american empire

[Matin]

got your attention? lol

i pose a question! what are the opinions in this forum as to the state of the american 'democracy' *cough socialistleaningrepublic cough*?

i have recently read the rise and fall of the roman empire, and the writings of tacitus, and i am drawn to the conclusion that we have not had a democracy for a long time.

bush '00; (and i HATE to drag old waters) a man becomes president expressly AGAINST the will of the majority, because he won the college.

wtf?

the patriot act, increasing 'dole' programs, outrageous military spending, annexing territories, disappearing middle class, floods of truly well meaning but destabilizing aliens, an epidemic of tort abuse, increasing censorship, and above all this government and corporate fed cloud of FEAR that we are all expected to live under.

to anyone offended by this post, and especially if it has been done to death i ask your pardon.

still i will ask the question; anyone else hear visigoths?

[Stealth694]

I think we were on the road to losing Democracy.
Remember Jefferson said Democracy is an on going experiment. But People are so dissatisfied with whats happened under the Bush Admin, that Obama's Change approach showed how much we want to return to Democracy.
People are crying because Obama didn't bring in Fresh Blood like he said, but Clinton's people were some of the best that this country has seen. Obama is trying to imitate both FDR and Reagan, two of the most innovative presidents ever.

Personal Opinion: Bush caused this mess in 8 Yrs, lets wait and see what Obama does in the first 6 Months of his administration before we start judging him.

[Matin]

good man!

in six months if its still around i'll bump this thread lol and or just ask the question again.

:)

[fetishdj]

Not sure you ever really had a true democracy... not sure any country does. Especially not the ones who actually call themselves 'Democratic republic of... whatever' as it always strikes me that they are trying to prove too much in the name and never do it in action.

America is (and always has been) a republic with some democracy in the way that Britain is a monarchy with some democracy. Both have an elite, select group who effectively control it all. The fact that a president can effectively over rule the vote of the senate and do what he damn well pleases is a sign of this - no different in a fundamental way to various early modern English monarchs (Charles I as a prime example) who randomly decided to dissolve parliament and rule without their support. If one individual (whether he or she is elected or not) can eliminate one aspect of the democracy from the system by effectively ignoring it then that is not a democracy.

As I said above, I am not sure the ideal of true democracy exists in practise at present. I think that the size of a population is important in democracy - on a small scale it works really well but after a certain size it begins to lose power. You need things to support it - parliaments, senates, congress - and they bring with them a whole host of problems which detract from true democracy.

[Matin]

what i find fascinating is the idea that we now have the technology to make an actual democratic society feasible. one vote for one legal adult.

computers, phones, and the internet make me wonder why we still need something like an electoral college.

on a small scale democracy works great. in the northeast where i'm originally from the town hall meetings and caucuses are a great thing, pure democracy in action. once you get to a larger population tho that starts to break down.

my idea was that anyone who wanted to vote could buy a small handheld device, basically a cell phone, that's dedicated to a server that can log the individual id of the person voting. once a vote has been cast that unit is locked out of the server, or passed onto a different server handling a different election.

did that make any sense?

-matin

[Stealth694]

Nice Point matin:
Small Population govt can go either way either a totall true democracy or a midevil Fiefdom. It just depends on if the people will fight for their rights.

[denuseri]

We have never had a true democracy in the United States, nor did the founding fathers wish for us to have one at any time.

The resons for this are as simple as the reasons Plato found for that of Athens failed attempt at true democracy to not be a desireable form of Government. In fact it failed the Athenians on numerous occassions.

Mob rule subsitutes a blind system in the place of any actualy intellegent mindset at the helm of the people with a true democracy. It also promotes demigogues rising to power and possible tyranny as opposed to good knowedgable people. (our most recent election case in point)

One reason why the Romans after having overthrown thier kings addopted instead thier "Republican" form of Government, and if you study history you will see our own government in america more closely resembles the romans than the greeks.


As for the elctoral college, well no one I know likes it, outside of the founding fathers who wanted it as a safe gaurd to keep "we the people" from doing what the ruleing class of america (senetorial ranks who by the way were not elected by popular vote at the time) didnt want.

As for a the Bush Gore election being a sign of Americas fall, one might perchance review the history books a little bit and see that this was not the first or even the second time that someone won the popular vote but did not become the president due to the electoral college and or the senate intervening.

Also the idea that the "President" can overrule and do what ever he pleases is to say the least unrealistic, especially if your talking about Bush again, you will find if you look that he got approval from the senate for things that previous presidents didnt even bother apealing for support. (Jefferson, Wilson, Kennedy and Johnson are the biggest offenders in that camp of walking on other branches of government)

The Roman Empire fell after allmost more than a thousand years of rule in the east and a little over 500 years in the west and there are many oppinions as to how that came about.

Some blame the Christians, others blame the barbarian migrations, and yet others blame complacency induced by over abundance.

The most recent work of cross disiplinary fields is coming up with a far more complex explanation for the fall which alltough includes some of the forementoned it also dismissess some things like christanity (which actually may have sustained it) outright and lays the majority of the blame on conditions outside the romans control at the time as there is strong evidence now that climate change played a majior role in both the invasions and lack of manpower to resist them (cooling period simular to the one that brought dorian invaders to allmost wipe out the Myceaneans).

Tacitus wrote a brilliant example of how absolute power corruptes quickely, in his annuals of imperial rome (inpaticular the section about the year of four emperors) however Rome did go on for several hundred years after he Tacitus was long dead.

All thats required to vote now, is getting up off ones lazy ass to do so, which that in and of itself is a large reduction factor. When most of the people who voted in this past election didnt even know who the running mates were let alone what the canadates actual stood for, I am not so sure I want them voting anyway.

As for blaming one man like "Bush or Carter, or FDR or whoever) for the faults of many, (ie congress and the many buracratic departments of government) all I can say there is that it is all too typical for people that are swept up in religious like feavor over thier chosen party or demagouge to dismiss logic for passion or allow passion to overshadow what reason they may have possed to begin with where as things of this nature are conserned.

[Dr_BuzzCzar]

My opinion of the health of the "American Experiment" in government is akin to the famous Mark Twain quote, (paraphrased from my memory) "The rumor of my death is somewhat exaggerated." I believe there are many centuries yet to come.

[fetishdj]

Was not referring to Bush at all in my points. The fact remains that there are certain situations in which an American president may, without the support of either elected body, make an executive decision.

As for the electoral colleges... very good point about why these were put in place. And also good points about the reasons why America is a republic. However, the public face of American politics always claims that it is a democracy (indeed some claim it to be the greatest democracy) and yet many of the points made so far in this thread present evidence (however speculative) that it is not a democracy at all (and as has been stated, was never actually intended to be so). So, to what extent is American democracy a lie? And is that lie justified?

As for 'computer democracy' not sure even that will work in practise. There is still the problem of far too many people all wanting something different...

[Thorne]

The fact remains that there are certain situations in which an American president may, without the support of either elected body, make an executive decision.

While technically true, there could come a time when he would have to justify that decision. That's why they have the impeachment process. The problem with that is that party politics tends to override intelligence. They would rather keep their bad president, just because he belongs to their party, than put him on trial for his indiscretions and risk losing the presidency to the other party.

The biggest problem with any democracy is not necessarily the number of people involved, but the number of intelligent people involved. I don't think I would want to live in a true democracy where the majority of people are voting with their gut rather than their brain.

[Matin]

thank you to everyone who decided to weigh in on this one. ^.^ i find it's hard to get a good conversation going in my little burgh about, i guess i'd say, 'basic' politics.

you all are smart people; you know the definition of democracy; mob rule. the only societies i know of in history to ever have truly practised this was a series of native american societies on the southwest.

even those athenians had sub-classes who couldn't vote - a great deal like our founding fathers' 'democracy'.

"sure you can vote if you happen to be a white protestant male landowner!" :)

this country wasn't designed to function without a ruling class, so what to do as we hopefully advance to a point where a genuine effort is made to give all 300 million of us a legitimate stake in the leadership?

i don't mind so much an undereducated populace voting their guts instead of their minds. i think america suffers a great deal for our - and i'm as guilty as anyone at times - elitist thinking. do you want a democracy? then you have to accept the results of the vote.

and denuseri, you are right; what happened in '00 happened twice before, in the 1800's. i think the relevance is different today, however, due to the connectedness and access of the american people. yes, america has survived ruthless men and ugly politics before(abraham lincoln) but during more inherently uncertain times.

in today's america it seems to me that our fearless leaders are very much afraid of letting the populace get a chance to stop and smell the roses. there is a constant rush from war to war keeping the patriotic fervor up, and a nonstop barrage of fear mongery in the media to keep us under our desks and docile.

we have constututional rights. or we did. now there are less. and apparently they are open to interpretation. this is a more recent development - since 9/11 - and it's one i really don't like. never before has the government sought so much influence over and access to the private lives of americans. some say that if one isn't a criminal there is no reason to be bothered by gov't observation. i see it as a step toward a police state.

so what happens, i wonder, to out gov't if we haven't got the fervor and the fear? opinions? why is that happening?

so maybe i think i didn't clarify my opening post enough; i feel that any semblance or facade of representative government in america is slipping away, to be replaced with something much more totalitarian. agree? disagree?

one of the aspects of british politics that i greatly respect - from the admittedly little i know of it - is the multi party system they use. in america our two party system dominates the ballots and the media. in a lot of places a third party candidate can't even make it on the roster, and independants sometimes can't vote because they're not aligned with one of the parties.

where then is the ACCURATE representation? a choice is given between two veteran politicos. is it naive to imagine that were there more competition for office - like in britain(i think. lol) - then we might not always be feeling that we are forced to choose the lesser of two evils?

also i need to clarify, i had mentioned the roman empire because i was alluding to the death of the republic.

and to belabor a much abused subject, i still don't feel that any good arguments have been made against a direct democracy.

[Dr_BuzzCzar]

According to the CIA World Factbook the United States form of government is "Constitution-based federal republic; strong democratic tradition". Pretty much touches all the bases of our government.

