What's YOUR Overriding Political Issue in the Next Election?

cicerone imposter wrote:

the dems [..] are a shameful lot playing politics with the lives of our soldiers.

What do you mean by this, specifically? What would you have had them do, re Iraq?

cicerone imposter wrote:

I, for one, am tired of both parties that can't be the representatives of the people of this country.

What would the Dems have had to do these past six months, concretely, that is in their power I mean, to have been better representatives of the people?

0 Replies

It's always a disappointment when Forrest Gump fails misarably to use facts to project his vision of reality. You can't run that fast Forrest but you can try.

0 Replies

nimh and dys, There has always been democrats voting with republicans that in my opinion has not helped our soldiers in Iraq.

0 Replies

dys, If you're trying to insult me, you can go to hell.

DEMOCRATS VOTE TO CONTINUE THE SLAUGHTER IN IRAQ FOR 17 MORE MONTHS
Les Blough, Axis of Logic Editor

March 24, 2007

The Boston Globe article (below) reports that yesterday, Democrat-led House of Representatives voted to continue the war in Iraq for another 17 months. In the last 17 months, 1265 US and British soldiers were killed in Iraq - about 4 a day. At least 23,113 Iraqis were killed in the last 15 months - probably many more.

At the Encampment to Stop the War in Washington DC last week organized by Troops Out Now Coalition, we were first in line to attend the Democrats' first hearing for funding the war. Our "representatives" refused to allow us to attend the public hearing. So we confronted the Democrats outside the hearing room door in the hallway of the Rayburn Building. They arrested 9 of us for doing no more than speaking out against the war, exercising our first amendment right in a public building.

The corporate media report included below states:

"The House of Representatives for the first time passed a binding resolution for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq, voting by a 218-to-212 margin to force President Bush to end US involvement in the war by the end of August 2008."

All sectors of society and the corporate media agree that the people voted the Democrats into power last November for the express purpose of ending the war in Iraq. The Democrats and Republicans then colluded to continue the war with their absurd claims that they could not end the war now because of their responsibility to "protect the troops" and to protect Iraqis from themselves by averting a civil war. The Democrats - in control of the House and Senate even claimed that their hands are tied and they are powerless to stop the war. All 3 of these claims are an affront and insult to those who put them in office last November. Nancy Pelosi and John Murtha presented their decision to continue the war. Pelosi shamelessly stated, "Proudly, this new Congress voted to bring an end to the war in Iraq". John Murtha put this face on the death-vote: "We are going to make a difference with this bill. We are going to bring those troops home. We are going to start changing the direction of this great country." Then the Boston Globe gave them cover, offending every anti-war protester since the first invasion calling Murtha, that crusty old killer in Vietnam - "a key anti war leader".

It should now be crystal clear to all those who have trusted the Democrats over the decades to be the "people's party" - the U.S. political party who gives voice to the poor, the downtrodden, the worker and the ordinary person - that the Democrats are one and the same with the Republicans. They always have been, but the U.S. government's rampant global aggression during the last 4 1/2 years - and has ripped the masks off the Democrats and shown them for what they have always been - imperialist, capitalist pigs who value the individual beneath the worth of profit and power. The blood of the the 1265 soldiers killed in the last 17 months and of the Iraqis killed in the last 15 months rests squarely on the backs of the Democrats who funded the slaughter - just as much as the Republicans. The burden of the blood of those who will be killed in the next 17 months will be borne by the same Democrats who are intent on keeping this war going whatever their perverted reasons.

Finally, this corporate media report attempts to distance the war-mongering Democrats from the man who is now hated by so many people in the U.S. and throughout the world: George W. Bush

"An outraged Bush declared that the Democratic-led body had "abdicated its responsibility" by passing a bill he said would hearten insurgents even though there is "no chance" the House could override his veto.

