# How America changed.,,,



## mikeber (May 5, 2004)

I want to discuss the changes in America over the years. US came to fame during WW2 as a superpower that is able to execute what other nations considered impossible. Just a few examples: the industrial output during the war was unmatched; more then 100,000 aircraft, 50,000 (or more) tanks. More then 60,000 amphibious vehicles for marine landing. All these and countless other projects â€“ simultaneously.
In 1900, NY Grand Central station opened and most NYC subway tunnels were finished by 1925â€¦
During the 30s, US built the largest engineering project â€“ Hoover Dam in less then 5 years. Raising the Empire State building took about 4 years (1931-34)
In 1962, JFK started the moon landing mission which was accomplished in 1969, (about 7 years later). 
Fast forward to 2006. For the same moon landing mission, President Bush projects 15 (!) years, with all the current technology and experience gained in space (which was not available 40 years ago). Replacing the current space shuttle fleet will take 15 more years!

The TZ bridge in NY, was finished in 1955 after 4 years, with a projected life span of 50 years. Discussions on the replacement started in 1987 (!) and recently, we were informed that the final decision will be made in 2008, following yet another 2 year survey! 
In my suburban community a 50 foot long bridge over a small water reservoir is in work since 2000 and it will not be finished before 2007. George Washington and his army did better in 1778 !
Military: US armed forces went to Iraq without proper body armor and many troops purchased their own equipmentâ€¦. In 2003 the Pentagon commissioned 2000 armored troop carriers (an ugly truck named Cougar) for Iraq, but manufacturing (and maybe other problems) halt the project back. The US army is stretched to the maximum. The Pentagon however, planned it's current forces to fight two wars simultaneously (such as another war in North Korea or Iran with the same force).
In a current survey US population toped 300 million, (the 3ed populated country on earth after China and India). We are the richest country with a huge population and currently only 150,000 troops are deployed in Iraq. 
What happened to US?


----------



## Yckmwia (Mar 29, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by mikeber_
> 
> I want to discuss the changes in America over the years. US came to fame during WW2 as a superpower that is able to execute what other nations considered impossible. Just a few examples: the industrial output during the war was unmatched; more then 100,000 aircraft, 50,000 (or more) tanks. More then 60,000 amphibious vehicles for marine landing. All these and countless other projects â€" simultaneously.


"United States industrial production was neither a "miracle" nor was its output comparatively prodigious given the American advantages of abundant raw materials, superb transportation and technological infrastructure, a large and skilled labor force, and, most importantly, two large ocean barriers to bar bombing of its industries. Germany, once it abandoned its Blitzkrieg strategy, increased its productivity more than the United States, Britain, and the Soviet Union, and despite German attacks on Britain and the Soviet Union, these states performed outstandingly too."

Alan L. Gropman, _Mobilizing U.S. Industry in World War II: Myth and Reality_ Working Paper, Institute for National Strategic Studies, National Defense University, August 1996

https://www.ciaonet.org/wps/gra02/

Americans have long had a tendency to misattribute to their unique virtue the benefits of good fortune.

"I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just." Thomas Jefferson


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Yckmwia_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## burnedandfrozen (Mar 11, 2004)

I'd guess just bad management on the part of the government. We all know stories about the government spending $800 for a hammer and some of the stupid, lame, useless "studies" the gov pours big money into like (I'm joking with this one) "Mating habits of sea otters on Plutos third moon". Yes, there's no agurment about it. Our gov is certainly wasteful and in numerous cases just plain ineffective. This is why whenever somebody brings up gov controlled healthcare, I just get filled with a sense of dread and doom.


----------



## rojo (Apr 29, 2004)

mikeber: have you considered blaming Bush for the military situation?


----------



## Srynerson (Aug 26, 2005)

With regard to the military situation, at least part of the problem is that the US military (and their enablers in Congress and the White House -- *regardless of which administration or party*) have become obsessed with buying "weapon systems" rather than boring things like ammunition, body armor, etc., and the demand that funding be divided approximately equally between all three major service branches. Thus, for example, last year Congress approved $7.8 billion in funding for missile defense research compared to $8 billion for procurements to replace lost/damaged/worn-out equipment from the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts: This has many similarities to Soviet military procurement pre-WW II, which was aimed at producing finished vehicles, rather than spare parts. The result was that although the Soviet Union had 35,000 AFVs on paper in 1940, only about 7,000 were actually combat-capable, IIRC.

BTW, for anyone interested in a pro-military, anti-waste website, I would highly recommend: https://www.g2mil.com/ (For the current issue, click on "Magazine" and scroll down.)


----------



## Doctor Damage (Feb 18, 2005)

Always good reading material:

www.publicintegrity.org

www.project-syndicate.org

DD


----------



## crazyquik (Jun 8, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by rojo_
> 
> mikeber: have you considered blaming Bush for the military situation?


There are a lot of us who don't reflexively say "Bush's fault" whenever anything goes wrong.

---------------------

Beware of showroom sales-fever reasoning: i.e., "for $20 . . ." Once you're home, how little you paid is forgotten; how good you look in it is all that matters.


----------



## rojo (Apr 29, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by crazyquik_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


True, O king.

But mikeber's Iraq war discussion hits many of the talking points of the blame-Bush-first crowd, so I thought I'd see whether he falls in their camp. Maybe yes, maybe no.


----------



## mikeber (May 5, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by rojo_
> 
> mikeber: have you considered blaming Bush for the military situation?


rojo,
While I am not Mr. Bush's fan, I am referring to a trend which happened during many administrations, both republican and democrat. Furthermore, I was pointing to the military just to illustrate what the US was once capable of, in contrast to the present situation. 
I personally feel most changes in everyday life, the civilian life.


----------



## petro (Apr 5, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by mikeber_
> 
> What happened to US?


Let's clear the easiest one off first. American Militaries have NEVER started a war with the equipment they really needed to do the job, usually in recent years because dirtbag politicians (of both parties) cut military spending to waste money on social programs and buying votes.

As to the litany of complaints about our forefathers being able to get big projects done quicker than today:

1) Enviromental, employment and other regulatory laws.
2) They were building out the infrastructure, not trying to replace it, so they didn't have to provide (spend resources on and work around) existing stuff. 
3) Through the 1960s these kinds of programs WERE social spending, federal governments spent money to hire people to provide jobs. Then increasing unionization and employment arrangemnts, coupled with more direct forms of social spending meant that we (a) didn't have the money for these kinds of programs, and (b) couldn't hire a lot of people to do the work anyway.
4) Less tolerance for risk. Sometimes people fall and die. In 1920 it was "he should have been more careful" today it's "Why did you only have 3 safety devices and 4 inspections a day to make sure they were used, you should have had 5, and checked them every 10 minutes" which drives up costs, adds the time etc.

Also look again at #3. NASA is a jobs program for people with PHDs. Giving them 15 years makes them HAPPY. They can play and squander resources all they want for 10 years, then build the same stuff we went ot the moon with in the 60s, only a little cheaper and still get it done on time.

Give Burt Rutan a "cost +5%" contract and he'll have you there by christmas of 2007.

The French are a smallish, monkey-looking bunch and not dressed any better, on average, than the citizens of Baltimore. True, you can sit outside in Paris and drink little cups of coffee, but why this is more stylish than sitting inside and drinking large glasses of whiskey I don't know.
P.J. O'Rourke


----------



## ice (Sep 2, 2005)

America can do whatever she wants to.

But she must want to.

Without consensus there is no determination. If all Americans agreed on the war in Iraq, there would be a lot more resources dedicated to it. If all Americans wanted a moon landing, it would happen next year.

We live in comfortable times and there is no urgency to our actions.


----------



## m kielty (Dec 22, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by ice_
> 
> America can do whatever she wants to.
> 
> ...


That's for sure.

What America needs is leadership,not just a bunch of rip off artists trying to find another angle for self-enrichment.

Bush has lost the confidence of the people and he doesn't seem to care.

The Democrats are acting like a pack of dogs without offering any solutions.

America is in trouble.

The "miracle" of WW2 was created by the manufacturing sector. The auto companies produced the hardware.
Manufacturing is gone overseas.
So has national security.

mk


----------



## zegnamtl (Apr 19, 2005)

Very true Ice.

As a young boy I recall learning about how Japan was warned not to launch,
that they would awake a sleeping giant.
That type of effect and determination has not taken America of late.

But added to this is the effect of the lack of craftsmanship, skill and termination which has been replaced by automated processes.

Do you recall the images of workers having lunch on a steel bean high atop New York City?
Workers today will retreat for their breaks to the air conditioned restaurants in the area three or four times per shift.

Marvel at the wood work in old New England churches,
try to find a craftsman who could even ponder replicating that work today!


One thing I find both interesting and somewhat disturbing in these discussions, is how everything in America seems to fall on party lines. 