Note: I use that website for reference fairly regularly for a variety of subjects, check it out sometime. It takes the Joe Friday approach to information, "Just the facts, nothing but the facts, ma'am". https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html

The government and to a large extent the people of the U.S reacted to 9/11 as this and many other countries have in the past; a willingness to trade civil rights and individual freedoms for security. The time right after 9/11 was chaos, fear was rampant. While anyone that has read other political threads that I've commented on can attest that I'm a long way from a Bush/Cheney supporter, I can't fault the decisions made in the immediacy of post-9/11 in the actual interest of public safety. Now having said that, the callous use of 9/11 to further erode individual rights, i.e. Habeas Corpus, trial by jury, Miranda, etc troubles me. The relatively recent revelation that the eaves-dropping ability has been used to entertain the technicians by listening to personal conversations of American citizens and the admission by the FBI of their agents abusing the warrentless wire-tapping laws, the revealed abuse of the Watch List on citizens who fly by putting political opponents on the list, show how quickly what appeared to be needed constrictions of constitutional rights are abused.

The case of Ali al-Marri, a Qatar citizen that was studying at Bradley University and is being held in the Charleston Navy brig without any charges except his being denoted by the administration as an "enemy combatant" without any offer of proof should be watched very carefully. Is he a terrorist bent on the destruction of the U.S.? We don't know. He's a student in the U.S. subject to the laws of the U.S. Doesn't he deserve the right of trial by jury? If we are going to err should it be on the side of letting a guilty man go free or sending an innocent man to prison? By a single executive order anyone can be held without access to counsel, without facing his accuser, without a Grand Jury indictment, without judicial review, without Habeas Corpus. That scares me.

[Dr_BuzzCzar]

That's why they have the impeachment process. The problem with that is that party politics tends to override intelligence. They would rather keep their bad president, just because he belongs to their party, than put him on trial for his indiscretions and risk losing the presidency to the other party.

The biggest problem with any democracy is not necessarily the number of people involved, but the number of intelligent people involved. I don't think I would want to live in a true democracy where the majority of people are voting with their gut rather than their brain.

Keep in mind that the impeachment process is based on the commission of "High crimes and misdemeanors". It would be very difficult to overcome an executive order through that process. With enough votes Congress could enact a veto-proof law to reverse an executive order but that could be negated through a Signing Statement by the President. (Bush has used signing statements to avoid parts of laws more than the other Presidents of the 20th century combined, as I recall.) There is the route of challenge of the constitutionality of an order through the Supreme Court but that is time consuming and is based on an interpretation of the Constitution as opposed to right/wrong of the order.


The aspect of a pure democracy (1 person one vote, majority rules) on all subjects without checks and balances appears to offer more anarchy than anything else. I agree that gut voting as opposed to intelligent thought is most often the norm.

[Thorne]

The government and to a large extent the people of the U.S reacted to 9/11 as this and many other countries have in the past; a willingness to trade civil rights and individual freedoms for security. The time right after 9/11 was chaos, fear was rampant.
I don't like that comment. I agree with your assessment of trading civil rights and freedoms for security, and indeed, post 9/11 was chaos. But other than those people living in NYC and DC, was fear that pronounced? Oh, certainly, politicians were terrified! A plane hitting the pentagon, one apparently targetting the White House? Their own lives might be on the line! Failing to act on intelligence information? What about their careers! They were certainly afraid. Personally, while horrified by the acts and the results of those acts, I can't say that my level of fear went any higher just because of 9/11. And that despite the fear-mongering of the American (primarily) press and TV news media.


...I can't fault the decisions made in the immediacy of post-9/11 in the actual interest of public safety. Now having said that, the callous use of 9/11 to further erode individual rights, i.e. Habeas Corpus, trial by jury, Miranda, etc troubles me. The relatively recent revelation that the eaves-dropping ability has been used to entertain the technicians by listening to personal conversations of American citizens and the admission by the FBI of their agents abusing the warrentless wire-tapping laws, the revealed abuse of the Watch List on citizens who fly by putting political opponents on the list, show how quickly what appeared to be needed constrictions of constitutional rights are abused.
I'm with you on this one! "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"


That scares me.
And me as well. Far more than the threat of further terrorist actions.

[leo9]

I don't like that comment. I agree with your assessment of trading civil rights and freedoms for security, and indeed, post 9/11 was chaos. But other than those people living in NYC and DC, was fear that pronounced?


Speaking as an outside observer, my expereince was that my US friends were not just frightened but literally hysterical. Any attempt to reason with them, to suggest that they might be over-reacting or lashing out at the wrong target, was met with reactions on the level of "WHY DO YOU HATE US? YOU'RE ON THEIR SIDE!"

It wasn't universal by any means, but the impression from this side of the pond was that a large percentage of the population simply lost their marbles.

[Thorne]

It wasn't universal by any means, but the impression from this side of the pond was that a large percentage of the population simply lost their marbles.

I don't know. Maybe it was mostly people from the NYC area, and the DC area, as I said. I'm sure that there were some people who frightened, and some even now who won't get on a plane for fear of it being hijacked. But I can't think of a single person I know who was "terrified" by the whole thing. Sure, we were upset, and certainly concerned about the potential for more incidents, but except for the government crack downs on our civil liberties, I can't think of one tangible effect from 9/11. Aside from the financial impacts, of course. And naturally, those who lost friends or family are more affected. I would venture to guess that most of those hysterical people you mentioned were probably in this category, having lived through the ordeal directly. Their reaction is understandable.

I do remember in the hours following the Oklahoma City bombing that many people, including the media, were very quick to blame Arab terrorists, but I have always been of the opinion that anything the Arab fanatics can do, homegrown fanatics can do. In that case I was proved right, and I felt the same way about 9/11 until the evidence started coming in about the Muslims who boarded the planes.