Nobody should be fooled by this rhetoric. It's a beast with two heads and the two political parties work in tandem to reach their combined, corporate objectives. Both are controlled by the corporations and if not controlled - heavily influenced by AIPAC and other pro-Israel lobbies. Just as with domestic policy, in the case of the Iraq war, the Republicans are the "Bad Cop" and the Democrats the "Good". But there can be no possible good - no matter how they mind-**** it - about the death of another baby, child, mother, father, uncle, aunt, cousin or friend in Iraq. Whatever their twisted goals, they cannot be worth the life of one more soldier - most do not want to be there - they know they've been lied to, are killing for corporate interests and only want to come home.

As the politicians grind on in their meat factory that was once called Iraq, we will grind on and confront them at their front door, on the street, in their Washington death rooms, wherever they we can find them - and give them no quarter. Last week we raised the bar. We have begun our move from protest to Resistance.

- Les Blough, Editor

© Copyright 2007 by AxisofLogic.com

0 Replies

aidan wrote:

What?!

I'm not talking about mass indoctrination.

You may not advance the notion per se, but when you argue the government has the primary role, you cannot escape this consequence. I'm talking about providing opportunity where it might otherwise not have existed - for those WHO WANT IT- because believe me- I've no inclination or desire to force feed anyone anything they don't want, as I'm well aware how futile that is- especially in the case of music lessons which are painful for all involved if the person you're trying to teach has no innate talent.

I don't have any statistics to back any of this up- although maybe I'll try to look after I post this. But I do have my own power of observation, and I can tell you that there are a lot of kids out there who do have musical talent, but no money for or access to instruments and lessons.

You need not do any research. Of course this is the case. However how did Leadbelly, Muddy Waters, Robert Johnson, Howlin Wolf, et al achieve their musical prominence? It certainly wasn't on the basis of public funding.
I've seen school systems that provide lessons and a choice of instrument starting in fourth grade, and I've seen those that don't. Of course, I can't isolate the variable, as along with providing lessons and instruments, there are all sorts of other differences beyond the music that can't be controlled for- but I will say that I have observed this:

Kids who have a creative passion instilled in them at a young age, are less likely to be drawn in and distracted by other available, and perhaps less positive outlets because they have a focus for their energy.

True enough, but the motivation wil very rarely be a 4th grade music teacher.

And in the case of music and lessons, which require them to practice and actually study music, it helps them develop discipline. If they play in an orchestra, it provides them with a social set of peers which is also more disciplined and less likely to be distracted and drawn in by other less positive outlets.
It means that they're spending less of their time in front of the tv and/or computer and all the negativity associated with that.
It exposes them to aspects of their own culture to which they may not otherwise have been exposed to, and may open up a whole different world for them..

Yes, being a member of the school band is a good thing. It is much better than being a member of the school gangs. More money, however, will not advance this dynamic. Better music teachers may, but not more money. There are a rare few schools where someone interested in playing in the school band cannot because of money. School band members do not need anywhere near the money spent on school atheletics. I won't argue that too much money is being spent on school atheletics, but it doesn't follow that some of this money diverted to music would make a difference.

If there is an American High School out there that spends so much on sports that they cannot afford renting an instrument for a poor kid who wants to play, I am with you my brother!. Such schools, however, are few and far between, and hardly a reason to bemoan spending on sports.Any one of these things on its own would be enough to change the direction a life takes, but when you put them all together and multiply those effects by the millions of kids this one funding proposal would possibly steer in a different, more positive direction- I think the results would be astounding.

You have a foolish regard for the spending of money.

I admit I'm an optimist, but even if, as you say, it would only positively effect twenty or twenty-five children- multiply that by the annual cost of incarceration for each of those and then by however many years of the average sentence...that'd be a nice little sum of money.
And then aside from the money, when you know and get to love these kids as individuals- twenty saved lives is nothing to sneeze at.

The world and the nation will NEVER make policy decision based on twenty people, young or old. To suggest that they might or should reveals a hardcore naievity that is only too common.

