Oh dear

[Thorne]

...They loose the ability to think abstractly about topics because the topic is foreign to them....Thus the candidate loosing the desire to please the people...

These two statements are, in my opinion, quite indicative of what you are saying. Please don't take this personally, it is not meant as an attack against anyone. I certainly can't claim to be a certified member of the Grammar Police. But after 10 years of surfing the web it's become clear to me that far too many Americans cannot distinguish between the words "lose" and "loose" and this drives me up a wall for some reason.
Think of it this way: I can simply have a few LOOSE screws, or I could quickly LOSE my mind!

[Thorne]

Now that I've gotten the above statement out of my system, let me respond to your comments, IDC.
I must say I agree with you whole-heartedly regarding the degradation of the American education system and the media control of so many aspects of our lives. Though you don't actually come out and say it, you hint at the idea that the election system in this country has been seriously compromised by the TV news groups, and I have to say that this does seem to be the case. But I think there is more to the story.

Yes, our education system is failing, but why? It's certainly not the fault of the teachers. They work hard to do something they love, only to be attacked (verbally) by administrator and parents because their students aren't passing certain standardized tests. But as you point out, even passing those tests does not signify that a student is educated. Just that he's learned to pass that test!

As parents of two grown children we had our own problems with the school system, but never with individual teachers. And our solution was simple: we limited the children's TV time, monitored the video games they played, taught them to enjoy reading boods, did NOT buy them cell phones so they could spend all their time talking to their friends when they should have been studying. In short, we took responsibility for our children's education, we didn't delegate that responsibility to some bureaucrat we'd never met.

We now seem to have a generation of people who have come through that failed education system and are far more interested in the self-destructive antics of some failed pop-stars than they are in any real meaningful issues. And the media, knowing which side of their own bread is buttered, caters to those mindless drones by feeding them all the dirty little details. Naturally, those in power love this, since the biggest threat to any corrupt or inept government is an educated populace. They are quite content to feed the masses drivel in order to pacify them.

As for the current crop of presidential candidates, whether they are capable or not, whether they are popular or not, whether the media will give them fair coverage or not, it doesn't really make a hell of a lot of difference. The bureaucracy of the American government system has gotten so bloated and out of control that it doesn't really matter who's in the Oval Office any more. Unless and until the American people are willing to rip out the heart of this bureaucracy and send the career politicians packing, sending them home to do some REAL work, and arrest and prosecute those who have taken bribes and those who have offered them, the business of big government will go on uninterrupted.

Whether we like it or not, this government is controlled by big business. Those who really control things, the clerks in their offices typing up the laws, the lobbyists sending lawmakers on expensive vacations, the whole mess of government, are basically there to keep the CEO's rich and powerful. Until we are ready to get out from under those CEO's we can settle for the really serious issue of whether or not steroids have destroyed baseball. As if anyone really cares.

[InsatiableDesire]

*ahem*

[Thorne]

Haha! I can't help but laugh at this! It's an ongoing battle, and ever will be I think. Spelling and grammar will never be perfected by everyone. Even as an English major I find myself making mistakes. I have picked on friends and lovers for theirs though, which amuses me. *hi-5* I suppose we'll just have to keep trudging along in the War Against MisuseOfEnglish

I'm not even sure it could be called grammar. Just a misuse of words, like using "coffin" when you mean "coughing." Misuse of the words "too" and "to" also bothers me a bit, but at least they are pronounced identically.

[_ID_]

These two statements are, in my opinion, quite indicative of what you are saying. Please don't take this personally, it is not meant as an attack against anyone. I certainly can't claim to be a certified member of the Grammar Police. But after 10 years of surfing the web it's become clear to me that far too many Americans cannot distinguish between the words "lose" and "loose" and this drives me up a wall for some reason.
Think of it this way: I can simply have a few LOOSE screws, or I could quickly LOSE my mind!

I am not, nor have I ever been one that was best at grammar. I also suck at spelling (thank you Firefox!). To me, if you are able to read the post, and get the fucking gist of my point, then get off your fucking high horse, and enjoy the dammed post.