Don't jump to conclusions, and don't judge all Americans by the handful who may have, indeed, panicked.

[Dr_BuzzCzar]

I don't like that comment. I agree with your assessment of trading civil rights and freedoms for security, and indeed, post 9/11 was chaos. But other than those people living in NYC and DC, was fear that pronounced? Oh, certainly, politicians were terrified! A plane hitting the pentagon, one apparently targeting the White House? Their own lives might be on the line! Failing to act on intelligence information? What about their careers! They were certainly afraid. Personally, while horrified by the acts and the results of those acts, I can't say that my level of fear went any higher just because of 9/11. And that despite the fear-mongering of the American (primarily) press and TV news media.

.

I was on the west coast in an airport when this came down. Long story that's not different from a lot of others but I ended up driving across the country from California to South Carolina. I listened to a lot of talk radio and to a lot of news. I stopped each night and chatted with people in hotels and restaurants. Fear was rampant. While I didn't observe anyone running around like their hair was on fire, there was a great deal of anxiety and unease immediately after the attack. The entire air travel system shut down, guards on chemical plants and nuclear plants, etc. that good old all-American practice of price gouging worked on Mr and Mrs America because of fear. Anyone who lived in the U.S on 9/11 and wasn't afraid for their family members, friends, co-workers, or themselves is in a very small minority.

Fear isn't a bad thing. Panic is bad, fear can keep you alive. I've been shot, I've been blown up, I've ambushed and been ambushed. Fear has worked very well for me.

[Dr_BuzzCzar]

Speaking as an outside observer, my experience was that my US friends were not just frightened but literally hysterical. Any attempt to reason with them, to suggest that they might be over-reacting or lashing out at the wrong target, was met with reactions on the level of "WHY DO YOU HATE US? YOU'RE ON THEIR SIDE!"

It wasn't universal by any means, but the impression from this side of the pond was that a large percentage of the population simply lost their marbles.

I didn't observe such reactions but I was not in NY or Washington so can't speak for them. I didn't see panic.

[Thorne]

I was on the west coast in an airport when this came down. Long story that's not different from a lot of others but I ended up driving across the country from California to South Carolina. I listened to a lot of talk radio and to a lot of news. I stopped each night and chatted with people in hotels and restaurants. Fear was rampant. While I didn't observe anyone running around like their hair was on fire, there was a great deal of anxiety and unease immediately after the attack. The entire air travel system shut down, guards on chemical plants and nuclear plants, etc. that good old all-American practice of price gouging worked on Mr and Mrs America because of fear. Anyone who lived in the U.S on 9/11 and wasn't afraid for their family members, friends, co-workers, or themselves is in a very small minority.

Fear isn't a bad thing. Panic is bad, fear can keep you alive. I've been shot, I've been blown up, I've ambushed and been ambushed. Fear has worked very well for me.

I can understand your point. If you were travelling, or knew someone who was travelling, I can imagine being worried, even fearful. If you live in a large city, one which might be considered a target for a terrorist act, a certain amount of fear is understandable. I will admit, I was concerned that there might be additional attacks, but I can't say that I was afraid for myself or my family. I just couldn't see us being in the bullseye.

There are probably a few people here who remember the 50's and early 60's, when the threat of nuclear war was extremely high. I remember having to practice diving under our school desks and covering our heads with our arms as air raid drills. And each Saturday at noon, all the air raid sirens in the area would blast for a minute's test. (I can remember thinking that if the Russian's attacked at noon no one would know it was a real air raid.) I suppose that growing up with that threat has made me less fearful of other threats. I also grew up not far from Newark, NJ during the height of the race riots in the 60's. Perhaps that also works to temper my fear reflex.

I take it from your last paragraph that you were in the military, or maybe in Newark. I have never been in positions such as you describe. I can well believe that one would develop a fine sense of caution and awareness, and even fear, as survival mechanisms. And I am concerned about the prospect of terrorists launching a nuclear or biological attack against this country or other countries. But I'm with you: panic is more often than not counterproductive. And blaming everyone with a Middle East background for the acts of a few fanatics is also counterproductive. Yet that is what panic will do.

[MMI]

The worst thing about 9/11 is the damage caused to America's travel/holiday industry, exacerbated by the President's "War on Tourism".

[leo9]

The worst thing about 9/11 is the damage caused to America's travel/holiday industry, exacerbated by the President's "War on Tourism".

You mean, worse than the destruction of Iraq, the draining of the US economy, the shredding of civil rights at home and abroad or the ruination of America's reputation around the world?

But I guess you could argue that all those things would have happened without 9/11, since it's now an open secret that Bush already had plans in place to be a "war president" and would have found some other pretext if Bin Laden hadn't obliged.

[Matin]

so we have sacrificed our civil liberties in exchange for an increased sense of security.

is this trend reversibe? should it be reversed?

is it possible to increase security without losing our rights?

and finally the question that really scares me; will the politicians, having grown accustomed to their control, ever let that measure of oversight go?

[denuseri]

Its the last part you mentioned about getting any freedom back thats the hardest part Matin.

Those in power very rarely will reliquish such control once it's firmly in thier grasp.

I imagine the panic was perhaps exascurbated by the media of course since it thrives on conflict.

I had left the U.S.A. only 2 weeks prior to the attacks to visit the country of my birth and visit my estranged remaining relatives from my mothers side of the family (who were forced to move from Beruit to Isreal and other places as refugees in the 80's).

For a little while there it was just crazy.

[craven]

The worst thing about 9/11 is the damage caused to America's travel/holiday industry, exacerbated by the President's "War on Tourism".

i personally feel that by far the biggest issue and perhaps the longer lasting legacy and damage done has been the undermining of the democratic processes in those countries sucked into the resulting conflict.

the loss of trust and belief in governments is i feel far more reaching than any impact to the tourism and travel industries, and is something that we will all have to deal with and face going forward.

after the initial attacks, whilst there was not panic, there was genuine shock and disbelief, the realism that now irrespective of where one is they are potentially at risk really hit home. i lost 295 colleagues, in both towers and on one of the planes and i recall being in a meeting on the 35th floor in canary wharf london, which overlooks london city airport a few days after planes were allowed back in the air, and the meeting room was silenced as to a person we all looked out of the window at a plane banking after takeoff.

words were not necessary we all knew what we were thinking

the first casualty of any war is the truth, will we ever know the real whole unadulterated truth, your guess is as good as mine, i very much doubt it.

has the resulting legislation introduced reduced the risk of terrorist attack, possibly, very debatable, one thing is however for sure, we are now more watched, monitored and controlled than ever before, should the threat desist will this trend be reversed, of that i am sure....... no it will not.

once surrendered liberties are very, very rarely handed back

Sorry i feel i should state that my views are of course from a european perspective

[MMI]

leo, craven. You make very good points and I have no issue with any of them.

Please read my post again. Out loud, perhaps ...

[craven]

lol noted yes

[Matin]

a bleak picture craven... i agree and i wish i didn't. i hold hope that it may yet change back.

we - myself and SO - have talked about children... i don't wan't to bring them into some orwellian purgatory...

[Duke Cador]

One old greek described democracy as two wolves and a sheep deciding on what to have for dinnner. Strictly speaking Britain is not a democracy, it is parliamentary representation. The people do not vote for their leader or government. Democracy is one of those words that have changed.

The dictionary definition is still the same but the way the word is used by politicians and others encompasses more than simply how a government is chosen. Concepts like the rule of law, rights of the people and government taking into account the interests of all people are important aspects of the modern usage of democracy.

Personally I am so sure that one man one vote is a good basis for government or decisions. You don't have democracy in the military or business and they seem to run far better than most governments. Come to think of it, is a bdsm relationship democratic with equal say.

Incidentally and off topic, isn't it strange that we seemed so obsessed with bring democracy to other countries when as we all know it is far from perfect. Isn't it ironic that many of those who claim the war brought democracy to Iraq regard Saudi Arabia with its absolute monarchy as a staunch ally for freedom. Perhaps every country should be free to work out for itself how it wants to be governed and there is no one shoe that fits all.

[fetishdj]

All true... as I said, there are no true democracies (even with the slight change in meaning). We do, however, have more rights than ever before which is a good thing.

Autocracies tend to get things done quicker because there is no one to argue with the autocrat.

I also agree that countries should be allowed to choose thier own government and their own religion so long as neither is detrimental to the rest of the world. The last clause is needed to prevent America from taking over the world :)

[Carpe Coma]

got your attention? lol

i pose a question! what are the opinions in this forum as to the state of the american 'democracy' *cough socialistleaningrepublic cough*?

i have recently read the rise and fall of the roman empire, and the writings of tacitus, and i am drawn to the conclusion that we have not had a democracy for a long time.

The U.S. has never been a democracy, it has always been a republic.


bush '00; (and i HATE to drag old waters) a man becomes president expressly AGAINST the will of the majority, because he won the college.

wtf?

The system worked exactly as intended (allegations of voter fraud aside).


the patriot act, increasing 'dole' programs, outrageous military spending, annexing territories, disappearing middle class, floods of truly well meaning but destabilizing aliens, an epidemic of tort abuse, increasing censorship, and above all this government and corporate fed cloud of FEAR that we are all expected to live under.

to anyone offended by this post, and especially if it has been done to death i ask your pardon.

still i will ask the question; anyone else hear visigoths?

Biggest problems facing the U.S.:

Our increasing state of debt, both private and public.

Our reliance on foreign energy.

Increasing wealth disparity. It threatens our economic health and civil stability.

A government that is hyper sensitive to public opinion and monetary influence. This is by far the most insidious as it keeps any realistic solution to the prior problems (or any major problem for that matter) from being tabled. Some sensitivity is important, however "the people" are stupid. "The people" know next to nothing and instead respond almost entirely on emotion and self interest, because "the people" are only as smart as the average person's knowledge on any given subject. If you were to choose subjects at random, the average person will almost certainly know next to nothing on that subject. Hence the failure of governing by polls. Government is supposed to be a moderating factor on the public's will, not it's bitch.

No, I don't hear visigoths. However, I wouldn't be surprised if the U.S. falls out of the #1 super power slot in the next 50 years.