*And it'd have to be offered at the right time- first grade may be too early- highschool would be too late- I'd say third or fourth grade would be just about right.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Finn dAbuzz wrote:
Only a flaming idiot will find that a desire to preserve the earth's wildlife and opposition to publicly funding the arts are mutually exclusive. They have no correlation at all except in the befuddled mind of The Liberal.

Wait. I know of your obsessive urge to invoke the alleged stupidity of The Liberal - as in, you know, the archetypical, collective Liberal with a capital L - but this must be the most far-fetched insertion of the reference so far.

You caught my use of "L"iberal. Good for you.

"The Liberal" asserts "that a desire to preserve the earth's wildlife and opposition to publicly funding the arts are mutually exclusive?" What liberal? Or rather, what liberals, considering you evoke the archetype? What are you talking about?

That is what I am talking about.

You're not equating Miller, of all people, with The Liberal, are you? Have you, umm, followed Miller's posts?

I don't respond to individual postings based on prior postings. I don't frequent this forum enough to have such an intimate understanding of it's members views. If Miller or anyone else advances a Liberal notion, I will address it as such.

Surreal.

Oh, that hurts. If you have a argument to make in response to my posts other than "Your posts are stupid!" please provide them. Otherwise restrain yourself---please.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Finn dAbuzz wrote:
If, in practice, it is unlikely that a law abiding immigrant from Germany will not be detained as an enemy combatant in some pen in Cuba, than the Law is pretty effective.

A telling slip of the tongue?

Huh?

I realize that I run the risk of revealing the low grade of my intelligence by not understanding the wry commentary of Nimh, but then I don't think that Nimh's observations and opinions are one quarter of the quality he and his syncophants believe them to be. Cool

0 Replies

Finn wrote:

Quote:

You need not do any research. Of course this is the case. However how did Leadbelly, Muddy Waters, Robert Johnson, Howlin Wolf, et al achieve their musical prominence? It certainly wasn't on the basis of public funding.

Yes, and they all achieved their musical prominence in a different time, when there weren't all the distractions (especially negative ones) available for young people that there are now. In the case of musicians like these, the music chose them, they didn't choose the music- it was something they were compelled to spend their lives doing. I recognize that, and I recognize that those types of talents are surely the exception rather than the rule- that's not at issue in my mind.

Quote:

True enough, but the motivation wil very rarely be a 4th grade music teacher.

The motivation is the music and to belong to something and to have something that belongs to you. That's what a lot of these kids don't have and never experience. Why not try to help them do that?

Quote:

Yes, being a member of the school band is a good thing. It is much better than being a member of the school gangs. More money, however, will not advance this dynamic. Better music teachers may, but not more money. There are a rare few schools where someone interested in playing in the school band cannot because of money. School band members do not need anywhere near the money spent on school atheletics. I won't argue that too much money is being spent on school atheletics, but it doesn't follow that some of this money diverted to music would make a difference.

I never said a word against funding sports. That was an implication that Miller made. I believe sports in schools save lives too- for the same reasons I put forth as per music.

Quote:

If there is an American High School out there that spends so much on sports that they cannot afford renting an instrument for a poor kid who wants to play, I am with you my brother!.

Then you're with me- because they aren't few and far between. I guess if a kid shows unusual talent, the people in the know might launch a campaign to provide that kid with an instrument. But how many kids never get to realize they have a talent because of lack of access in the first place?

Quote:

You have a foolish regard for the spending of money.

Actually, I'm a very frugal person. I'm more interested in the attitudes represented by how money is spent than the money itself. But yeah, if there's a fund of money and it could go for this or that- and we've been spending it on this and it aint working- I say let's try spending it on that...I think that's just common sense.

Quote:

The world and the nation will NEVER make policy decision based on twenty people, young or old. To suggest that they might or should reveals a hardcore naievity that is only too common.

I think it would be more like twenty or twenty-five kids PER school system, myself. But whatever- you're probably right- or at least most people would probably agree with you. That's why things will probably never change all that much.

