unit. Children long before formula there was only one of the parties that could nurse. I know that is gonna get me in trouble but I will continue with hoof in mouth. Some one said men are brutes that was the reason the tree removal in the fields were left to the brutes. Fast forward to today more men lose corporate jobs than women the work force since 1950 has seen a huge gain in employment most of that is female. Yes their are still issue but much less than the 50's or the 60's More corporate Executives are female than in the past. Ok maybe not the numbers that some would like to see but there has been improvement. Some of that is men did not leave the work force to raise children Women at one point in time did. . So career paths were not based on the same line. Again I am not saying that it is fair but it is a reflection of the socioeconomic norms of that period of time. You have more fathers who are care givers how than when I grew up. Yes I believe in equal pay for equal work However working in an environment that required moving heavy loads my female counterparts thought I should do that for them. It is a two way street. Not all societies are paternal Look at the naming conventions for Russian family's. Ukrainians are a matriarchal societies I should know this is not a historical fact for me it is very real. All problems do not go away at once their is this slow adjustment over time in society makes changes. There is also medical advances that allows women to chose when they want a child. In the 50's in my family it was reffered to has Vatican Roulette. Young women at one time were encouraged not get involved in Mathematical or engineering fields that is no longer the case. Is it still hard to be a women in some fields the answer is yes however it is also true of men I have been gone for a few days. I am amazed at where you have gone with this discussion . I also assume that I will be corrected for my no politically correct views. I wanted this discussion to reflect the social change are society has gone thru just in my life time. Please forgive me I will now go crawl underneath a rock
4 hours ago Like

Follow Gabrielle

Gabrielle Sutherland @MJM I think what you say is correct. We have seen dramatic changes in a very short period of time. One of the issues I find fascinating about all this is the broad based idea that it is a woman having a baby. Sure, a woman physically/biologically is the pregnant one, and nurses a child, but nursing a child does not prohibit being able to work and it is typically a couple that has a baby, so why this is about a woman taking time off (beyond maternity leave)? This should no longer be a factor.

There are so many fields where equal pay/equal work is not remotely within sight, and where, as you say, there are more women than there used to be....the women still have a very long way to go, and this is not due to lack of qualified women. @ Laura, when you talked about etiquette above, I think it's important to note that feminism is not about having doors opened or ideas of chivalry, even though some individual women might talk about that. We are in the Fifth Wave of Feminism, and there is nothing about its premises or ideas that is incongruent with what you stated about equality and moving forward. Feminists do not hate men. Men are feminists too. Feminism is about individual bodies having value and individual recognition; personhood. In reality, it is simply in line with civil rights arguments throughout history; a movement of self determination that realizes an individual as a separate and unique being. @Gordon, when you state that the military utilizes women who are good at their jobs because of the recognition of their worth ... The feminist argument has nothing to do with whether or not women are recognized as good at their jobs. Of course they are and of course women are utilized. That has not ever been the issue. In any endeavor, a woman needs to feel respected and safe--and so do men. I don't see men fondling each other or touching each other when they talk to each other in the work place. So why do men need to touch women when they talk to us? (I have men in my life I like to touch and be touched by--but all the men at work!?!?!?) Perhaps the REAL issue is the rape culture within which the women work. Notice, please that I said "culture." Especially for the military, and that's the first thing I thought of with your words @Gordon. We know very well how difficult it is for any woman to report sexual harassment, but especially in the military! These are the kinds of issues that must be changed if we are going to move forward as a nation, and this is true everywhere in the world. I come from the world of academia, and the numbers of tenure vs. non-tenure between the genders is appalling. It should be embarrassing to the men, but it is not. At the University where I taught [until recently], not a single distinguished professor is a woman. It is not the case that the women faculty members have less publications or awards. Academia is still very much a man's world. There are other fields that are still bastions of the male world. This, too, needs to change for a viable future. I agree with you, @MJM that much has changed since our childhood, but we have a long way to go.
3 hours ago Like