[Thorne]

"the people" are stupid. "The people" know next to nothing and instead respond almost entirely on emotion and self interest, because "the people" are only as smart as the average person's knowledge on any given subject. If you were to choose subjects at random, the average person will almost certainly know next to nothing on that subject.
I wish I could say you're wrong, but the more I see of "average" people the more saddened I am by their general lack of education and intelligence. And I'm talking about college students here, not just people on the street. The American education system has failed the American people, badly. The handwriting is on the wall, but the "average" American can no longer read it!

No, I don't hear visigoths. However, I wouldn't be surprised if the U.S. falls out of the #1 super power slot in the next 50 years.
I think the modern equivalent of the Visigoths are speaking Spanish these days.

[Matin]

i think they're speaking chinese, and japanese, and french, and german.. russian even.

how much of america can be purchased out from underneath us before it's no longer ours. there's more than one way to wage war.

i have often marveled at how it seems that every other country in the world has import/export tariffs and laws in place that hinder foreigners from coming in and undercutting vital industries. basically in japan any cheaper american product exported to them will sell in their country for an equal or greater price.

this bothers me because america handles this badly in my eyes.

thoughts?

oh and thanks for resurrecting my thread, y'all :wave:

[Thorne]

this bothers me because america handles this badly in my eyes.

thoughts?
My only thought, one which I've had often in the past and which still seems relevant today, is that someone is making a good bit of money over this country's lack of matching tarriffs. Whether politicians or industry big-wigs (or both, which is most likely) these kinds of "mistakes" are unlikely unless someone is profiting from it.

And, as usual, the American people are fed a lot of lies and half-truths, and if they begin to see the real truth they are diverted by another scandal, or by the specter of terrorism, or by a "tax rebate".

Our focus has been whittled down to the two minute blurbs on the so-called TV news shows, and pointed at the all-important decision of which brain-dead, untalented freak is going to win American Idol. How far are we from the point where we no longer have any choice in what we do for entertainment? Mandatory watching of the TV monitors, which have become ubiquitous in our society, is just around the corner. Orwell was only off by about 30 years.

[js207]

i think they're speaking chinese, and japanese, and french, and german.. russian even.

how much of america can be purchased out from underneath us before it's no longer ours. there's more than one way to wage war.

i have often marveled at how it seems that every other country in the world has import/export tariffs and laws in place that hinder foreigners from coming in and undercutting vital industries. basically in japan any cheaper american product exported to them will sell in their country for an equal or greater price.


The US has them as well - strict nationality restrictions on airline ownership, ban on using some imported metals on defense contracts (notably titanium, IIRC; I seem to remember that being a problem for Boeing recently) - and just this week I saw the French complaining about the 300% import tax on Roquefort cheese (and various other products of theirs, but the Roquefort tax was the highest and the one they complained about the most).

Indeed, a quick look at the subject will turn up dozens of cases of America imposing these restrictions: Canadian lumber, European cheese, Asian and South American shrimp, Canadian wheat, all foreign steel... Then there are all the agricultural and other subsidies: cotton, sugar, corn, the big tax breaks to Boeing (just as Europe gives them to Airbus)...

[Carpe Coma]

I wish I could say you're wrong, but the more I see of "average" people the more saddened I am by their general lack of education and intelligence. And I'm talking about college students here, not just people on the street. The American education system has failed the American people, badly. The handwriting is on the wall, but the "average" American can no longer read it!

Hah! I wasn't meaning the average individual intelligence, just the ratio of an individual's capacity of understanding to everything that is understood. Since that ratio is very very small, even amongst the brightest, the average person's knowledge on any random subject is going to be abysmal. Combine that with group psychology, and you see why large groups tend to make awful decisions. The few people who do know about that particular subject get drowned out by the vast seas of those who don't. That said, there is a lot that could be done to raise the average person's awareness and ability to think critically about common issues.


I think the modern equivalent of the Visigoths are speaking Spanish these days.

Eh. The U.S. has always been a country of immigrants with a regularly shifting face. This isn't the first time there has been an immigration backlash and it probably won't be the last. The same doom and gloom predictions that are circling now were circling then.

[Thorne]

The U.S. has always been a country of immigrants with a regularly shifting face. This isn't the first time there has been an immigration backlash and it probably won't be the last. The same doom and gloom predictions that are circling now were circling then.
True, we are a nation of immigrants. I'm only third or fourth generation myself, and proud of it. And I don't have a problem with immigration in general, provided it's done legally. My problem is with those, most notably from Central America it seems, who cross the border illegally, get falsified social security cards and other forms of ID, apply for welfare or medical aid or whatever else they can get their hands on, then protest how unfair the US is. And they expect the American people to welcome them with open arms? They expect us to make it easy for them to use their own language?

My great-grandparents, great-great-grandparents, even one grandfather, came to this country from eastern Europe legally. They immediately set about integrating into the American culture, while still maintaining many aspects of their own. They learned to communicate in English without losing their native language. And they became American citizens as soon as they could, proud of their adopted country.

That's they way this country was built, and that's how I think it should continue. But now we are being inundated with illegal immigrants and our politicians won't do anything to stem the tide. In fact, they try to make it legal for these criminals to vote, just so they can be reelected! Shame!

[Matin]

The US has them as well - strict nationality restrictions on airline ownership, ban on using some imported metals on defense contracts (notably titanium, IIRC; I seem to remember that being a problem for Boeing recently) - and just this week I saw the French complaining about the 300% import tax on Roquefort cheese (and various other products of theirs, but the Roquefort tax was the highest and the one they complained about the most).