0 Replies

Curriculum and funding for local schools is a local affair. Trying to enforce uniformity in all schools across the land by Federal fiat is, in my opinion, bad public policy. Brown was an important Supreme Court decision, and Federally forced integration of schools was long over due. Since that time the Federal government has increasingly taken responsibility out of the hands of local communities. Local communities have become addicted to Federal money and have turned over the responsibility for educating their children to Washington bureaucrats.

People argue the value of uniformity, but is the Federal government's idea of what that uniformity should be better than the children's parents? Should school curriculum and standards be set by the political parties, and their appointees? Is uniformity of curriculum and standards really so desirable in a nation that prizes individuality and innovation? Who pays the piper, calls the tune.

Suppose that the Federal government decided that every school should include creationism classes along with classes teaching evolution. What if the Federal government mandated ROTC for every high school student? How about a Federal mandate that required everyone to attend classes on parenting, and nutrition? How do you feel about a Federal mandate that every student wear a uniform, and be assigned the same number of homework study? If the Federal government were decide that all students should conform to a nationally set curriculum in political science, would you become just a bit anxious over who set the curriculum? Should the Federal government be the decision-maker in how many hours of instruction should be given for any class?

Every tax payer dollar is spent for one purpose is unavailable to be spent for another, perhaps more important "purchase". By ceding education decisions to Washington, educational spending is forced to compete for dollars in the Federal Budget. The cost of supporting the operations of the Federal government isn't exactly my idea of cost-effective efficiency. The purchasing power of the Federal tax dollar is reduced, and must be made to cover education in 50 States and perhaps a hundred thousand school districts ... all of whom must compete for "their share" of money that came from their own pockets. Even funding needed to support our armed forces is at the mercy of jocking over priorities and political expediency.

Those who love national standards and uniform curriculum generally have good intentions. They genuinely hope to give every student an equal opportunity to fully realize their potential. Some see Federally governed educational standards as a means of accomplishing social change. Children are malleable and schools do mold their opinions and values, but what values, and whose values? Those decisions should never be the province of the national government; those decisions, even when they are foolish, belong to the parents. Competition can be relied upon to advance the cause of national education far better than some Federal committee.

0 Replies

It's impossible to "standardize" something where there are so many different standard of children in the mix. Children do not learn at the same rate at the same age; that's a simple fact missed by standardized tests.

0 Replies

Asherman is worried about state and federal mandated school issues. Its too late. In St Louis the state has overturned a locally elected school board and installed a politically appointed board to replace the elected one. Local people have been losing power over their schools for years and the situation is only getting worse.

0 Replies

rabel22 is spot on! Local school boards have lost any semblance of "local control" of their schools. Teachers are teaching their students to pass "standardized" tests, and have taken away from creativity and exploration - the primary basis for schools. Not only are children being left behind, many are dropping out (primarily blacks and Hispanics) because they fail to meet those "standardized" tests.

0 Replies

... Then its way past time to reverse the trend ... isn't it.

We've been turning more and more of our lives over to the Federal government. We don't want to be responsible for any risk, so we've come expect Washington to be "Big Daddy" responsible for everything. The Federal government CAN NOT be everything for everyone. It can't control the weather, or who takes it into their minds to attack the nation. The Federal government CAN NOT and should not be in the business of social engineering of American citizens. Abortion isn't something that the Federal government has any business meddling with. Agro-business doesn't need price supports. Artificially maintained prices ultimately do more harm to the economy than they solve. The red-tape and Federal requirements that are needed to prevent corruption and fraud are both ineffective, and tend to stifle personal initiative. Becoming a nation of entitlements hasn't strengthened us nor done much to promote individual liberty. Its time to get the Federal government out of issues that properly belong to the individual States, communities and the individual citizens.

Let's get the government back to the Constitutional constraints that existed for most of our nation's history. We need a strong central government to effectively maintain the nation's foreign and economic affairs so that individuals, businesses and local governments have the wherewithal and will to manage their own affairs.