Follow Michael J

Michael J Moylan @ Gabrielle it was a Mutual and economic decision for the both of us. That being said I do not think everything is all right. I cannot speak for the academic world. Though I know a few I ski with one . I have worked for women who played a game that did use there physical presences to their advantage. It is a game played by both sexes not all but that is fact humans will manipulate others to our advantage. Don't like it but it is fact. That is a key rule for a politician, I have seen the good the bad and the ugly. In this complex society that we live in we know change is a norm. I wish in many areas it would go faster. So the question is what is right for each individual family where both partners try to do what is best for the we. We should capitalize on one another's strong points both in our family's and in society. That is what I think is what we American's try to do. Does not always work because it is a imperfect world. That also is what we are trying to discuss is how do we make this land a better place that is fair to all. That has a set of rules that says you need to make a reasonable effort to learn and be productive. If there is bias that prevents you from doing that, we are trying

to eliminate that. I remember my father talking about my Grandfather who died before I reached the age of four, looking for a job and the sign outside of a construction business said Irish need not apply. We all know how wrong this type of Discrimination is. However it is not always a negative we discriminate in who we associate with the food we eat what we read or watch. It is the negative that we must eliminate. Yet I should have the right not to do business with someone who is unethical or does not pay his bills and to a larger degree abuses others. I should have that right. One of my Pol Si profs made this comment over and over again. " You can judge how lawless a society is by the amount of laws they have. The more laws the more lawless. We started in this world if you are Christian with 10 laws. They pretty well cover the realm of what is right and wrong. The United states has so many laws on the books I can't give you a real number ten thousand twenty a million? Does that make us a lawful society? You can walk out your door and break a law. From the beginning of this discussion what I fear about is what is happening to my country. You can not legislate stupidity and ignorance and bias away. Thou shall not harm, hurt or kill sounds like a pretty good rule to me but we will get some legal beagle to split hairs about what harm hurt or kill means. There will always be social issues that need to change. Pick a century and there will be a new issue. I prefer to deal with the here and now Knowing that the increase social aid in this country will soon exceed the tax revenues and wages earned in this country and that I have Infrastructure issues that need to be addressed concern me. Paying for people to have babies so they can collect more in social welfare problems concern me. I will go back under my rock
2 hours ago Like

Follow Laura

Laura Bozzay Gabrielle you state as fact things that are opinion when it comes tofeminist thinking. There are many who are ultra militant and it turns off the rest of the women who are not militant about female issues. Not all women are in agreement about what is feminism and what is not. This is why I stated that in my opinion it is far better to deal with human rights issues than gender specific ones.

Sexual harassment is a

true problem. Touching alone is not harassment. Maybe because I worked with creative folks for a long time, hugs were common place in our workplace and no one took it as sexual harassment. As a group we were not uncomfortable with showing normal human compassion and celebrating success in a very human way... hugs are not necessarily sexual. Please

don't lump all touching into sexual harassment. It isn't.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203547904574276371120932220.html <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203547904574276371120932220.html>

http://www.chicagotribune.com/classified/jobs/chi-hugs-at-workplace-acceptable-20120123,0,5003741.story <http://www.chicagotribune.com/classified/jobs/chi-hugs-at-workplace-acceptable-20120123,0,5003741.story>

Hugs say you are one of the team. A pat on the back says the same. Touching your arm says you are accepted. Sexual harassment is serious...it demeans the issue to reduce it to all contact like a compassionate or celebratory hug or pat on the back. A groping hug is very different. What we are talking about here is letting people who go too far know they have crossed a line but letting humans be

human for goodness sake. Letting a third party who is not even party to a hug get to decide if

they are uncomfortable with it is even worse... then you give someone power over the rest of society. I often get hugs from my clients and they are welcome. I am glad they think of us as members of their team.

There are times when the display of human emotion is warranted and should not be confused with sexual harassment. Yes there are people who are just not warm and fuzzy. I grew up in a very arms folded over the chest family. I married into one that kisses and hugs everyone as you go by even if it was just a minute ago.

In some lines of work hugs may be less appropriate than others. But to unilaterally say all touching is harassment is just not true. Now true sexual harassment is something not to be trifled with. The majority of touching is not harassment. It really upsets me when a few ruin everything for the majority. That is not what protection of the minority is about....

MJM you are correct up until modern times women would have found it very difficult to work outside of the home (not impossible but more difficult) because of the child bearing side of womanhood. It is consistent with what I have found doing centuries of genealogical studies. Yes I had working women in my line. In the 1600s I had a great x 8 grandmother who ran a glass company and had men who worked for her. When her sons came of age they took over but she was a successful businesswoman who held that position for many years. Anyone who had farming folks know the women gave birth and were often back in the field sometimes on the same day....

Women have always worked... just not necessarily for pay. That doesn't cheapen their contribution in any way. They have been the doctors, the nurses, the psychologists, the teachers, the cooks, the cleaning crew, and the entertainment committee / party planners for the family. They were the glue that held society together and all for no pay! Getting a paycheck does not make you richer... it just puts a specific value on what you do.

Ok, I am off my soapbox, but this really hit a hot button with me....and tenure...don't get me started on that topic....
2 hours ago Like

Follow Gabrielle

Gabrielle Sutherland @MJM I agree with everything you said. Please forgive my previous outburst.
2 hours ago Like

Follow Gabrielle

Gabrielle Sutherland @Laura, the word feminism gets used in a lot of ways, and many woman claim it for their own ends. The term does have its origins and a philosophy that is definable, however. Because some women use it to claim personal preferences does not define the philosophy which actually can be found on a laminated study sheet at any book store chain. I beg to differ on the touching. I agree with you that in a friendly atmosphere touching is a good thing. I like to hug and receive hugs. I like to touch people and be touched. I said that above, and you did not read any words from me that said that welcome hugs are sexual harassment. When I am in a professional environment, with the job description and duties and with the same responsibilities, as the men surrounding me, it is inappropriate to assume any of the above. Perhaps if I worked in a hugging place, or

the men were also hugging each other, this would be different. What I said above, is that women should not be treated differently. It is simply wrong for 1 person to be the cute, cuddly one who is hugged or touched. I have the same personal space around me as I prepare to lecture, make a presentation, command a group--whatever it may be. I don't need to be the one person being treated as everyone's sister or girlfriend. Nor does any other woman. That makes me something other than the rest of the group and undermines my authority.

Men don't talk to each other this way. I you want to suggest that it's a normal delineation of gender roles, then the men who need nurturing at work can bring their partners or their mothers to work with them. I am there at work as they are: because I am a professional. I don't wear an apron with big pockets. I don't carry tissues with me or safety pins. I stayed home full time with my children to raise them because I personally believe that's important. It was a decision I made, but there are MANY women in this country and around the world who do not have that luxury. If they are treated improperly at work there is nothing they can do because they need the job. Many of them are not in professional situations that allow for time off or leeway to adjust their situations. If they have to accept hugs and touching, then it needs to be in an environment where the men hug and touch each other, also, so they don't feel singled out or compromised. I absolutely agree, too with what @MJM said that there are people who take advantage of situations, of course both men and women in different ways. Overall, however, what we experience overwhelmingly in society, unfortunately, is that men tend to be the aggressors.
1 hour ago Like

Follow Laura

Laura Bozzay Gabrielle my experience in corporate America is the opposite. The men were the supportive ones. Many women managers saw other women managers as threats and did things to undermine them. You would think it would be otherwise but it wasn't. So yes in my examples men would hug women and other men... it was often a group hug built on a success. Same thing with pats on the back. My point is that all touching is not inappropriate in a workplace. Some is to be sure. Academia is not like business. Rules are not the same. But even in college I had both male and female professors hug me when I did something they felt warranted a congratulatory hug. I think the modern universities are more sterile than when I was in school. Sad state of affairs.

I had both men and women who worked for me. I worked for both men and women. We understood that for the team to function we had to all get on the same page. In business you often work in teams. In Academia you are often working alone and then presenting to others. Very different cultures and dynamics. It would undercut someone's authority not to show positive emotion at a big business win... it would look like they didn't care. Once again here I am talking about positive supportive emotional display not taking advantage of someone.

Most of the obstructive women managers who did not play well with other women were weeded out over time. Today both men and women are expected to work well together. Some of the brightest performance stars we had were secretaries who did bring coffee to both men and women managers. They tried to make the office run smoothly and tracked birthdays so we could celebrate them together. They made the office a lit more homey and since many of us were putting in 1. to 80 hours a week, that was a needed support system.

And just because something is printed on a piece of laminated paper does not make it so... definitions evolve. Words are picked up and used in multiple contexts. The real world is much more fluid than saying something on a laminated sheet is the only correct meaning.

The current Webster definition is: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/feminism <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/feminism> Definition of FEMINISM * the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes : organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests As far as I am concerned that leaves a lot of undefined opinions...
1 hour ago Like

Follow Gabrielle

Gabrielle Sutherland Thanks @Laura. Those definitions are spot on. A lot of women before you and I worked hard to achieve a tangible philosophy or theory called feminism. It's not about opinions or colloquial usage. Most words can be used in a colloquial manner, but that doesn't make it correct-- especially if we want to communicate with one another. Several years ago I was fortunate to sit at the table with two honored guests at a benefit. These two women were very old, but vigor and life oozed from their visages. I was new to the feminist world, so I didn't recognize their names, nor did I realize the significance of why everyone there was so in awe of these women (except that they were). It didn't take long, however, to understand it as they regaled me with stories of their activities. They were super heroes! They were awesome in what they had achieved and the numbers of women they had helped over the course of their lives. They had also been beaten, jailed, raped, abused, excoriated, and through it all, wow. They had accomplished so much, and were way ahead of their time. It was humbling to listen to them talk about the hurdles. I was humbled by their calm strength, and their ability to love. I will never forget it, partly because I and my generation am a recipient of what they (and others) did. That's a mighty thing. We owe them something. We owe them the acknowledgement that the changes that have been made were hard fought and even harder won. =======================

Thank you for your words @Laura. I agree with you that every work environment is different. I've worked in government, the corporate world, for an international NGO and in the arts (that's not just hugs--that's kisses!) and I think you proved my point. What is important, no, essential, is that all are treated equally. We each have a say in where we belong and the right thing, is that the individual recognizes him or herself as belonging. "Belonging" means equal treatment and respect. We are fortunate when we work in environments that support that kind of atmosphere.
42 minutes ago Like Reply privately Delete

Gabrielle Sutherland Thanks @Laura. Those definitions are spot on. A lot of women before you and I worked hard to achieve a tangible philosophy or theory called feminism. It's not about opinions or colloquial usage. Most words can be used in a colloquial manner, but that doesn't make it correct-- especially if we want to communicate with one another. Several years ago I was fortunate to sit at the table with two honored guests at a benefit. These two women were very old, but vigor and life oozed from their visages. I was new to the feminist world, so I didn't recognize their names, nor did I realize the significance of why everyone there was so in awe of these women (except that they were). It didn't take long, however, to understand it as they regaled me with stories of their activities. They were super heroes! They were awesome in what they had achieved and the numbers of women they had helped over the course of their lives. They had also been beaten, jailed, raped, abused, excoriated, and through it all, wow. They had accomplished so much, and were way ahead of their time. It was humbling to listen to them talk about the hurdles. I was humbled by their calm strength, and their ability to love. I will never forget it, partly because I and my generation am a recipient of what they (and others) did. That's a mighty thing. We owe them something. We owe them the acknowledgement that the changes that have been made were hard fought and even harder won. ======================= Thank you for your words @Laura. I agree with you that every work environment is different. I've worked in government, the corporate world, for an international NGO and in the arts (that's not just hugs--that's kisses!) and I think you proved my point. What is important, no, essential, is that all are treated equally. We each have a say in where we belong and the right thing, is that the individual recognizes him or herself as belonging. "Belonging" means equal treatment and respect. We are fortunate when we work in environments that support that kind of atmosphere.
1 hour ago Like

Reply privately Delete

Follow Laura

Laura Bozzay Gabrielle I come from a long line of women firsts....I mentioned my 8x great grandmother in the 1600s who ran a glass company. That company's progeny is still in operation and produces some of the most expensive glass in the world still today. I also have in my line the first WAC, driver to a President and first woman President of a multinational board. I myself was the first woman named to board of an all boys high school which was a huge shift in tradition. I was raised to understand that gender is not a hindrance unless you want it to be. That you can do anything you put your mind too if you don't give up when you hit a rough spot or someone tells you no or that it can't be done.... I love to prove those people wrong.... Between the 1600s and modern day (as I met and knew the two women I mentioned above) there were several other women of note. My family or a branch of it has fought in every major war the US has fought in. Some of these women were nurses who cared for the injured including one who was a captive of the Japanese in WWII. I met her

when I was a young child before she died. Then I had an ancestress who was left to raise 3 children on her own during a time when women did not typically work out of the house. She managed to raise 3 wonderful children including my father. I can trace my line (men and women) to the early 1400s in one line and the 1300s in another. Many of them endured hardships including watching their children starve due to the burning of a country by invading forces. (Same woman who ran the glass factory walked what would be equivalent to 80 miles during the 30 years war to buy bread to feed her children. I have this in a chronicle my 4x Great grandfather wrote of the family history and the history of glass makers back to the 1500s in eastern France / Western Germany... those countries did not exist as we know them then... I can tell you, you find out what you are made of when you are faced with torture and possible death. Of this I am very sure and have first hand experience. It changes you in ways you would never expect. Once again, in my opinion today's brand of feminism does more to hurt the advancement of women than help it. If you stay within the confines of human rights and equality you make much greater strides at much lower costs. Because you don't alienate the women who don't agree with the militant groups who claim they are working as feminists and you don't anger the men by making them feel like bullies. The truth is, we are stronger as humans than as either men or women alone.
14 minutes ago Like