Indeed, a quick look at the subject will turn up dozens of cases of America imposing these restrictions: Canadian lumber, European cheese, Asian and South American shrimp, Canadian wheat, all foreign steel... Then there are all the agricultural and other subsidies: cotton, sugar, corn, the big tax breaks to Boeing (just as Europe gives them to Airbus)...

you're right of course, but then there are the ones that confuse the hell out of me. biggest example cars. it's all doom and gloom because they undercut us to hell and gone, but the restrictions aren't there to prevent it.

i love my toyota, seriously the only way to make me buy a ford is to make the toyota unavailable, or otherwise unattractive.

and now something else. anyone here a michael crighton fan? just reread rising sun and that's what promted my initial comment on eco-warfare.

[Carpe Coma]

True, we are a nation of immigrants. I'm only third or fourth generation myself, and proud of it. And I don't have a problem with immigration in general, provided it's done legally. My problem is with those, most notably from Central America it seems, who cross the border illegally, get falsified social security cards and other forms of ID, apply for welfare or medical aid or whatever else they can get their hands on, then protest how unfair the US is. And they expect the American people to welcome them with open arms? They expect us to make it easy for them to use their own language?

The vast majority of people that cross the border illegally don't do it to mooch off of the social systems. People that unmotivated tend to not to bother leaving the comfort of their own home.


My great-grandparents, great-great-grandparents, even one grandfather, came to this country from eastern Europe legally. They immediately set about integrating into the American culture, while still maintaining many aspects of their own. They learned to communicate in English without losing their native language. And they became American citizens as soon as they could, proud of their adopted country.

And many others from immigration heavy periods didn't, at least not at first. Due to the natural development of ethnic pockets, it was possible for quite a few immigrants to only have to learn a smattering of English, if any at all.


That's they way this country was built, and that's how I think it should continue. But now we are being inundated with illegal immigrants and our politicians won't do anything to stem the tide. In fact, they try to make it legal for these criminals to vote, just so they can be reelected! Shame!

Yes, the politicians trying to give illegal immigrants the right to vote is purely a self-serving measure. We are inundated with illegals because the legal requirements are extremely restrictive and there is a very strong desire to immigrate. The desire is strong enough that there are immigration problems throughout central America as people push north. However, short of possibly shooting them on sight, it isn't going to be possible to stem the tide as a lot of them feel they have little, if anything, to lose.

The best solution is probably going to be one that no one likes. Personally, I think we should have a "yellow card" or second class immigration to go with the standard immigration along with a "touch home" policy like there is in Florida. Immigrants would be freely admitted as second class if they were in good standing with their country of origin (No significant debts, outstanding warrants, felony convictions, etc). In exchange for this easier entry policy, they would be required to attend and progress in ESL classes (unless they can demonstrate a certain level of English proficiency), have restricted access to social services until naturalized, and a somewhat longer naturalization time. Felony convictions or failing to progress in the naturalization process leads to a quick trip back across the border and revocation of their eligibility.

The benefit to this is that it gets everything above the radar (which means taxes get paid, licenses get issued, etc), and finds a less disruptive way to channel the issue.

[Carpe Coma]

you're right of course, but then there are the ones that confuse the hell out of me. biggest example cars. it's all doom and gloom because they undercut us to hell and gone, but the restrictions aren't there to prevent it.

There were restrictions. From the early 1980s to 1994, Japan had a "voluntary export restriction" on their autos (it was "voluntary" in order to not violate GATT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Agreement_on_Tariffs_and_Trade)). This was begged for by the big three so they could get their act together when japanese autos took off in the U.S. due to the oil crisis of the 70s. The big three have had 20+ years to catch up. My pity has long since expired.

[Thorne]

The vast majority of people that cross the border illegally don't do it to mooch off of the social systems. People that unmotivated tend to not to bother leaving the comfort of their own home.
Unless they're forced out, which seems to be happening in some of the Central American countries. Rather than deal with their criminal elements, they make it easier for them to move north and become our problem.


However, short of possibly shooting them on sight, it isn't going to be possible to stem the tide as a lot of them feel they have little, if anything, to lose.
I wouldn't advocate shooting on sight, that's for sure. But if we started billing the Mexican government for every illegal we have to send back across the border, pretty soon the Mexican government will start keeping them out. It will be cheaper for them to educate and find jobs for them than it would be to pay the US for sending them back.


Personally, I think we should have a "yellow card" or second class immigration to go with the standard immigration ...
Actually, I think I like the sound of that. As long as they can find work and keep within the law, pay taxes and at least make an effort to become naturalized citizens, I have no problem with it.

[js207]

you're right of course, but then there are the ones that confuse the hell out of me. biggest example cars. it's all doom and gloom because they undercut us to hell and gone, but the restrictions aren't there to prevent it.

i love my toyota, seriously the only way to make me buy a ford is to make the toyota unavailable, or otherwise unattractive.


Where do you think that Toyota is made? Their Alabama plant? Or maybe the Kentucky one, or Indiana, or Texas, or West Virginia. It can't have been made in the Mississippi plant yet, but if you buy another Toyota in a couple of years it could be. Buying Toyota does not mean buying a car made overseas - just that you're buying one not grown in a cocoon of UAW red tape.

