(Untitled)
I have to say, I was worried that by not getting into college sooner and staying trapped in Florida for a few months, I might be letting my brain lay stagnant, but lately the contrary has proved to be the case. I must have picked the right books and the right independent news sources, because I've finally begun the process of undoing the
( Read more... )
Yeah, we're just one nation among 200 others...just the only one that can handle disasters all over the world, donate millions/billions of dollars to anyone, take over an entire country in a week, etc. Other than that we just blend in perfectly.
Regarding that last sentence: "the corporate-driven plutocratic oligarchy known as the United States of America."
Can you think of anything else big enough to effectively drive a society than corporations? Who has paid for all of the technological advances of this society for the past century and a half at least? You don't like plutocratic governments? Then vote for the poor people on the ballot...oh wait...it looks like that the only people that are able to give ALL of their time to studying society and government are rich people who don't have to be distracted my worrying about how to get food on the table. Thats just how things play out. Besides, I'll take a well educated rich boy to run my country over an uneducated poor person anyday, sorry.
And the same concept goes for my thoughts on our supposed "oligarchy". I don't want the uneducated hindering the people that know best. It takes congress long enough to sort out matters as it is without MORE people getting involved. Our system of checks and balances right now is probably the perfect balance of quick decisiveness and careful questioning for a better solution. Please, for your own sake, do not criticize a system that was founded over 200 years ago and has been working beautifully since then. You do not know better than Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Specifics? OK, well, there's much more than I know about to list, but I'll start off with...
Deceiving an entire nation as an excuse to commit illegal war crimes, including torture, for personal financial gain
Relaxing clean air standards to "help" the car companies & keep this nation dependent on oil
Cutting funding & personnel from New Orleans to support the war in Iraq when there was a report released in 2002 by scientists strongly stating the threat of a storm like Katrina in the future
Yes, we ought to just go back to being an ordinary nation.
1. Okay, let's handle disasters in our own country, too. We have a huge amount of resources at our disposal to handle disasters in the name of helping out our fellow man. (In Bush's case, I'll add: unless he is black and socially and economically disenfranchised) I agree with you here. But our response to any domestic or foreign disaster shouldn't depend on the people involved, or any political interests.
2. Who cares if we can donate billions of dollars to the people of Louisiana if people died during the days that no help was getting there? Sure, money may be essential, but it doesn't save lives directly in this case.
3. Why do we need to take over an entire country in a week, especially with violent military force? Americans believe that everyone is entitled to democracy. Some countries might be better off alone. Why do we need to "fix" the world and get rid of all the regimes our government has a problem with? At the very least, why don't we channel our global power through a more diplomatic forum, like the U.N. (which, unfortunately, is becoming more and more a puppet of the U.S. with the election and actions of John Bolton)? Granted, Iraq's people were oppressed, as are many in the world. But I think dictators who are trying to spread their reign onto other countries are even more unjust. Poor governments are a fact of life, but they don't need to be spread by the leader onto other countries.
Society doesn't need corporations. It needs people. What about local microeconomies over national macroeconomies? I personally would rather have local capitalism than national commercialism. I think this world was running just great even before the Industrial Revolution.
Corporations DO have a lot of money and a lot of tug in Washington. I wouldn't be complaining about it if they
a.) didn't market to children
...and in the case of the food industries, while simultaneously lobbying for their interests
b.) were responsible for their social and environmental impact
...Europe's companies are doing a fantastic job of recycling their own products... meanwhile Starbucks is importing coffee from slave plantations in Africa),
c.) promoted socially just and envionmentally friendly causes
...meanwhile there are big mergers and big scandals going on as the rich get richer and the poor get poorer because of corporate America.
Yes, corporations have likely paid for all of those advances. But do we need them? Sorry, I don't call the television "progress". People lived perfectly fine for centuries without air conditioning, but now it's a necessity. Cars have "advanced" to the point where people don't walk to the corner store anymore. The cotton gin, the printing press, now that was progress.
You don't need to spend all of your time studying politics and government to run a country like America. Our system is set up so that there is one executive figurehead in charge of "executing" things, while there are 535 others in the legislative branch who help get that done for (or veto) you. Not to mention the other people and information the president directly in charge of and has access to. If he said "I want cleaner air," I'm sure he'd have reports pouring in from scientists and people on his side in Congress to help get the job done.
Reply
If our system has been working so beautifully, then explain the ever-widening gap between the rich and the poor in this country, and your own argument that things take so long to sort out matters in Congress. No, I don't know better than Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson - because they were clever enough to write a Constitution that kept the interests of wealthy, property-owning white men while pretending to defend that of all Americans. Case in point: they said the Constution could be amended and showed people what a free government they're establishing, when really, the amendment policy requires so many unanimous and near-unanimous votes (granted, you don't want to make these kinds of things too easy either, though) that it is really impossible to amend.
Reply
if our system is working so great, explain why it's good for the Electoral College to take the meaning away from the popular vote.
And secondly, how have corporations come to fund the campaign debates, effectively stamping out any independent parties?
Reply
By the way, keep the debate on the issue and off of either one of us. I didn't ask for personal criticism, just intelligent discussion. Thanks.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment