Originally Posted by B Butler

I hope you don't intend to educate him, one word at a time?

Different subcultures have different dialects, use words in different ways, value different things and take pride in different behaviors that mark them as being members of a given group. I get that you consider your subculture superior to his. Depending on how one defines or measures 'superior', perhaps you could defend such an assertion.

Subcultures typically want certain aspects of their communication clear to others. The overt part is typically "Respect us". The secretive stuff tends to slip out inconveniently. CXr isn't part of any clear subculture as, for an infamous example, MS-13 is.

I don't see myself as part of any subculture, either. Bad grammar and incompetent word choice simply offend my sensibilities.

But dissing someone else's subculture is of limited utility, even if it is based on economics rather than, say, race, religion or region of origin.

You gotta do what you gotta do, but tread softly.

True. But all in all, language needs to be used precisely. It makes us human. If one is to break the rules to make a point -- fine.

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

Beats me. Cynic could even be Ann McCaffrey for all I know.


Prince

Unlikely. She's been dead for nearly 4 years.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

True. But all in all, language needs to be used precisely. It makes us human. If one is to break the rules to make a point -- fine.

I could easily believe this to be an important part of your core values and of many people's core values. Do you think it Universally core to all humans? Would you expect it to be part of his core? How constructive is it to condemn one man by another man's values?

Get rid of the electoral college and abolish the judicial branch and merge various parts of said branch's function with the executive and legislative branches. The executive branch should be free to make laws on its own accord except that when it is overruled by the legislative branch. If a law is passed by the executive branch it automatically becomes law except if an aforementioned overrule occurs. If an overrule occurs and its confirmed, the president cannot veto it (the presidential veto would be abolished). This would make the government much faster and much more efficient.

Originally Posted by B Butler

I could easily believe this to be an important part of your core values and of many people's core values. Do you think it Universally core to all humans? Would you expect it to be part of his core? How constructive is it to condemn one man by another man's values?

Unless one intends to confuse others deliberately, misuse of language only hurts one.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

Get rid of the electoral college and abolish the judicial branch and merge various parts of said branch's function with the executive and legislative branches. The executive branch should be free to make laws on its own accord except that when it is overruled by the legislative branch. If a law is passed by the executive branch it automatically becomes law except if an aforementioned overrule occurs. If an overrule occurs and its confirmed, the president cannot veto it (the presidential veto would be abolished). This would make the government much faster and much more efficient.

It would seem that if the "executive" controls one house, he would effectively become a dictator, able to unilaterally pass and enforce laws. I would disagree with this on two points. Effective government requires more checks on the powers of the elites at this point, not less. At this point I'd be looking for more checks and balances, not destroying what checks we have.

Your approach above would also allow a total rewrite of the US Code every time the executive branch changes hands. While in theory the Congress is supposed to be majority rule, in practice the process of rewriting old law is tedious with the minority able to delay or prevent a lot of stuff. If both parties and both houses of Congress have to agree in order to block the executive, wholesale rewrite of the law of the land would be likely. Also, the executive could likely rewrite his changes faster than the Congress could veto him. Looks like a formula for chaos.

Still, you do touch upon a common theme in Agricultural Age values. The only time in an autocratic system that one would expect victory and plenty would be when there is a very strong autocrat in charge. When they were leading Saddam to the gallows one of the guards yelled "you killed us". He responded that he had saved them. In a sense he was right. By autocratic values, he was right. How many people died or were displaced when Bush 43 destabilized the region? Saddam may have kept a lid on the various tribal, religious and political pressure cookers the only possible way... by brutal repression. We are still trying to get the lids back on the pressure cookers.

Autocratic government requires strong autocrats to work well. Your list a few messages back provides examples of strong autocrats. There were more weak ones than strong ones. However, Saddam's style of repression through death, torture and intimidation is representative of what it takes to be a strong autocrat. Strong autocrats require organizations like the Gestapo or Inquisition.

No thank you.

Again, you are allowed to daydream, but I don't see a constitutional convention and a supermajority of the states agreeing with you any time soon.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Unless one intends to confuse others deliberately, misuse of language only hurts one.

Insistance on proper etiquette, language and manners was an is a tool of the elites to keep the not-one-of-us down. The British at the time of Upstairs Downstairs and Downton Abbey. were masters of it. Some of the "lower" subcultures responded and still respond with pride in dialects and slang and a resentment of the uppity (expletive deleted). While the class system is no where near what it once was, Freshman English and similar mannerism practices are a remnant. My engineering school didn't bother with it.