Which political party and candidates are most likely to work toward these ends? Politicians cater to the crowd, and so long as the People insist on turning their lives over to government, there will be politicians in both Parties to promise them the Moon and Sixpence besides.

0 Replies

Asherman wrote:

Let's get the government back to the Constitutional constraints that existed for most of our nation's history. We need a strong central government to effectively maintain the nation's foreign and economic affairs so that individuals, businesses and local governments have the wherewithal and will to manage their own affairs.

This is an interesting issue for me, Asherman. I have noticed from other posts that you have a detailed knowledge of U.S. History. Did the trend toward bigger federal government start with FDR or did it start before then? Have you heard the rationale (used by some) that federal control of public services avoids bureaucracies being duplicated multiple times among local government jurisdictions? (Personally, I believe it was FDR's ideal to have government provide an increasing variety of public services.)

0 Replies

The Federal government has shown steady growth almost from its inception. Much of that growth was necessary as the nation expanded its borders and population. The prevailing political philosophy of both major Parties was to keep the Federal government from interfering with business, or how individuals lived their lives. After the Civil War, the Federal government dictated how the Southern States governed themselves. The conquered South resented and resisted being dictated to, and flocked to the Democratic Party. They passed State laws that constrained and deprived Black voters of their civil liberties, and the Federal government felt Constitutionally unable to interfere.

The result was that well into the 20th century Jim Crow Laws maintained segregation in much of the country. By not becoming involved in regulating businesses who used their corporate powers of monopoly to destroy competition. Large businesses, especially the railroads, adopted rate structures that gave them immense power over ordinary citizens. The country was still largely agricultural, and small farmers were reduced to semi-serfdom. Large urban employers manipulated wages and working conditions without regard for the welfare of their employees. In order to maximize profit, work hours were extended and wages cut. "A business owner is entitled to run his business as he sees fit, and should not be dictated to by his workers or government". By the late 19th century, the Federal government was begining to take steps to regulate and limit the power businesses could exercise over the rest of the nation. Business leaders found new and innovative ways to avoid Anti-Trust regulations.

President Wilson's War greatly extended the Federal government's powers. Wilson nationalized mining, logging and railroads to prevent them from putting roadblocks in the way of the national war effort. The nation got its first tastes of Federally funded propaganda, and Federal agents infiltrated numerous organizations. Labor and Socialist/Communist organizations were closely monitored. The end of the Great War was a relief from heavy handed government oversight. President Harding was quick to return the nation to "normalcy", and tried to return the Federal government to its earlier "hands-off" policies. That all ended during the Hoover Administration (who held that the Federal government was constrained by the Constitution from taking active steps to relieve public suffering during the Depression). FDR rode into Office promising that the Federal government would take prompt, vigorous and effective action to restore the economy. FDR's initiatives were mostly found un-Constitutional at the time, and that prompted his attempt to "pack the Court" by increasing the number of Justices.

WWII saved the day, and FDR was hailed as a hero. Social Security, meant to be a self-financing safety-net, became an institution. The government adopted the G.I. Bill, something that could never have happened previously, and returning soldiers became the best educated and talented labor pool in the nation's history. Prosperity reigned, with only the menacing Communist specter of Stalinist Russia to ruin the picture for most Americans. Urbanization was underway, and the family farm began evolving into giant agro-businesses. With the stark and terrible illustration of Nazi racism fresh in the Public's mind, the injustices of segregation demanded redress. The Federal government finally acted, and Jim Crow Laws fell in a crash. LBJ, a poor Texas boy, wanted nothing so much as to leave a legacy of ending poverty and want. LBJ passed social legislation by the baskets full. The notion of political correctness, and compensation for past inequities became fashionable. Every minority group began to agitate for their own piece of the pie, and the Federal government has tried ever since to meet all those expectations.