[leo9]

Buying Toyota does not mean buying a car made overseas - just that you're buying one not grown in a cocoon of UAW red tape.

And there I always imagined that the Big Three's failure to design cars for any time later than 1980 (even when it meant creating a brand new class of vehicle to get round fuel efficiency laws) was down to management. I had no idea the unions were so powerful.

[leo9]

Hah! I wasn't meaning the average individual intelligence, just the ratio of an individual's capacity of understanding to everything that is understood. Since that ratio is very very small, even amongst the brightest, the average person's knowledge on any random subject is going to be abysmal.
And in sane societies, the recognition of this long-standing fact leads people to consult experts. In insane societies, it's an article of faith that everyone's opinion is as good as the next, and anyone who claims to know better just because he's studied the subject for years and done all the research is "elitist".
That said, there is a lot that could be done to raise the average person's awareness and ability to think critically about common issues.
A few schools teach critical thinking. They're always private and marginalised, because the state and business want schools to teach uncritical acceptance of what you're told.
This isn't the first time there has been an immigration backlash and it probably won't be the last. The same doom and gloom predictions that are circling now were circling then.
Too true. The panic that the US would be taken over by the Irish lasted well into the 20th century, and had its last echoes in worries over Kennedy's Catholicism. Before that, both the English and Americans were afraid we would be overrun by the Chinese. And now I've had apparently sane Americans tell me quite seriously that France has been taken over by Muslims (presumably to explain why the cheese-eaters wouldn't join the Willing) and England is about to go the same way. So it goes on.

[js207]

And there I always imagined that the Big Three's failure to design cars for any time later than 1980 (even when it meant creating a brand new class of vehicle to get round fuel efficiency laws) was down to management. I had no idea the unions were so powerful.

If you mean SUVs, that "creating a brand new class of vehicle" was one of their few successes, actually making an effort to build cars they could still sell for a profit, even with the inflated per-unit costs imposed in part by the UAW. Building the smaller, cheaper, more fuel-efficient cars you might prefer them to build was economically a non-starter - but the higher margins on SUVs made them viable, indeed the lifeline which kept the Big Three going until very recently. For that matter, you'll find the foreign manufacturers make them too - not because they're in on the evil conspiracy to use mind-control rays to make people endure those big luxury vehicles they don't really want, but because they were what people did want.

As for powerful - yes, of course the UAW have a chokehold on the Big Three. How many non-union plants do they have in the US? Do you have any idea just how much it controls them, down to being able to block plant closures, shift changes and personnel decisions? It's a miracle they've survived this long.

[leo9]

Building the smaller, cheaper, more fuel-efficient cars you might prefer them to build was economically a non-starter
So why did people keep buying them, in the face of everything the advertisers could do to convince them that it was still 1950 and mileage didn't matter?

but the higher margins on SUVs made them viable, indeed the lifeline which kept the Big Three going until very recently.
Those higher margins were only there because, by pretending they were pickup trucks, SUVs could dodge the mandatory fuel efficiency rules. The only reason the class was created was so they could go on sticking big low-comression engines into them.


For that matter, you'll find the foreign manufacturers make them too - not because they're in on the evil conspiracy to use mind-control rays to make people endure those big luxury vehicles they don't really want, but because they were what people did want.
So if nobody really wanted those little fuel-efficient cars, why are the companies that made them surviving, while the companies that didn't, are waiting with their tin bowls in the Government free money line? Is the AUW some kind of eco-terrorist front that only targeted SUV makers?

[js207]

So why did people keep buying them, in the face of everything the advertisers could do to convince them that it was still 1950 and mileage didn't matter?


I'm not saying there was no market for the econoboxes - just that the Big Three couldn't make them profitably because of their higher overheads. People kept buying SUVs, too, until fuel prices went silly.



Those higher margins were only there because, by pretending they were pickup trucks, SUVs could dodge the mandatory fuel efficiency rules. The only reason the class was created was so they could go on sticking big low-comression engines into them.


No, the margins have nothing to do with fuel efficiency rules - they're about how much customers are prepared to pay, versus the costs involved. (Yes, a different tax regime could have either squeezed margins and/or pushed prices higher, but that's really not relevant here.) It's more a case of the class having been created to keep delivering the big cars the market wanted at the time without being gouged by the silly fuel consumption taxes which were imposed on equally powerful non-SUV cars.



So if nobody really wanted those little fuel-efficient cars, why are the companies that made them surviving, while the companies that didn't, are waiting with their tin bowls in the Government free money line? Is the AUW some kind of eco-terrorist front that only targeted SUV makers?

The Government and exploding fuel prices finally managed to kill off the Big Three's main cash cow - and the UAW targeted American car makers, forcing their costs up making smaller cars uneconomical for them to make. Now, the small car manufacturers are still making them and making a profit - the companies which couldn't make them profitably before still can't, but no longer have the alternative market segment open to them either.

[Matin]

nice tangent y'all :wave:

any thoughts on how losing this huge industry to foreign companies can affect america's economic stability?

[js207]

nice tangent y'all :wave:

any thoughts on how losing this huge industry to foreign companies can affect america's economic stability?

Very little, I imagine: the Toyota may be "foreign", but still builds cars in America employing American workers just like Ford and GM, only without the UAW ball and chain - and presumably Toyota will have some American shareholders while Ford has Japanese ones, so not much change there either.