Redouane Bounejmate Ok, I'm going to Answer Mr. Michael's Post like a 'high school expos', but the answer would be with the intent of sharing it with everyone. It's not that I hate certain things. It's just that certain things always are forgotten. And part of it is just being thankful to God. Because at any rate, we're here. And we've seen good things. "I have worked for women who played a game that did use there physical presences to their advantage. It is a game played by both sexes not all but that is fact humans will manipulate others to our advantage." That is a bad movie you are thinking of. "Don't like it but it is fact. That is a key rule for a politician, I have seen the good the bad and the ugly." Now THAT, is a good movie. But you will probably only watch it so many times. Here is what really makes me sad. Without the activism of certain females in the Americas, and the fact that they have worked really hard, and I mean, really hard, to make sure that their children do not watch certain 'atrocities' on TV., simply because they are good mothers and would like other mothers to present their children with what it is they have to give, I would say this planet would be in Great Danger. I have met many 'strong' women, and I can see how some of today's 'women' can be used totally to destroy that Image. No, No, and No. I have such a sister who is 'over-feminist' and thinks that without women nothing is possible and so on, but the Women of which I speak, are, unlike my sister ( whom I care about a lot ), I respect. And that word should ring in your ears for a couple of minutes because these women of which I speak are the kind of women you see lurched in boats in uncharted seas defending whales, walking through landmines with amputees to prevent massacres, and providing healthcare to HIV stricken areas that certain 'Men' wouldn't walk into. All of this, is just to share a little bit of the 'love back at home'. And to 'show the light'. I have many years of experience with people. As a young person, I find that the current generation has lost the respect they had for certain values and principles, which I see necessary for life. Principles such as 'don't steal don't lie don't rape'. And I know this comes to you as 'words' but if you look at the 'world', which by coincidence is a word that is only one character different, you will find how what we do and how 'easily' we can be fooled into allowing ourselves certain freedoms from ignorance of their consequences can have such a great impact on this planet.

I was raised by a man who has taught me that doing your homework without the perfect effort can result in a plane crash that will kill 30 people in six years. Just because for one night you decided to watch cartoons instead. And I come from a country where 'It's OK to drive 80 km above the speed limit and it's ok to bribe police officers if you get caught' because life is hard, and so killing another human being might not always be considered as a sin. There is a very important thing people forget. In the U.S.A., feminism was never an issue. What I mean is, Women were never 'really' oppressed, at least not in the latter years. The activism of women in the U.S. has always been linked with foreign diplomacy and perhaps it is women that have made great accomplishments, but sadly I must confess that there are a few rotten apples which, single-handedly, were responsible for a lot of disasters. And these women are probably not the kind you would imagine nor are they cheered up for any reason apart from their appearance or perhaps 'immoral' quests. But, then again, I don't see how men are any better, especially when the subject matter is in fact moral rectitude. We get judged by our actions, that is true, but most of us forget that the ultimate judgement is the reality in which we live. If we do bad, where are we going to hide for Christ's Sake? Disasters don't spare anyone... Not even if you bribe them.
50 minutes ago Like

RedouaneUnfollow

Redouane Bounejmate You know what's killing America?I've thought about this with the cold sending a deep chill to my heart ( and reassuring me it's still there ) and the goose-pimples stopped chasing the geese and so on and so on. It's the poetry. No, really. Here is how.First you have one side, claiming to be man/woman/human/normal/average/good/bad stereotype defending all these 'causes' from the morning Double Whopper to the Right to Hold a 120 per second with the optional Six Nautical Light Years Missile in case the president doesn't do his job and clean the dishes. And then we have reality, on the other hand. Come on, let's make up our minds. It's been at least two thousand and thirteen years and one month and fourteen days and 8 hours and 16 minutes of documented history ( Greenwitch Mean Time ... ). And how is that supposed to help us in the future?Let us look at the scenarios. It took us all a lot of pain and agony and martyrdom and whatnot to get the cars to work. And then the planes to not change into birds all the time. But now that we got that far, what are we going to do with it? How is this arrogance going to help us get anywhere? Imagine x years for now, hypothetically, all the birds and the bees crying while the elephants and dogs are still trying to fight for freedom and the ants and bees are still figuring out the connection between sex and 'wifi'. What is it that we would like to keep, for once and for all? What values? What morals? What principles? We all have 'stories', but these stories can be made up by a sixth grader with a talent. What we lack is rules that are realistic. That take care of everybody. That don't involve settling on Mars or Afghanistan. That don't involve bloodshed or disaster ( I'm thinking of you too honey ).When is it going to be obvious for us all to realize that what we want is just the same, life. Who cares who's barking on top of what tree, just as long as it's comfortable.It's cozy to be with people. But not when these people are attacking you. And not when they're faking Martyrdom for all the rice wine in China. And end up being victims for real.We ought to get rid of something here. I hope it's not mankind. Please don't say as men or women alone, what's the point? We have to 'reproduce'.Peace has different angles to it. And some of them are very sharp, they could almost be use as weapons. Wait a minute, ... I take that back :)

The Development of Taliban Factions in Afghanistan and Pakistan: A Geographical Account, February 2010 Amin, Agha , Osinski, David J. , & DeGeorges, Paul Andre

http://mellenpress.com/mellenpress.cfm?bookid=8028&pc=9

BOOKS ON PAKISTAN REVIEWED-AMAZON UK

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Books-Pakistan-Reviewed-AghaHumayun/dp/1480086193/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1354666 967&sr=1-1

Military Leadership

http://www.amazon.com/Military-Leadership-Decision-MakingHumayun/dp/1480086649/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1354667 524&sr=1-4

Taliban war in Afghanistan

http://www.amazon.com/Taliban-Afghanistan--Writers-TransformedPerceptions/dp/1480085863/ref=sr_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=13546 67721&sr=1-5

Atlas and History of Wars

http://www.amazon.com/Atlas-Military-History-IndiaPakistan/dp/1480102016/ref=sr_1_7?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1354667 783&sr=1-7

THE ESSENTIAL CLAUSEWITZ http://www.amazon.com/Essential-Clausewitz-Agha-HumayunAmin/dp/1480199826/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1354667218 &sr=1-1&keywords=AGHA+HUMAYUN+AMIN

USA,ISI,AL QAEDA and TALIBAN-Setting Straight Bruce Riedels Strategic Narrative http://www.amazon.com/TALIBAN-Setting-Straight-Riedels-StrategicNarrative/dp/1481007645/ref=sr_1_17?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=135466 7320&sr=1-17

1971 War http://www.amazon.com/Pakistan-Army-1971-Indiaafter/dp/1480109770/ref=sr_1_8?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1354667962& sr=1-8

Mans Role in History http://www.amazon.com/Mans-Role-History-AghaHumayun/dp/1480233536/ref=sr_1_9?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1354667 993&sr=1-9

How a private English Company conquered a sub continent http://www.amazon.com/English-East-India-CompanyConquered/dp/1480234834/ref=sr_1_10?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1354 668028&sr=1-10

Atlas of a great tank battle http://www.amazon.com/Atlas-Battle-Chawinda-AghaHumayun/dp/1480242284/ref=sr_1_11?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=135466 8289&sr=1-11

Atlas of a bloody Indian Pakistan battle http://www.amazon.com/Atlas-Battle-Chamb-1971Humayun/dp/1480247529/ref=sr_1_12?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=135466 8583&sr=1-12

A forgotten and Bloody British Failure

http://www.amazon.com/Atlas-Battle-Chillianwallah-13-January1849/dp/1480253081/ref=sr_1_13?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=135466862 1&sr=1-13

The Pakistani Tank Divisions Failure in 1965 http://www.amazon.com/Atlas-Battles-Assal-Uttar-Lahore1965/dp/1480253634/ref=sr_1_14?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=135466865 5&sr=1-14

Second World Wars Forgotten History http://www.amazon.com/Indian-Army-Second-WorldWar/dp/1480269107/ref=sr_1_15?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1354668691 &sr=1-15

How Indian Army saved France and Suez Canal http://www.amazon.com/Indian-Army-First-WorldWar/dp/1480274488/ref=sr_1_16?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1354668753 &sr=1-16

Sepoy Rebellion of 1857-59 Reinterpreted http://www.amazon.com/Sepoy-Rebellion-1857-59-ReinterpretedHumayun/dp/1480085707/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1354667 451&sr=1-2

Pakistan Army through eyes of Pakistani Generals http://www.amazon.com/Pakistan-Army-through-PakistaniGenerals/dp/1480085960/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1354667 488&sr=1-3