Now, its almost a given that the Federal government has a duty and responsibility to insure everyone from any loss what-so-ever. Everyone wants a guarantee. How can anyone not argue that ideally everyone shouldn't have the finest medical and health care regardless of their ability to pay? Ideally, why not provide education through Graduate School for everyone at tax payer expense. Why not provide everyone with a fully balanced healthy diet each and every day of their lives? Shouldn't everyone have a well-appointed and furnished home at government expense? All that would be nice, I suppose, but it would also mean the end of individual liberty and the redistribution of wealth as directed by some political entity in Washington.

Its time to slow down, and reappraise what it is we want from OUR government. Which do we prize more, individual liberty, or the more "comfortable" Socialist attempt to legislate virtue the general welfare?

0 Replies

No matter what our ideals about our government, it ain't gonna happen. Dream on.

0 Replies

No, we can't turn back the clock to 1787-1930 ... nor should we toss out the baby with the bathwater. We CAN retain our individual liberties and limit the power of the Federal government. We CAN resume responsiblity for ourselves, and not insist that "Big Daddy" tell us what time to go to bed, or how to behave ourselves in public. We, the People, ARE the government and it serves at our pleasure. If the People want to abandon individual responsibility and the risks of liberty, national politicians of both Parties are more than willing to comply. They will promise whatever they believe the majority of the People truly want.

Are you content to surrender more of your liberty to the central government, just because you believe that it is inevitable? Put a little steel in your backbone and do something about it.

Centralization does reduce duplication of effort, increase uniformity, and assure more efficient control, at least theoretically. On the other hand, the most centrally controlled nations in the past 100 years haven't been all that successful. Who would want to duplicate the central planning of the old USSR, or PRC, or DPRK? We owe much of our success as a nation to maintaining a balance between the individual and society as a whole. The Founders recognized the need for a strong central government to provide for the nation's economic and foreign policies, to provide for national security, and to provide a unified set of policies. To protect against despotism, the Federal government is supposed to be constrained by a complicated set of checks and balances. Each of the Branches of government have their own checks and balances. Congress and the Courts take time and compromise to act. The Executive can act quickly and decisively, but is constrained by the Courts and Congress. The more of our decisions we give away to the Federal government, the fewer we retain for ourselves, and the stronger government becomes.

We need, I believe, not to blindly empower the Federal government so that it becomes our Master. If you want to pursue some Utopian paradise, let it be your personal crusade ... not that of the Federal government.

0 Replies

I'm not sure which government you're talking about, but it surely isn't the one in the US where many Americans approve of the way Bushco has trashed our Constitution and Bill of Rights - for our "security." Congress and the supreme court are in lock-step with this administration, and nothing has even approached any consequences for this administration - except for those outright corruption that were revealed (Abramoff) and some of those sex offenders. Even the democratic led congress is impotent to get anything done.

0 Replies

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

nimh wrote:
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
If, in practice, it is unlikely that a law abiding immigrant from Germany will not be detained as an enemy combatant in some pen in Cuba, than the Law is pretty effective.

A telling slip of the tongue?

Huh?

I realize that I run the risk of revealing the low grade of my intelligence by not understanding the wry commentary of Nimh, but then I don't think that Nimh's observations and opinions are one quarter of the quality he and his syncophants believe them to be.

I think he was referring to the double negative. I didn't see it at first read either.

0 Replies

In some important ways, a powerful central government is more important than ever. For instance, the biggest threat to our country now is terrorism. Also, we are getting dangerous food and other products from abroad. Drug manufacturers are more than willing to peddle dangerous products (e.g., Celebrex) to the public. Children in SC and other states who score well in state tests would flunk in, say, Massachusetts. Only a strong central government can take on these and other important problems.

State and local governments are rife with corruption, maladministration, and waste, much more so than the federal government despite the lurid publicity involving Abramoff, et al.

BTW, Thompson is building a platform on a small federal government.

0 Replies

What's YOUR Overriding Political Issue in the Next Election?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know