Can there be no debate on an issue without first establishing party allegiance?
It is a concept that seems foreign to us here, save for one issue.

(edit-typo)


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by mikeber_
> 
> During the 30s, US built the largest engineering project â€" Hoover Dam in less then 5 years.


Nowadays, it would take 5 years to merely create the environmental impact assessment, and then the litigation will ensue.........


----------



## DougNZ (Aug 31, 2005)

Maybe the Empire has pushed out beyond its capacity.

Beware the Visigoths! [}]


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

If I recall there was a man in the mid-1990s who led a political party and had a plan, or a contract if you will, that consisted of scaling back some of these crazy, inefficient regulations. Hmmmm, maybe he'll run for president. [}]


----------



## dueceman455 (Feb 10, 2006)

My friend, I do not believe that will be Ross Perot. I believe you will be better in studying Patrick Buchanan. He is the only American politician who has been for true fairness in U.S. trade, not Perot.
Gratis.

Life is excellent so long as you have a fine cigar, and an equally nice Cadillac.


----------



## tiger02 (Dec 12, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by m kielty_
> The "miracle" of WW2 was created by the manufacturing sector. The auto companies produced the hardware.
> Manufacturing is gone overseas.
> So has national security.


Yes but one of the great things about globalization is that there are fewer incentives to start wars. Politicians now have to factor in more trade partners and the cost of losing them--which does include some of our manufacturing base--before committing to war. In theory that makes it less likely that we send troops.

So much for that, I guess. We invade a country and 99% of Americans don't feel a thing. Had Iraq been a (rational) actor in the global economy the conditions would never have been right for an invasion.

Tom


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by dueceman455_
> 
> My friend, I do not believe that will be Ross Perot. I believe you will be better in studying Patrick Buchanan. He is the only American politician who has been for true fairness in U.S. trade, not Perot.
> Gratis.
> ...


I was actually thinking of Newt Gingrich.


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by tiger02_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Tom, not to get all political, but I think that if Iraq had been a player in the global economy there never would have been a war. I think that in the forseeable future the wars will be between players in the global economy and non players. that is one reason that I think that anything that can be done to bring people into the economy is worth while.


----------



## Yckmwia (Mar 29, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by globetrotter_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


In other words, wars in the future will be between economically strong states and economically weak states, with the purpose of coercing the weak states into the world-wide capitalist economy, in the role that the powerful states assign to them. You are undoubtedly correct, and the history of U.S. military adventurism in the post-W.W.II era clearly supports your position. Funny, when the Soviets and Chinese embarked on similar campaigns to coerce recalcitrant elements of their internal populations into the nationwide economic program, these campaigns were - and are - denounced as unspeakable crimes; yet when the U.S. embarks a world-wide campaign of war and coercion to achieve essentially the same end, this is celebrated as a . . . good thing?

"I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just." Thomas Jefferson


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Yckmwia_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


yes, exactly. and it is a good thing for everybody but one tiny slice of the worlds population - those people, in the poor part of the developing world whose status and power are based on oppressing others, they will be the big losers here.


----------



## Yckmwia (Mar 29, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Yckmwia_
> 
> In other words, wars in the future will be between economically strong states and economically weak states, with the purpose of coercing the weak states into the world-wide capitalist economy, in the role that the powerful states assign to them. You are undoubtedly correct, and the history of U.S. military adventurism in the post-W.W.II era clearly supports your position. Funny, when the Soviets and Chinese embarked on similar campaigns to coerce recalcitrant elements of their internal populations into the nationwide economic program, these campaigns were - and are - denounced as unspeakable crimes; but when the U.S. embarks a world-wide campaign of war and coercion to acheive essentially the same end, this is celebrated as a . . . good thing?
> 
> "I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just." Thomas Jefferson


Globetrotter



> quote:yes, exactly. and it is a good thing for everybody but one tiny slice of the worlds population - those people, in the poor part of the developing world whose status and power are based on oppressing others, they will be the big losers here.


Thanks. It's always helpful to have one's worst suspicions confirmed.

"I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just." Thomas Jefferson


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Yckmwia_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Y, and what is so bad about it? seriously? that a little force is used to get a better common good for a much larger group of people? what's the problem?


----------



## whnay. (Dec 30, 2004)

You simply fail to understand gb, to some people culture does not matter. Imperialism and expansionism especially by the west in all forms (militarily, economically, politically) is a bad thing, usually reserved for the relativists among us who can look at the last fifty years and on one hand become zealous apologists for the ills of communism but abhor all forms of Western aggression even though it is a well documented fact that liberal democracies the world over are far more free, safe, and capable of providing the most for their citizenry. Itâ€™s a clever paradigm of the have and the have-nots, the David versus Goliath, and the powerful versus the powerless, in communist and socialist circles itâ€™s all the rage, and as weâ€™ve found given the recent cartoon fiasco, its also fashionable amongst Middle Eastern dictators. 

In this way the powerless, the have-nots, the davids are strictly reactionary beings incapable of action unless that action is a direct result of our doing, thus we have become the whipping boy for the entire worlds problems. The AIDS epidemic in Africa, despotic backwardness in the middle-east, poverty in Southeast Asia, the moral bankruptness of the Palestinians; in each scenario the West is the victimizer, the people and the governments are the victim. Its not enough that we provide jobs in Southeast Asia, when previous there had been none, its only prudent to pay them was is economically unfeasible, economies of scale you say, what does that mean? Heck, if weâ€™d only stay out the Middle East, for example, the happy fun loving people of the Arab Street (for which in all seriousness there are many) would cease their cultural backwardness and magically women would enjoy the full rights of the known civilized world, honor killings would become a thing of the past, gays would skip in the streets flouting their sexuality and educational systems would sprout all over fielding secularist curriculum, the hatred of the Jews would wash away and we could all go back to the times of the hunter-gatherer society. If we just take ourselves out of the equation, there would be no formula weâ€™d have to spend time solving. Damn that feels better!


___________

"My problem lies in reconciling my gross habits with my net income." 
~Errol Flynn


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by whnay._
> 
> You simply fail to understand gb, to some people culture does not matter. Imperialism and expansionism especially by the west in all forms (militarily, economically, politically) is a bad thing, usually reserved for the relativists among us who can look at the last fifty years and on one hand become zealous apologists for the ills of communism but abhor all forms of Western aggression even though it is a well documented fact that liberal democracies the world over are far more free, safe, and capable of providing the most for their citizenry. Itâ€™s a clever paradigm of the have and the have-nots, the David versus Goliath, and the powerful versus the powerless, in communist and socialist circles itâ€™s all the rage, and as weâ€™ve found given the recent cartoon fiasco, its also fashionable amongst Middle Eastern dictators.
> 
> ...


bill, thank you for poiting that out. have a nice weekend


----------



## mikeber (May 5, 2004)

An interesting editorial from "USA Today" about how US responded to disasters in the past and how we respond today:

https://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-02-09-usa-rebuild_x.htm


----------



## tiger02 (Dec 12, 2004)

Zach-that's what I was trying to say, guess it wasn't really clear.

Bill-AskAndy's Interchange wasn't ready for you 

Tom


----------



## Liberty Ship (Jan 26, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by mikeber_
> 
> I want to discuss the changes in America over the years. US came to fame during WW2 as a superpower that is able to execute what other nations considered impossible. Just a few examples: the industrial output during the war was unmatched; more then 100,000 aircraft, 50,000 (or more) tanks. More then 60,000 amphibious vehicles for marine landing. All these and countless other projects â€" simultaneously.
> In 1900, NY Grand Central station opened and most NYC subway tunnels were finished by 1925â€¦
> ...


I have observed and wondered about the exact same thing. Can you imagine trying to initiate and complete either the Interstate Highway System, the Panama Canal, or the tranacontinental railroad nowadays???

The problem is that we are living under a form or tyranny. Unlike most tyrannies, however, we have no tyrant in particular we can focus on. There is no statue to pull down. We live under the rule of Bureaucracies. Bureaucrats are the American Royal Family; they are untouchable. "Bureaucracy is the tyranny of no one over everyone."

How was America transformed from a Republic to a Bureaucracy? Via democracy powered by the Liberal Agenda, supported by the National Education Association. While our founding document pronounced that all men are created equal (in the eyes of God and the law), the Liberal agenda to used this to try force the unnatural "equality outcome" onto a free society. This requires huge and powerful bureaucracies. These bureaucracies were created by a government empowered by masses of voters ignorant of and uneducated in history and how things work, voters whose expectations were pushed higher and higher while their actual capabilities produce were pushed lower and lower. That's where the National Education Association fits in. They provided the voters who would sell their votes for the promise of "equality of outcome." Those voters are the coal that fuels the tyranny we live under.