Additionally, I didn't say the teachers didn't care, or didn't teach. I said they were hampered by the system they are cogs of.

As far as mattering who is in the oval office. I say it does matter who is there. For the person who is in office is a representation of America when they visit other countries. Can you imagine what the leader of Liberia thinks when this yokel of a leader we currently have opens his dammed mouth?

I do agree that a good portion of those Senators and Congressmen in office should be kicked to the curb, but then there is the problem of experience that so many people look for when evaluating their choice for a presidential candidate.

Another problem I didn't bring up, because it didn't pertain to the thread, but is a political problem. Religion in many parts of the country is very tightly tied to the running platform of those seeking office. As is the case in the southern (Red) states. This interwoven way of thinking, I believe, presents hurdles for real directional change.

[Thorne]

I am not, nor have I ever been one that was best at grammar. I also suck at spelling (thank you Firefox!). To me, if you are able to read the post, and get the fucking gist of my point, then get off your fucking high horse, and enjoy the dammed post.

Sorry to get you upset. It wasn't meant as a personal attack, just one of my pet peeves.

Another problem I didn't bring up, because it didn't pertain to the thread, but is a political problem. Religion in many parts of the country is very tightly tied to the running platform of those seeking office. As is the case in the southern (Red) states. This interwoven way of thinking, I believe, presents hurdles for real directional change.

I agree with you here, too. I live in the South and it looks to me like there are three major industries: churches, banks and fast food. Seems like every time someone builds one, someone else builds another. Hard to tell which is leading but I think the churches are barely edging out the banks. But when such a large part of your population professes to be Christian, you'd damned well better be a good Christian yourself if you want to get elected.

[_ID_]

Sorry to get you upset. It wasn't meant as a personal attack, just one of my pet peeves.

A private message would have sufficed. I have done the same for others that have issues with spelling and grammar (it's really bad when I can tell).

As far as word choice, I do it all the time. I know the difference between loose, and lose, I also know the difference between your and you're. I make word choice errors when typing cause I am getting out the thought, and the spell check doesn't catch the error, so when I go back over the message I miss the error.

Maybe next time you will consider a private lesson rather than publicly chastising the person. For if you really didn't want to offend, as you probably got when I publicly chastised you, then you probably should have made that choice to begin with.

Back to the thread;

Tom, I agree, we are far from being a sociocratic, though the country is headed in that direction. If we were there, I don't think there would be a large emphasis on getting the poverty stricken areas of the country to side with a particular candidate. I could be wrong on that point however.

Thorn, I am from the northwest, and grew up learning that those running for office had to consider the high concentration of Mormons. Another thing they had to consider where I grew up was industry. The area I grew up in is largely blue collar workers, and heavy in union participation. Now normally being heavy in the union area would result in a concentration of Democrat voters, however because the area was largely Mormon, it ended up being the opposite. Always seemed to be a bit of an oxymoron of a situation to me. Hence why I say that religion is heavily tied into politics. Also, lets consider the idea of Mitt Romney. The guy might have been a good presidential candidate, however his heavy ties to his church (as any 'good Mormon' is heavily tied to their church) probably prevented his ultimate candidacy. Though if John McCain, or Hillary Clinton were to say they were Atheist or Agnostic or any religion that wasn't Christian based they would quickly be forgotten. The notion that someone wouldn't be swearing on the bible when going into office for some reason messes with peoples heads.

[TomOfSweden]

Tom, I agree, we are far from being a sociocratic, though the country is headed in that direction. If we were there, I don't think there would be a large emphasis on getting the poverty stricken areas of the country to side with a particular candidate. I could be wrong on that point however.

How is the country heading there? If you don't mind explaining.

I consider myself so******t. But so******m can be different things to different people. Karl Marx I'd say is still the father of so******m and no matter how much Lenin, Stalin and Mao tried, for me they haven't changed the original meaning of it. What Karl Marx didn't want was static classes. ie, people born into the wealthy families where privileged and knew they'd become rich no matter what they did in life. Similarly people born into poverty would never have the means or education to raise themselves out of their station no matter what they do. So******m for me is simply combating that.