So, we really can't get anything done. We'll just survive eating the leftovers of this country's greatness until there is nothing left. Then the cannibalism begins. Thank the Liberal Agenda.


----------



## Liberty Ship (Jan 26, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by Yckmwia_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I disagree. Certainly we had abundant raw materials, but so does Africa. Japan does not. Japan, under McArthur's "American System" reorg is an economic powerhouse. It is the economic system of a country and manufacturing that yields actual wealth. Read Alexander Hamilton's Report on Manufacturing to understand how America was transformed from a British plantation to a wealth producing superpower. It was by deliberate, conscious efforts to create economic surplus through agriculture and manufacturing and the reinvestment of that economic surplus in agriculture and manufacturing, and having a government that understood that and got out of the way.


----------



## Doctor Damage (Feb 18, 2005)

Anyone who thinks that the "Left" or "Liberals" are solely responsible for bureaucracies should think again. Both the left and the right like big government, for the most part. Look at the US right now: sure, the Demos like big government, but Bush & company sure like wielding the big stick of government too.

When will people realize that the left/right "dispute" is nothing more than a smokescreen for political elites who for the most part desire to wield power as Priority Number One, and care little (if anything at all) for political ideologies, whether left or right? Or centre.

Government is the problem; not 'liberal government' or 'conservative government'.

DD


----------



## Liberty Ship (Jan 26, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by Doctor Damage_
> 
> Anyone who thinks that the "Left" or "Liberals" are solely responsible for bureaucracies should think again. Both the left and the right like big government, for the most part. Look at the US right now: sure, the Demos like big government, but Bush & company sure like wielding the big stick of government too.
> 
> ...


I don't disagree with this. However, I think "big government" moves on the part of "conservatives" like Bush are driven by trying to mitigate the effect that Liberal promises on the part of the Democrats have on the sheeple. The fact is that anyone in recent memory who tries (or tried) to promote the classic principles upon which this country was founded gets lynched by the mob. So, in my opinion, big government moves on the part of Liberals are a strategy of expansion and growth and accumulation of power. Big government moves on the part of so-called conservatives are a retrograde survival strategy. Either way we're screwed because of the degraded status of the growing majority of people allowed to vote.

The fact is that even if we, the minority, who hate the bureaucracy could bring pressure to bear on someone like Bush and have him follow the path we see as correct, all it would mean is that the sheeple would vote insomeone worse. We are in serious trouble. It is a death spiral fueled by Liberal ambitions.


----------



## bosthist (Apr 4, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Liberty Ship_
> 
> I don't disagree with this. However, I think "big government" moves on the part of "conservatives" like Bush are driven by trying to mitigate the effect that Liberal promises on the part of the Democrats have on the sheeple. The fact is that anyone in recent memory who tries (or tried) to promote the classic principles upon which this country was founded gets lynched by the mob. So, in my opinion, big government moves on the part of Liberals are a strategy of expansion and growth and accumulation of power. Big government moves on the part of so-called conservatives are a retrograde survival strategy. Either way we're screwed because of the degraded status of the growing majority of people allowed to vote.
> 
> The fact is that even if we, the minority, who hate the bureaucracy could bring pressure to bear on someone like Bush and have him follow the path we see as correct, all it would mean is that the sheeple would vote insomeone worse. We are in serious trouble. It is a death spiral fueled by Liberal ambitions.


Yeah, that's it. Those evil liberals are forcing--forcing!--conservatives into big government. That's why with the executive, legislative, and judicial branches controlled by conservatives nothing has been done to rein in government growth or spending. Last time I checked the "sheeple" voted in Bush.

I would love to hear an explication of the "classic principles on which this country was founded". And who exactly espoused these principles and was "lynched by the mob"?

If you want a "retrograde survival strategy" on the part of conservatives take a close look at the GOP southern strategy and the pandering to the religious right. As the religious folks like to remind the GOP, it was their votes which swung the election to Bush twice.


----------



## Liberty Ship (Jan 26, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by bosthist_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well, of course, to hear the Liberals tell it, the sheeple _didn't_ vote for Bush. The "classic principles upon which this country was founded" were pretty well articulated by Madison, Hamilton, sometimes Jefferson, maybe Jefferson Davis, William Blaine, John Logan, others. Kelly. Among those who may have been in alignment with them, Pat Buchannan and New Gingrich come to mind. Yes the GOP pandered to the reilgious right. They are just trying to get it where they can find it. Again, it comes down to intellectually degraded voters, products of a school system which is beholding to and acting on behaf of the Bureaucracy and government. They can't buy my vote with a program; but I'm in the minority now.


----------



## bosthist (Apr 4, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Liberty Ship_
> 
> Well, of course, to hear the Liberals tell it, the sheeple _didn't_ vote for Bush. The "classic principles upon which this country was founded" were pretty well articulated by Madison, Hamilton, sometimes Jefferson, maybe Jefferson Davis, William Blaine, John Logan, others. Kelly. Among those who may have been in alignment with them, Pat Buchannan and New Gingrich come to mind. Yes the GOP pandered to the reilgious right. They are just trying to get it where they can find it. Again, it comes down to intellectually degraded voters, products of a school system which is beholding to and acting on behaf of the Bureaucracy and government. They can't buy my vote with a program; but I'm in the minority now.


Since I've not heard liberals refer to voters as "sheeple" I've not heard that argument. What I'm interested in is what _you_ think are the founding principles of this country, unless of course you just like listing names and are leaving it to me to guess what you actually believe. Gingrich and Buchanan weren't lynched, they hoisted themselves up on their own petards.

Intellectually degraded voters? How quaint. We should probably bring back poll taxes and literacy tests, yes?


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by tiger02_
> 
> Zach-that's what I was trying to say, guess it wasn't really clear.
> 
> ...


Tom,

yes, not that you weren't clear, I misread what you were saying, but agree with you 100%


----------



## Liberty Ship (Jan 26, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by bosthist_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That would be a start.


----------



## Liberty Ship (Jan 26, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by bosthist_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Forgive my time constrained somewhat flippant previous post. I do, however, feel as if some kind of qualifying and screening of voters would be a good thing. That's a whole other topic, though. There are two things at work there. First, if the right to vote (in no way guaranteed by the Constitution) is as precious as is popularly acknowledged, shouldn't it be treated with more respect and in some way "earned" rather than bestowed? Secondly, given the inclination of the government to buy votes with the cash of others, aren't some voters in a sort of conflict of interest? Or do we just accept the fact that the polls are places where we vote to take money away from some groups and give it to others?

Regarding what I think as opposed to my list of names, that's a big subject. America achieved its greatness by having a government that got out of the way, respected and acknowledged the value of the individual, and limited its own power over the individual in deference to that. As originally envisioned, the government promised very little in the way of safety or security; it's only promise was that it would exist as a necessary evil and stay out of everyone's lives as much as possible. The individual was on his own. To the extent the government designed economic policy, it was to benefit enterprise and the individual (or corporate persons) not to benefit the government, but to "promote the common good." That common good was increased opportunity for individuals, not flocks of hyphenated individuals.

Since the early 19th century, things have really changed. Lincoln initiated an income tax during the Civil War. It was declared unconstitutional. Some 50 years later, in 1913, that was fixed with a constitutional amendment. What were the voters thinking?* Now, the government is into every aspect of our lives, it burdens us with paperwork at every turn. It has become a jobs program for people who can not survive in what's left of the private sector and those of us who actually produce wealth are at the mercy of legions of super-empowered bureaucrats who simply do not have a clue. The tragedy is that it did not have to be this way. Our founders gave us the means to keep the government in control. But it was like the vampire from whom you are safe unless you invite him into your home. The uninformed, dumbed down voters schooled in the benefits of bureaucracy invited it in, hoping to get something out of it; but the truth is that their guest is sucking our blood now and refuses to leave. The more of our blood it drinks, the stronger it gets and the weaker we get.

*The truth is that between 1865 and 1883, compulsory public education was gradually introduced into the various states. Could that have been the voter base that passed the 16th Amendment in 1913? I am linking to the page of John Gatto's book, "The Undergroud History of American Education," that gives the timeline of the introduction of compulsory public education. The entire book is there on line, by the way, and definitely worth a look.


----------



## tiger02 (Dec 12, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Liberty Ship_
> Forgive my time constrained somewhat flippant previous post. I do, however, feel as if some kind of qualifying and screening of voters would be a good thing. That's a whole other topic, though. There are two things at work there. First, if the right to vote (in no way guaranteed by the Constitution) is as precious as is popularly acknowledged, shouldn't it be treated with more respect and in some way "earned" rather than bestowed?


I would support a requirement to earn a vote, but it would have nothing to do with knowledge or money, only actions. If you want to vote, you have to prove that you are capable of putting your own gratification on hold by working for something bigger than yourself, for some amount of time. It could be military service or teaching in an inner city or building homes in Appalaichia or a thousand other types of service. But if you want to choose the leader of 300 million people who aren't you, you should prove that you can think of someone besides yourself.



> quote:Secondly, given the inclination of the government to buy votes with the cash of others, aren't some voters in a sort of conflict of interest? *Or do we just accept the fact that the polls are places where we vote to take money away from some groups and give it to others*?


That's a very concise and accurate definition. Well done.



> quote:Regarding what I think as opposed to my list of names, that's a big subject. America achieved its greatness by having a government that got out of the way, respected and acknowledged the value of the individual, and limited its own power over the individual in deference to that.


Actually, we were quite the backwater until we kicked the snot out of the Germans, twice. We may have been viable and in more of a libertarian utopia before that, but by no means were we great.

Tom

ah, I should mention that the Germany over there under my name is not my place of progeny nor my current location.


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by tiger02_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


the best thing that could happen to America would be such a situation where the only way to take part in public issues, and to vote, would be to serve, either under arms or in an important volenteer situation - corrections officer, beat cop, inner city teacher, hospital ordorly, or in any one of a dozen or so volenteern situations. you would have to meet people from other socio-economic classes, and you would have to serve the people. you do that, you get to vote and hold public office, you don't, you don't.


----------



## Doctor Damage (Feb 18, 2005)

Congratulations, globetrotter and Liberty Ship, you've both managed to demonstrate strongly anti-democratic and anti-Christian views. Which is odd, considering that you both seem to be from the US, a country which, more often than not, has championed both causes with an egalitarianism and tolerance not often found elsewhere in this world.

DD


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Doctor Damage_
> 
> Congratulations, globetrotter and Liberty Ship, you've both managed to demonstrate strongly anti-democratic and anti-Christian views. Which is odd, considering that you both seem to be from the US, a country which, more often than not, has championed both causes with an egalitarianism and tolerance not often found elsewhere in this world.
> 
> DD


democracies give you both rights and reposnisblities. the US has gotten out of the business of expecting any responsiblity from its people. probrably half of the problems of the US could be solved by a program such as I have mentioned. I see no reason why a political union should not demand, as the price of full membership, that its members contribute something to the better good.


----------



## Doctor Damage (Feb 18, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by globetrotter_
> 
> Democracies give you both rights and reposnisblities. the US has gotten out of the business of expecting any responsiblity from its people. probrably half of the problems of the US could be solved by a program such as I have mentioned. I see no reason why a political union should not demand, as the price of full membership, that its members contribute something to the better good.


Democracy is not a 'club' that you can use to keep out the undesirables, or 'them'. It's all or nothing: everyone gets a vote or you should just call it a day (and call it an autocracy). Democracy is too damn precious to limit with 'membership requirements' and other restrictions. Who gets to set the membership requirements? And who gets to _select_ the people who will set the membership requirements?

At some point, in a democracy, you just have to trust people, have a little faith. Or, if you prefer, you could look at it as giving people enough rope to hang themselves.

DD


----------



## bosthist (Apr 4, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Liberty Ship_
> 
> First, if the right to vote (in no way guaranteed by the Constitution) is as precious as is popularly acknowledged, shouldn't it be treated with more respect and in some way "earned" rather than bestowed?


I have a lot to say in response to your post but don't have the time to write it now. However, I'm not certain how you can assert that the right to vote is "in no way guaranteed", given the 14th, 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th amendments.


----------



## Liberty Ship (Jan 26, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by Doctor Damage_
> 
> Congratulations, globetrotter and Liberty Ship, you've both managed to demonstrate strongly anti-democratic and anti-Christian views. Which is odd, considering that you both seem to be from the US, a country which, more often than not, has championed both causes with an egalitarianism and tolerance not often found elsewhere in this world.
> 
> DD


Doc, I am, in fact, anti-democratic. The more democratic a country becomes, the more dangerous it becomes for the individual. If you believe in the divinity of the human soul, you should never, ever subject it to the whims of a democracy.

We are supposed to be a Republic. Here's what the United States Citizenship Manual said about Democracies in 1928, before the "greatest generation" got bought off by the New Deal:

Democracy: A government of the masses.

Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of "direct" expression.

Results, in mobocracy.

Attitude toward property is communistic â€" negating property rights.

Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences.

Results in demagogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.

https://www.constitution.org/mil/tm/tm_2000-25/tm_2000-25.htm

I _cringe_ when I hear about "get out the vote" campains!


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Doctor Damage_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


let me say, first of all, that I am not taking the same stance as LS. but I would say that when a state becomes a superpower and the vast majority do not wish to serve the people in any way, then it becomes a dangerous situation for the future of the state.

for most of US history, some requirements have been placed on the right to vote. I am not sure if that is a good thing, but I am also not sure that it is a bad thing - when those requirements make sense.

I would be just as happy to make service effect your tax structure, espectially since many americans don't really care about voting, but do care about taxes. let people who serve pay 1/3 less tax for the rest of their lives. that works for me.


----------



## Doctor Damage (Feb 18, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by globetrotter_
> 
> let me say, first of all, that I am not taking the same stance as LS.


Okay, my apologies. I will not lump you two together again.



> quote:I would be just as happy to make service effect your tax structure, espectially since many americans don't really care about voting, but do care about taxes. let people who serve pay 1/3 less tax for the rest of their lives. that works for me.


Non-refundable tax credits only, of course? An interesting idea, but there is the danger of reducing patriotism and/or public service to a financial cost/benefit calculation, which is kind of unseemly to my mind. I fully support smaller government, of course, I just think it should be achieved without using big government methods.

DD


----------



## Liberty Ship (Jan 26, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by bosthist_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Regarding the right to vote, I was referring to the original documents; you are talking about amendments from 1867 forward.


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Doctor Damage_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


actually, I am less talking about small government, I am actually taking the position of being paternalistic (although in general that isn't my stand) - I think that many of the domestic problems in the US could be helped by a draft, not nessasarily one that pushed people into the sharp end of the military, but one that caused people to serve the country in some way, and caused people from different socioeconomic levels to mix. I would prefer one that simply didn't give anyone a way out - no matter how rich or powerful.


----------



## tiger02 (Dec 12, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Doctor Damage_
> there is the danger of reducing patriotism and/or public service to a financial cost/benefit calculation, which is kind of unseemly to my mind.


Sure, except that it's exactly what we have now. The people who serve are the ones who internally put more emphasis on the 'benefits' derived from that service. Most directly those benefits are to the community as a whole rather than to them personally. I believe that there are plenty of people out there who would like to serve but their finances won't allow it. If a private's salary were $4k a month instead of $2k, don't you think a lot of the privileged kids who catch flak for not serving would have an easier time of sigining up? That said I think that a draft as Zach describes it would be more realistic than tax credits.



> quoteemocracy is not a 'club' that you can use to keep out the undesirables, or 'them'. It's all or nothing: everyone gets a vote or you should just call it a day (and call it an autocracy). Democracy is too damn precious to limit with 'membership requirements' and other restrictions. Who gets to set the membership requirements? And who gets to select the people who will set the membership requirements?


As LS pointed out, we live in a republic. A republic in which some people have lost the right to vote. Someone had to set the standard of not being a convicted felon, and someone had to choose that someone. Well, I'd expand that. If you have never done anything for anyone other than yourself, then you have lost the right to vote.


> quote:The more democratic a country becomes, the more dangerous it becomes for the individual. If you believe in the divinity of the human soul, you should never, ever subject it to the whims of a democracy.


LS, I hope you're using hyperbole here for a reason. I'll leave it at that.

Tom


----------



## bosthist (Apr 4, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Liberty Ship_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


And how exactly was anyone supposed to divine that from your statement?

In any case, Article 1, Section 2, Clause 1 of the 1787 Constitution guaranteed the right to vote for members of the House of Representatives to anyone with "the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature". So while there might not have been a federal voting standard, anyone who met the requirements for voting for members of the largest representative body in their particular state was guaranteed the right to vote for Representatives to the U.S. Congress. No such guarantee existed for electing Senators (who were elected in state legislatures) or for electing the President and Vice President (see the Electoral College). To say that the original Constitution didn't have a "right to vote" guarantee is misleading. It did, just not in the way we think of it today.


----------



## Yckmwia (Mar 29, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Liberty Ship_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


And these don't count?

"I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just." Thomas Jefferson


----------



## bosthist (Apr 4, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Yckmwia_
> 
> And these don't count?


Presumably these amendments don't count, because some individuals who voted in favor of those amendments may have had compulsory public education, which should have made them ineligible to vote because compulsory public education turns people into automatons.

I am confused however, given that free, tax supported, public schools began in the 1630s about a five minute walk (or an hour, given the ferocity of the snow) from where I am sitting. One can only assume that everything that happened in public education prior to Massachusetts establishing compulsory public education in 1852 matters not one whit, despite people like Benjamin Franklin having attended Boston Latin School, which was administered by the town of Boston. John Hancock and Sam Adams were public school graduates and you can see the deleterious effects it had on them--I mean, one guy has an insurance company named after him, the other a brewery.

What I do find interesting is that all of those in favor of voting requirements assume that they are so public minded that they of course would be allowed to vote--it's all the others who are "sheeple" and solely interested in voting based on personal gain.

Either everyone votes, or no one votes.


----------



## Liberty Ship (Jan 26, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by bosthist_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I thought people could divine that from my statement by its context. I made it in response to your asking me to elaborate on "the classical principles upon which this country was founded." "Founded" is different from subsequent amendments starting 88 years later. I should have been more clear.

I don't think my statement was misleading it's just at extreme variance with the current, popular assumptions which are what I was challenging to begin with. While citizen's voting was an underlying assumption for the Republic, it was not a blanket "right."

The founding fathers put as many "shock absorbers" as possible between the necessary evil of the democratic process and the Republic. By that I mean the kind of things you pointed out, such as the fact that it was not their intention that Senators be elected directly and that we don't vote directly for President and Vice President. How those issues were to be decided were originally left to the states. The only direct elections on a federal level were Representatives. They represented The People. Senators were supposed to represent the States. Now everyone represents The People, and one of the "shock absorbers" has been disabled.


----------



## Yckmwia (Mar 29, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by bosthist_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


True. I've yet to meet a "This is a Republic, not a Democracy" type who championed such stringent voting requirements that he, himself, would be disenfranchised.

"I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just." Thomas Jefferson


----------



## Liberty Ship (Jan 26, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by tiger02_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I guess that's hyperbole, but I did use it for a reason. Think about it. The only thing that can protect the individual from other individuals, or packs of individuals, or against the government itself is the law. If each individual is a unique soul and the law is whatever the "majority" decides it to be at any given moment, what protection does he have? We have all heard the analogy, "Democracy is four wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner." Well, unless there is a law that overrides "majority rule," then that's the culture I am arguing that you don't want to submit a potentially divine human soul to. It might be suitable for the animal kingdom, but when applied to human societies, it's evil. Why, for example, do we think it's a good thing to stop a lynch mob?


----------



## Liberty Ship (Jan 26, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by Yckmwia_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Probably because anyone even thinking on that level about those issues is so far advanced in his thinking compared to the man on the street who doesn't even know the first fundamental about American History that any reasonable standard would include him.

WE go to the polls to vote the best interest of the country, to chose the least evil, if you will. To buy time. THEY go to the polls to take our stuff!


----------



## Yckmwia (Mar 29, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Liberty Ship_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yeah, that's probably it.

"I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just." Thomas Jefferson


----------



## NoVaguy (Oct 15, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by petro_
> 
> Let's clear the easiest one off first. American Militaries have NEVER started a war with the equipment they really needed to do the job, usually in recent years because dirtbag politicians (of both parties) cut military spending to waste money on social programs and buying votes.


America does spend more on their military than any other country on earth. The iraq problem is more due to conditions in iraq and poor thinking by the administration than anything else.



> quote:
> 1) Enviromental, employment and other regulatory laws.


As to environmental issues, i guessed you liked breathing smog and paying more for medical costs imposed on you by polluting industries. employment and other regulations have gotten weaker since the '30s, not stronger.



> quote:
> 2) They were building out the infrastructure, not trying to replace it, so they didn't have to provide (spend resources on and work around) existing stuff.


Actually, a decent part of it is due to the conservative preference for contracting out infrastructure related positions. Here's a good example; My father used to do highway construction inspections for a state government. Now he works for a private company, managing people who do highway construction inspection contracts. He gets paid quite a bit, the guys who do his old position for the company get paid a little bit more than the government people used to get paid, although they do a little less work and also collect unemployment between jobs. And there is a nice premium for the owners, who don't do much. Add it all up and the state pays a lot more for contracted out inspections than they did when it was a government function.



> quote:
> 3) Through the 1960s these kinds of programs WERE social spending, federal governments spent money to hire people to provide jobs. Then increasing unionization and employment arrangemnts, coupled with more direct forms of social spending meant that we (a) didn't have the money for these kinds of programs, and (b) couldn't hire a lot of people to do the work anyway.


Just for the record, Unionization has been DECREASING since the 60's, not increasing.



> quote:
> 4) Less tolerance for risk. Sometimes people fall and die. In 1920 it was "he should have been more careful" today it's "Why did you only have 3 safety devices and 4 inspections a day to make sure they were used, you should have had 5, and checked them every 10 minutes" which drives up costs, adds the time etc.


Actually, safety rules and inspections have been getting weaker since the 1970's. Ask the miners in West Virginia.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by hopkins_student_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Oh. I presumed you were joking.

------------------


----------



## tiger02 (Dec 12, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by bosthist_
> I am confused however, given that free, tax supported, public schools began in the 1630s about a five minute walk (or an hour, given the ferocity of the snow) from where I am sitting.


Barefoot and uphill, both ways? []



> quote:What I do find interesting is that all of those in favor of voting requirements assume that they are so public minded that they of course would be allowed to vote--it's all the others who are "sheeple" and solely interested in voting based on personal gain.


Well, I'm not a property owner, but I think I have all my other bases covered. Still don't know what a sheeple is though. Is it like a republocrat?

Tom


----------



## bosthist (Apr 4, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by tiger02_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Almost. I live on top of a hill and the first school was moved to the top of the next hill over shortly after being established.  So yes, one would have had to walk uphill both ways while wearing those big shoes with silver buckles, no doubt. The site of the first school was also the site of the first town meeting in American history in 1633, thus setting in motion our glorious democratic tradition.


----------



## rws (May 30, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by bosthist_
> . . . . The site of the first school [in Boston] was also the site of the first town meeting in American history in 1633, thus setting in motion our glorious democratic tradition.


As a New Englander, I'd be glad to claim that; but the town-meeting tradition, transplanted from England, can be traced to 1608 (or perhaps even 1607) in the present United States -- in Virginia. Regrettably, we Northerners tend to ignore the contiguity of the democratic and related traditions throughout the country (or, at least, in the South).


----------



## bosthist (Apr 4, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by rws_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I've not seen the Virginia claims in what I've read, and it is my understanding that local decision making authority in Virginia was quite different in Virginia, which functioned on a parish/county system, than in the towns settled under the Massachuestts Bay Colony charter. If you would provide a citation, however, I'd be happy to read it.

As to the English town meeting tradition, I find it interesting how quickly the "Teutonic germ theory" was discarded after Frederick Jackson Turner's â€œThe Significance of the Frontier in American Historyâ€. Turner, and WWI no doubt, helped dispatch the notion that Germany was the source of democracy.

As an aside to our Virginia friends, if you're interested in the pre-Revolutionary War culture of Virginia, I recommend Rhys Isaac's "The Transformation of Virginia: 1740-1790".


----------



## Harris (Jan 30, 2006)

How has America changed?

What a great question.

Over the past 30 years, America has changed a lot. Perhaps without many of us noticing. In too many ways to count, modern-day America doesn't resemble WWII America. 

I've posted elswhere about this, but one huge change is the increased zeal to challenge people who hold positions of authority within a hierarchical structure. "Fighing 'the man'" or whatever you wish to call it. Sociologists galore will reference the feminist and civil rights movements as flame-fueling moments. Or the failure of leadership of the Vietnam War. Probably correct. But the instinct to "challenge authority" has existed amidst the human spirit for a long, long time.

When such an instinct becomes a behavioral norm, the result can't be anything but chaos. When/where everyone assumes they have as much power as the people "above them" in a hierarchy, order crumbles into disorder. That is: when every passenger on a ship assumes that he/she is just as able to navigate as the captain navigates, the captain's authority constantly stands in question. The passengers learn (the hard way) that most of them lack the knowledge to do what the captain does...and bad things happen. There's a loss of direction, and the ship might even sink. In other words: when power is given to the masses who wish to share in it, they may not have a damned clue how to use it or what to do with it; and then, all hell breaks loose.

We desperately need citizens who will accept the flaws, faults, and shortcomings of their leaders, and nonetheless continue to recognize them as leaders whose positions merit respect and even obedience.


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

one thing that I have noticed in the past 30 years - remember the idea of a kid going off by himself, on a bike, maybe with a fishing rod? remember kid playing in the back yard with a few other kids?

does that happen anymore anywhere in America?


----------



## Doctor Damage (Feb 18, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Harris_
> 
> I've posted elswhere about this, but one huge change is the increased zeal to challenge people who hold positions of authority within a hierarchical structure. "Fighing 'the man'" or whatever you wish to call it. Sociologists galore will reference the feminist and civil rights movements as flame-fueling moments. Or the failure of leadership of the Vietnam War. Probably correct. But the instinct to "challenge authority" has existed amidst the human spirit for a long, long time.


If that's the case, then it's a good thing. Look at how many disasters humankind has suffered through, mostly due to decisions made by leaders who were never effectively questioned. How many normal people, who just wanteed to go to work, raise their kids, have a few brews on the weekend, and go to church on Sunday, have lost their lives or had virtually everything else taken from them due to the hubris or incompetance of leaders?



> quote:When such an instinct becomes a behavioral norm, the result can't be anything but chaos. When/where everyone assumes they have as much power as the people "above them" in a hierarchy, order crumbles into disorder. That is: when every passenger on a ship assumes that he/she is just as able to navigate as the captain navigates, the captain's authority constantly stands in question. The passengers learn (the hard way) that most of them lack the knowledge to do what the captain does...and bad things happen. There's a loss of direction, and the ship might even sink. In other words: when power is given to the masses who wish to share in it, they may not have a damned clue how to use it or what to do with it; and then, all hell breaks loose.


Actually, it might have been better for the passengers on the Titanic to question their captain, had they known he was ignoring obvious dangers. The best decisions come from the most heated debates, in my view. Anyway, why the desperate tone of 'the barbarians are at the gate' in your post? What of yours is being challenged with chaos?



> quote:We desperately need citizens who will accept the flaws, faults, and shortcomings of their leaders, and nonetheless continue to recognize them as leaders whose positions merit respect and even obedience.


Respect has to be earned. By which I mean through demonstrable and replicable success, not just success at achieving great rank and prominence (or acquiring the money to 'buy' said great rank and prominence). We accept the flaws and shortcomings of our leaders, but we don't brook incompetance for long (at least in democracies).

DD


----------



## Yckmwia (Mar 29, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Harris_
> 
> How has America changed?
> 
> ...


"Slaves, obey your masters according to the flesh in all things; not with eye-service, as men-pleasers, but in singleness of heart, fearing God." Colossians 3:22

"The evils we experience flow from the excess of democracy." Elbridge Gerry, speaking at the Constitutional Convention, May 31, 1787.

It seems your concern has been circulating for some time. But I believe it unfounded. I've seen no diminution in the respect for hierarchy and authority in the United States, at least in toto. Perhaps some institutions have declined in their ability to cow and coerce the masses, but others have taken their place. And are you seriously suggesting that the American people are insufficiently accepting of the "flaws, faults, and shortcomings" of their "leaders"? If so, please tell me where I can find this "America" - I'd like to move there. In my America the citizenry unquestioningly accepts one outrage after another without so much as a whimper of protest.

In your view is all authority legitimate, and deserving of uncritical obedience, simply because it exists?

"I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just." Thomas Jefferson


----------



## Yckmwia (Mar 29, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by globetrotter_
> 
> one thing that I have noticed in the past 30 years - remember the idea of a kid going off by himself, on a bike, maybe with a fishing rod? remember kid playing in the back yard with a few other kids?
> 
> does that happen anymore anywhere in America?


Astute observation 'Trotter. I have noticed this as well, and it is almost shocking.

"I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just." Thomas Jefferson


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Yckmwia_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


thanks, I don't know how astute, I just never see any kids without their parents around, anymore, unless they appear to be very poor.


----------



## Rich (Jul 10, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by globetrotter_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Where I live, children roaming are usually poor, often of immigrant families, probably North or Subsaharan African, and are usually assumed to be up to no good. Long ago when children roamed, they were effectively under the supervision of all the adults they met (they were often _known_ to all the adults they met). Any kids being a nuisance, damaging property, fighting, endangering themselves, etc., would be sorted out by any adult who happened to be there. This meant that the children tended to behave themselves and act in a responsible manner. Today no adult wants to supervise other people's children. This has led to the emergence of the "feral youth", unchallenged by adults, unpunished by the law, and has made public spaces no-go areas. The recent rioting in France was essentially the doing of bands of such out-of-control youngsters.


----------



## Harris (Jan 30, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by Doctor Damage_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


An old debate. Wreaks of Tory vs. Labour, with subtle variations.

Unflinchingly Tory,
Harris


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Rich_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Rich - that is an excellent point. I have a group of a half dozen friends with kids all the same age, and we spend a lot of time as a group, and take a lot of responsibility for each others kids. but I would never try to talk to another kid, or give him advice, or discipline him, with today's enviroment. I have, twice, "found" kids who had become seperated from their families in public places, one was obviously a victem of some violence. I had to put a huge effort into coralling the kids and moving them to a safe place where the authorities could get to them, without actually touching them or putting myself in a position to appear to be doing anything to them.

intersting aside - one of the interesting things about the ultra othodox in Israel, and there are few things that I liked about them, was that they would send there kids off to school and to shop at a very young age unsuporvised. I lived in a nieghborhood with a lot of ultraorthodox and when I walked to work there would always be a bunch of realy little kids waiting to cross at the crosswalks. they would come up to you and give you their hand and expect you to take them across, very naturally. it was a very trusting habbit.


----------



## crazyquik (Jun 8, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Yckmwia_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Rich (Jul 10, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by globetrotter_
> 
> intersting aside - one of the interesting things about the ultra othodox in Israel, and there are few things that I liked about them, was that they would send there kids off to school and to shop at a very young age unsuporvised. I lived in a nieghborhood with a lot of ultraorthodox and when I walked to work there would always be a bunch of realy little kids waiting to cross at the crosswalks. they would come up to you and give you their hand and expect you to take them across, very naturally. it was a very trusting habbit.


What you describe here is the norm in Africa, at least outside the big cities. I think it works in societies that have high cohesion, where there is a strong consensus about childcare, parental restraint, the place of children and adults,etc., backed up by tradition and religion. In parts of North Africa children will call "uncle" any male adult old enough to be their father. This cohesion is weak in advanced western societies where there is now no consensus on these matters. There used to a principle whereby schoolteachers could act _in loco parentis_. This also is under attack because parents and schoolteachers no longer automatically agree on how children should be dealt with.


----------



## dueceman455 (Feb 10, 2006)

Pardon me, but I am not sure if you directed that comment to me, or the other fellow.
In any event, I will say the political factions of this country are what has brought most of our problems on. 
I seriously doubt ole Newt is the answer to our problems. The problems I complain about are the trade imbalances, not the other political issues. If you want to become teary eyed, and wave Old Glory, so do I. However, the continued raping of the manufacturing base of the country in the name of free trade will get you no place. The only reason we were a "force" in both world wars was due to our unsurmatched ability to produce things. The reason we helped win the big one, was due to the amount of products we could make. Twenty Shermans versus the best German tank did the trick. Even though all of us millitary buffs will tell you, one German tank would crush ten our ours. We cannot kid ourselves as Americans. This whole "outsourcing" is great for shareholders. It's awfully bad for folks who held the wrenches and hammers. I see China knocking on our door soon. I am hoping, the big bad Republicans who refuse to see past party lines see this threat. Also, I hope the gimpy Democrats who are feckless, take notice of this also. The United States is still rich in resources. We are not spent up and spat out like an old whore just yet, like the mainstream media would have you know. When I was a student at the University of Alabama years ago, the tales the professors told such as, "We have enough high grade iron ore to last our needs for hundreds of years, it's just not cost efficient to extract". That means we don't want to pay folks for an honest days work for honest pay. Which means, in the secretly liberal Wall Street Journal Lingo, "we don't want to pay folks an American wage". Friends, I have my flame suit on, suit up, blowtorch away.
Thank again,
Dueceman

Life is excellent so long as you have a fine cigar, and an equally nice Cadillac.


----------



## tiger02 (Dec 12, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by dueceman455_
> 
> Pardon me, but I am not sure if you directed that comment to me, or the other fellow.
> In any event, I will say the political factions of this country are what has brought most of our problems on.
> ...


A problem with military buffs, and with many in the military, is that arguments often assume that the only goal of policy is to be able to win a war, and not to avoid a war. If manufacturing is decentralized, then it makes it that much harder for a nation to commit to a fight.

As for outsourcing being bad for wrench-turners; well, it's a nice tug at the heartstrings but bad economics. If those wrench-turners were willing to pay $500 for their Nikes, then there would be a Nike factory in Ohio. The flipside of high wages is high prices, which aren't good for anyone. The flipside of 'raping the manufacturing base' is that a decent education is more within reach than ever before, and that knowledge-based jobs are always available.

A rising tide lifts all ships.
Tom


----------



## rws (May 30, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by dueceman455_
> . . . . [W]e don't want to pay folks for an honest days work for honest pay. Which means, in the secretly liberal Wall Street Journal Lingo, "we don't want to pay folks an American wage". . . .


Dueceman's right on target -- right _until_ this last observation. As Tom ("tiger02"; hmm, an allusion to those German tanks?) has ably pointed out, either consumption or compensation must give way: the ordinary American citizen must work harder (smarter, not just more energetically or for more hours) or buy less -- or buy cheap things from abroad, taking away the jobs of his fellow citizens: it's his choice, and he appears to have made it already.


----------



## Old Brompton (Jan 15, 2006)

I think the most profound change over the last few decades, which few honest people are willing to discuss openly, is how the US has become a _de facto_ colony of the Third World. The demographic changes currently underway in this country are going to redefine our politics, economy, and culture for years to come. That is, if they are not stopped and reversed (which seems increasingly likely). All of which makes discussions about German tanks, the Constitution, rights, responsibilities, and Trad clothing on this forum, irrelevant.


----------



## rws (May 30, 2004)

'Been to Western Europe recently, OB? It's much the same there. The influx itself is not so troubling as the refusal of most of the influxers to adopt the ideals and customs -- or, sometimes, even to obey the laws -- of the countries in which they settle. One might have credited the immigrants with enough reflexion to recognize that the financial prosperity they desire is neither satisfying nor broadly sustainable without acceptance of the underpinning principles.

And, OB, I think you're quite accurate in assuming that the West lacks the nerve to reverse or perhaps even to regulate the influx.


----------



## Doctor Damage (Feb 18, 2005)

I applaud you, rws, in a single paragraph you've managed to provided me with the articulation I've been seeking for some time but failed to develop myself.

DD


----------



## dueceman455 (Feb 10, 2006)

I was not advocating war to keep our manufacturing base going. Far from it. I was looking back at a point in time, where our manufacturing strength was vital, in ours and other nations survival. You are right, our education system is horrible. When I went back to complete my undergrad in history a few years back, I was shocked at how many of the young people in my class were not able to read proficiently, or complete a common sense paragraph. 
I will disagree with you about Nike not placing their manufacturing in Ohio. Nike has always been expensive. Have you noticed how much a pair of what ever they call them, Airs costs? It may be around two hundred dollars. What angers me, and many people, is how outsourcing is supposed to deliver lower prices. Wrong. The prices stay stable, then rise. If a price of a pair of sneakers is relative to the labor cost, why are they still so expensive? I am not talking about the Wal Mart specials you can pick up for ten bucks. I mean the name brand sneakers. Addidas, Nike, Reebok, you get my drift. Please don't think I am bashing imports. I am not, I am upset with the big multinational companies and many of their policies. Thanks for listening to my reply,


Life is excellent so long as you have a fine cigar, and an equally nice Cadillac.


----------



## tiger02 (Dec 12, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by dueceman455_
> 
> I was not advocating war to keep our manufacturing base going. Far from it. I was looking back at a point in time, where our manufacturing strength was vital, in ours and other nations survival. You are right, our education system is horrible. When I went back to complete my undergrad in history a few years back, I was shocked at how many of the young people in my class were not able to read proficiently, or complete a common sense paragraph.
> I will disagree with you about Nike not placing their manufacturing in Ohio. Nike has always been expensive. Have you noticed how much a pair of what ever they call them, Airs costs? It may be around two hundred dollars. What angers me, and many people, is how outsourcing is supposed to deliver lower prices. Wrong. The prices stay stable, then rise. If a price of a pair of sneakers is relative to the labor cost, why are they still so expensive? I am not talking about the Wal Mart specials you can pick up for ten bucks. I mean the name brand sneakers. Addidas, Nike, Reebok, you get my drift. Please don't think I am bashing imports. I am not, I am upset with the big multinational companies and many of their policies. Thanks for listening to my reply,
> ...


You know what, you're right about Nike selling at market rates, rather than some price based on manufacturing costs. Outsourcing keeps Nike's costs down, which keep its profits up. Then Americans buy Nike stock and stay above inflation. That's the kind of argument I get angry about when people lambaste player salaries for making tickets to the ballgame expensive, so I apologize for being guilty of it myself. I know nothing about Nike's current offerings. I bought a pair of baseball spikes a couple of years ago, but before that no Nikes since the mid '90s.

The savings that do get passed on to consumers are in commoditized items--TVs, toasters, widgets. And those $10 Wal Mart special sneakers.

Tom


----------



## dueceman455 (Feb 10, 2006)

Agreed. 


Life is excellent so long as you have a fine cigar, and an equally nice Cadillac.


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Old Brompton_
> 
> I think the most profound change over the last few decades, which few honest people are willing to discuss openly, is how the US has become a _de facto_ colony of the Third World. The demographic changes currently underway in this country are going to redefine our politics, economy, and culture for years to come. That is, if they are not stopped and reversed (which seems increasingly likely). All of which makes discussions about German tanks, the Constitution, rights, responsibilities, and Trad clothing on this forum, irrelevant.


sorry, people said the same thing when the wave of immigrants stopped being english and started being irish and german, and then the same thing when it was italian and jewish. and certainly the same thing when it started to be porto rican.

sure, I am nowhere near being innocent of xenophobia, and deep down I am not as innocent of racism as I would like to be. but the very reason for the nation of the US is tied up with the acceptance of all who want freedom and to pursue happiness.

tell me that you are unhappy that some of the immigrants are not embrasin american values, and I will agree and suggest that we work at pushing them more into american education. but please don't suggest that we have to much immigration from people who are different - because the US has always had that.


----------



## Old Brompton (Jan 15, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by globetrotter_
> sure, I am nowhere near being innocent of xenophobia, and deep down I am not as innocent of racism as I would like to be. but the very reason for the nation of the US is tied up with the acceptance of all who want freedom and to pursue happiness.
> 
> tell me that you are unhappy that some of the immigrants are not embrasin american values, and I will agree and suggest that we work at pushing them more into american education. but please don't suggest that we have to much immigration from people who are different - because the US has always had that.


Actually, the wholesale importation of Third World populations into the US is a relatively recent phenomenon, starting in 1965. And just because, as you say, "the US has always had that" (I disagree, but I'll let it slide for now), doesn't mean it should continue. I mean, when does the statute of limitations on mass immigration expire? Is there a limit to the number of immigrants the country can, or should, accept? I suggest we start from there.


----------



## bosthist (Apr 4, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Old Brompton_
> 
> Actually, the wholesale importation of Third World populations into the US is a relatively recent phenomenon, starting in 1965.


Well, you know, except for African slaves who were _literally_ imported and wholesaled beginning in the 1600s. But what is 300 or so years in the grand scheme of things?


----------



## rws (May 30, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Old Brompton_
> . . . . Is there a limit to the number of immigrants the country can, or should, accept? I suggest we start from there.


I'm well acquainted with one of the founders of the scientific study of ecology. Some years ago, when I pressed him for a definite number, he with reluctance suggested that the maximum sustainable carrying capacity of the United States might be about a hundred and fifty million people. We're about double that now.


----------



## Old Brompton (Jan 15, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by bosthist_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Good point. Of course, relatively few Africans were imported into North America. The vast majority were sent to the Caribbean and South America. Still, the presence of a small African population in North America does not require the presence of billions of additional Africans, Asians, and Latin Americans. It simply does not follow. After all race relations in the US have been far from peaceful. The last thing we should do is import more of these people into our country. I suppose the question is, do Americans today have the right to determine the origin, make-up, and quality of potential immigrants?


----------



## cufflink44 (Oct 31, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Old Brompton_
> Of course, relatively few Africans were imported into North America. The vast majority were sent to the Caribbean and South America. Still, the presence of a small African population in North America does not require the presence of billions of additional Africans, Asians, and Latin Americans. It simply does not follow. After all race relations in the US have been far from peaceful. The last thing we should do is import more of these people into our country. I suppose the question is, do Americans today have the right to determine the *origin, make-up, and quality of potential immigrants*? [emphasis added]


I see. And who, I wonder, is going to sit on the Board to Determine Immigrant Quality? Might one of the members be Old Brompton, perhaps?

I'd love to be a fly on the wall as you're reviewing applications and choosing between a Welsh miner, a Pakistani engineer, and a Peruvian schoolteacher.

"What do you say, fellows? Dylan, Mohammad, or Carlos?"

Uncontrollable, hysterical laughter ensues. Tears stream down faces. Knees are slapped.

"Old boy, you'll be the death of me!"

"How do you say Reject in Urdu?"

"In Spanish, it's You No Come-o Here-o!"

Decorum finally returns.

"Seriously though, gents, ensuring immigrant quality is no laughing matter. This is vital work we're doing."

"I lift my glass to People Like Us. May the gates be ever open to you."

"And closed to worthless third-world scum!"

"Here, here."