Another way to put it, allowing the American dream to be a possibility for all of USA's citizens.

I'm not a big fan of welfare. I don't think it's an inherently So******t thing. Yes, so******m has as a goal to give the poor the same sense of security as the ruling classes, so they won't be ruled by fear of starvation when pursuing their goals. This would mean some sort of financial safety net. But it should never be a means of sustenance. It should never be a situation where everybody knows that no matter how much of a fuck up they are in life, the state will always be there ready to pick up the burned out pieces.

Why this is so common in countries with so******t oriented governments I think is simply because it's a way for so******t parties to buy votes. And it'll always be the poor who vote for them... so... yeah. It's a problem with democracy. The poor will be the uneducated classes, so they're not likely to vote very cleverly.

For me so******m is things like state sponsored education. State subsidised health care. Extensive drug rehabilitation and support for ex convicts. The criminal lifestyle is typically a symptom that a poor person cannot find a dignified means of support. Just being hard on crime naturally doesn't solve the underlying problem.

The state cannot give people jobs. State run companies will always be inefficient, (= everybody loses). This is just one of those facts of life all those in-duh-lectual commie nerds with red star badges need to deal with. We need private citizens to start companies that will hire people. Hopefully give jobs to the poor that allows them to support themselves so they can stay away from crime and climb the ladder of life.

In my opinion there's no conflict with low taxes for companies and catering to increased rights for private companies to aid their means of expansion. But me mustn't be so liberal as to give the employer the ability to take advantage of his uneducated and ill-informed work force. If we do, we're back to Karl Marx's original complaint with capitalism. Unchecked the class system will be static and their will be no hope for the hard working poor to rise from their station in life. If classes are static, we can't blame the poor for turning to a life of crime. There must be a balance. Realising this and working toward maintaining that balance is what so******m is for me.

I don't see paying out social welfare under long periods to the same individuals as an intrinsic part of so******m. I think the result will be the opposite. A poor uneducated and un-networked person that also receives money falling from the sky, will be locked into lethargy. They will never get enough money to invest or get an education. All they have is enough to sustain them. This is not only expensive but counter productive. This is not social mobility or the goal of so******m.

But we can't give out welfare under short periods as if that by itself will mean that the poor feels the stress to get an education for a more qualified job. One intrinsic factor with being poor is that they're uniformed. They're utterly clueless of what possibilities they have in life. I mean... if they did know they wouldn't be poor would they?!?!?! It's easy to sit with a cushy job, like I have today and say... "hey, I had to study for ages to get this job. They're just lazy who haven't". The reasons I took this journey is complex and supported by a rich social network. I both worked hard and I was lucky. Damned fucking lucky.

We also have working class culture which is seldom instrumental in aiding them to rise from their station. They're very often their own worst enemies. But this is not their fault. This is a fault in the system.

In my opinion, Karl Marx's greatest achievement as a philosopher was to point out that the position in life you are born into is not part of some kind of divine plan. It was just luck. That you're not inevitably stuck in it. He also pointed out that the poor are held down from climbing by a complex system of rules that have evolved into place to keep the status quo. This is of course because it is the people in power who make the rules. Yes, even in a democracy. It's just the natural order of human social interaction. And if the poor classes don't realise this and demand that this status quo is constantly challenged the system will become static and the whole country will rot from within and we'll see nepotism and corruption rather than a meritocracy. And why a meritocracy is in the best interest for a countries economy, I'm sure nobody needs to have explained to them.

And I also hope that nobody needs to have explained to them how dangerous people without hope are. This is equally as true for members of Al Qaeda as of South Central gang bangers. We get the society we shape. These are modern times and with the Internet nobody with any form of higher education should miss to see the link between state policy and the symptoms of a system out of balance.

So this was a long winded explanation of what so******m means to me and how it can and should be implemented to reach it's explicit goals. There are many interpretations of what equality means. I don't interpret it as the same amount of stuff no matter what choices to make in life. But maybe that's just me.