After port and cigars, the Board adjourns, as the members return to their lily-white wives and children and their not-so-white Mexican maids.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All non-trivial zeroes of the zeta function have real part one-half. Or maybe not.


----------



## tiger02 (Dec 12, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Old Brompton_
> 
> Good point. Of course, relatively few Africans were imported into North America. The vast majority were sent to the Caribbean and South America. Still, the presence of a small African population in North America does not require the presence of billions of additional Africans, Asians, and Latin Americans. It simply does not follow. After all race relations in the US have been far from peaceful. The last thing we should do is import more of these people into our country. I suppose the question is, do Americans today have the right to determine the origin, make-up, and quality of potential immigrants?


Yes, of course if there had been a lot of Africans, and if their descendents were worth anything, they'd be a majority by now, right! But instead our country is full of billions of other dark-skinned people! I've seen them, they're after my daughter!

What disgusting hatemongering.

Tom


----------



## bosthist (Apr 4, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Old Brompton_
> 
> Good point. Of course, relatively few Africans were imported into North America. The vast majority were sent to the Caribbean and South America. Still, the presence of a small African population in North America does not require the presence of billions of additional Africans, Asians, and Latin Americans. It simply does not follow. After all race relations in the US have been far from peaceful. The last thing we should do is import more of these people into our country. I suppose the question is, do Americans today have the right to determine the origin, make-up, and quality of potential immigrants?


I'm no sure how one can assess the number as "relatively few". I suppose when compared to Brazil and the Indies it is relatively few, but mortality rates were much higher in those places which meant continued importation was necessary. Within the present United State, New England had relatively few Africans, in the South, the number was so high that the black African population of South Carolina was double that of the white population in 1720.

The "immigrants are hard to assimilate" argument has been around forever. In the mid 18th century, English speaking Pennsylvanians constantly complained about German immigrants who refused to assimilate--they had their German language newspapers, churches etc. The influx of Irish in the 1840s brought about the Nativist and Know-Nothing movements. Much effort was spent in the late 1800s "proving" that Eastern European Jews and southern Mediterranean immigrants were intellectually inferior, prone to crime, and impossible to educate. Finally, the United States shut off almost all immigration in 1924.

Besides, the United States already does determine the origin, make-up, and quality of potential immigrants, apparently just not in a manner of which you approve.


----------



## Rich (Jul 10, 2005)

The figures are interesting:

Brazil:

White 53.7% 
Mixed race 38.5% 
Black 6.2% 
Asian 0.5% 
Amerindian 0.4% 
Unspecified 0.7%


USA: 

White 81.7%
Mixed race 2.4% 
Black 12.9% 
Asian 4.2%
American Indian 1.5%
Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander 0.2% 

The Black population in Brazil is being assimilated by mixed marriage (or interbreeding, anyway). This has not been the case in the US.

Hispanics, although technically "White", are often counted separately in the US statistics, of course (14.1%).


----------



## rws (May 30, 2004)

These figures are inaccurate, Rich; perhaps just seriously out-of-date. Many of the "white" Brazilians are of mixed ancestry: because of marked (mostly social) discrimination, a light-skinned Brazilian will classify himself as white despite a black or brown grandparent. To a lesser extent, something similar occurs in the United States; and few of the "Hispanics" are chiefly of Spanish descent but, more likely, are descended from Mexican or other Indians.

All in all, racial blending and acceptance has progressed quite far in the United States over the past two generations, and I expect it'll progress further. Vitriol, however, is not a blending agent.


----------



## Patrick06790 (Apr 10, 2005)

Miles Davis took a lot of guff for hiring Lee Konitz, an alto sax man who was white. ("Birth of the Cool" era.)

Davis said something along these lines: "I don't care if he's purple and has green breath - the man can play."

Not an exact quote, but you get the idea.


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Old Brompton_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


the whole concept of the 3rd world is relativly new. what you are saying, pure and simple, is that brown people are different, is that right?

each and every wave of immigration has been disliked by the wave or two that came before. sure, the immigrants from the 3rd world are different, but in many cases they are adding a great deal to america. in some cases, less, but that will pass in time.

closing the gates on immigration will destroy one of the main points about what is good in america.


----------



## Rich (Jul 10, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by rws_
> 
> These figures are inaccurate, Rich; perhaps just seriously out-of-date. Many of the "white" Brazilians are of mixed ancestry: because of marked (mostly social) discrimination, a light-skinned Brazilian will classify himself as white despite a black or brown grandparent. To a lesser extent, something similar occurs in the United States; and few of the "Hispanics" are chiefly of Spanish descent but, more likely, are descended from Mexican or other Indians.
> 
> All in all, racial blending and acceptance has progressed quite far in the United States over the past two generations, and I expect it'll progress further. Vitriol, however, is not a blending agent.


These figures are probably old, yes, and I agree that how people classify themselves is socially determined. But it's interesting to see that "mixed race" is a large category in Brazil, but a tiny category in the US. This suggests that Brazilians are readier to consider themselves as belonging to this category than Americans. Yet it is obvious to any outside observer that a large proportion of "Black" Americans are in fact of mixed race - and a large proportion of "Hispanics" too, of course, but they are classified as "White", not "mixed race". Confusing. All this suggests that the whole concept of ethnicity is very wobbly.


----------



## tiger02 (Dec 12, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Rich_
> the whole concept of ethnicity is very wobbly.


Bingo


----------



## J. Homely (Feb 7, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by cufflink44_
> I see. And who, I wonder, is going to sit on the Board to Determine Immigrant Quality? [
> 
> [...snipped...]
> ...


Ha!


----------



## J. Homely (Feb 7, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by Rich_
> 
> All this suggests that the whole concept of ethnicity is very wobbly.


But character is often clear enough.


----------



## Rich (Jul 10, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by rws_
> 
> One might have credited the immigrants with enough reflexion to recognize that the financial prosperity they desire is neither satisfying nor broadly sustainable without acceptance of the underpinning principles.


Unfortunately, being poor and uneducated, a lot of them really think it's going to be just like home (religion, customs, social and family structures, etc.) but with less work and more money. The older ones are simply unable to adapt.


----------



## J. Homely (Feb 7, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by globetrotter_
> 
> closing the gates on immigration will destroy one of the main points about what is good in america.


That even the middle class can afford domestic help?


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by mikeber_
> 
> What happened to US?


An arrogant, elitist, unaccountable federal Judiciary which rarely, if ever, finds a use of federal power unconstitutional and rarely fails to find some issue which does not require constitutional scrutiny. The reason federal courts and especially Supreme Court appointments are so controversial and scrutinized in the last 30 or so years is because the judiciary is now our Uber-legislature. Back when judges were mere judges and not dictating social/public policy, Senators could let 'em slide - after all, how much power did a judge have, how much damage could he do? Now that portions of the population rely on courts to dictate aspects of social/public policy that could rarely be ratified in a popularly elected legislature, a judge is a very important personage, indeed.

The first step to real reform would be to give federal judges a fixed term of service - 16 years, or their earlier death, disability, or resignation. After your term is over, you go back to the real world, your highness - no, reappointments - thanks for your service - NEXT! The Founders, so insightful and knowledgeable in so many ways, greatly underestimated the power of the judiciary - of course, the Court didn't assert its modern "constitutional" role until the late 1940s, or so.


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by J. Homely_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


although that is important too, I was refering to the constant flow of new blood.


----------



## Duane Gran (Jan 14, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by petro_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I ascribe more to the view of former President Eisenhower who declared that every armament we built was a lost opportunity to build a hospital or school to serve the public. Conflict is necessary some times, but there is a reasonable argument to be made that our social programs are a more effective use of our common wealth.


----------



## Lord Foppington (Feb 1, 2005)

The period of true American "greatness" began in the years leading up to WWII and persists unto today, if you mean by "greatness" prominence in, then dominance over, world affairs. No one else even comes close militarily or economically.

It amuses me to find posters here nostalgic for the good old days before taxes and bureacracy took over, the days of the Interstate Highway System! And before that, good old libertarian FDR.

The difference these days with Iraq et al. is that people still want all these big things done, but on the cheap. I want the world's biggest military, but I really don't want to pay taxes either. 

The attitude goes right to the top. People accuse GWB of reversing himself when first he said "No nation building!" and then decided to invade Iraq to build a democracy there (--a retrospective justification, really, but the only one that stuck). But it's not that simple.

His adminstration still wants to do things on the cheap. But they also think they can be idealistic world-shapers too. Let's transform a country, but let's not put enough troops on the ground to stop looting when the government falls. And you go on from there. 

So my answer to the question at the top is this. We want just as much stuff (economic influence, military power, consumer goods, oil, social services) as we ever did, if not more. We just don't want to pay for it--in taxes, in troops' lives, in self-sacrifice, in service to our society.

Stap my vitals!


----------