To me, you seem more interested in keeping people down, in maintaining smug superiority, than in communicating. You are not going to be able to force your language and culture on everybody. Repeating how superior you are isn't apt to help. Yes, clear language helps communication, but you seem more interested in a status snit contest than communicating. If you wished to communicate, you'd be listening for what he meant to say rather than trying to remake him into your image.

Not that I'm having much luck communicating, myself. Attempting to talk history and politics rather than language isn't drawing a rational response, either.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

The Baby Boomers are the only generation that really believes in corporate free-trade globalism. S&H were/are so far are wrong about the boomers curtailing their greed in order to be able to rally the country. So far they appear to be in a rush to establish an authoritarian system in which political power is determined largely by money accompanied by a heavy "status quo bias". They appear to be doing this before millies and later homies fully awaken politically because they know those generations would never willingly support the policies the boomers elites like.

It's disappointing--but hardly surprising. The Missionary Generation produced the "Tribal 20s" in THEIR stewardship, a revived Ku Klux Klan and three bad Presidents (Harding, Coolidge and Hoover) before a great President, Roosevelt. And Roosevelt would have gotten nowhere with Congress if the Great Depression hadn't lasted as long as it did before he was elected. Roosevelt had one thing going for him that any current Baby Boomer presidential candidate (even Jim Webb) dosen't. There were some obvious alternative social and political systems (Naziism, Soviet Communism) that were seen as viable alternatives by many Americans at the time and frightened the plutocrats of the time a lot more than what Roosevelt was proposing did. So in the end, they went along Roosevelt.
Wheras Barack Obama is in the position of a sheep dog trying to describe wolves to a flock of sheep that have never seen a wolf. When Obama told business leaders that "it's me or the pitchforks", they flatly did not believe him and set out to stop him at every turn and basically just reboot the previous economy. Wealthy yuppie Baby Boomers came of age hearing Margaret Thatcher crow that "there is no alternative" to liberal, free market capitalism (apparently vindicated by the fall of the Soviet Union)--which they still believe, never having experienced any reason not to. If anything, probably a sizeable majority of Baby Boomers see the 60s as something to atone for and prevent from ever happening again. This is not a recipe for questioning free trade globalism even if it is breaking down.

Or for that matter, if we MUST have free trade, building unions across national borders. Why shouldn't for instance, Volkswagen workers be represented by AG Metall (or AG Metall incorporate the United Auto Workers). It stands to reason that a "scratch one, we all bleed" approach to union organising that organises workers as workers rather than American workers would be something that management would have a harder time shoving aside. It was the prospect of striking workers in Europe that finally brought UPS to the bargaining table with it's workers after all in UPS's last major strike.

Originally Posted by B Butler

It would seem that if the "executive" controls one house, he would effectively become a dictator, able to unilaterally pass and enforce laws. I would disagree with this on two points. Effective government requires more checks on the powers of the elites at this point, not less. At this point I'd be looking for more checks and balances, not destroying what checks we have.

Your approach above would also allow a total rewrite of the US Code every time the executive branch changes hands. While in theory the Congress is supposed to be majority rule, in practice the process of rewriting old law is tedious with the minority able to delay or prevent a lot of stuff. If both parties and both houses of Congress have to agree in order to block the executive, wholesale rewrite of the law of the land would be likely. Also, the executive could likely rewrite his changes faster than the Congress could veto him. Looks like a formula for chaos.

Still, you do touch upon a common theme in Agricultural Age values. The only time in an autocratic system that one would expect victory and plenty would be when there is a very strong autocrat in charge. When they were leading Saddam to the gallows one of the guards yelled "you killed us". He responded that he had saved them. In a sense he was right. By autocratic values, he was right. How many people died or were displaced when Bush 43 destabilized the region? Saddam may have kept a lid on the various tribal, religious and political pressure cookers the only possible way... by brutal repression. We are still trying to get the lids back on the pressure cookers.

Autocratic government requires strong autocrats to work well. Your list a few messages back provides examples of strong autocrats. There were more weak ones than strong ones. However, Saddam's style of repression through death, torture and intimidation is representative of what it takes to be a strong autocrat. Strong autocrats require organizations like the Gestapo or Inquisition.

No thank you.

Again, you are allowed to daydream, but I don't see a constitutional convention and a supermajority of the states agreeing with you any time soon.

A constitutional convention, if we ever get one will likely be the prelude to an inability to agree and a breakup of the US into two or more successor nations. Hopefully peacefully.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

Unlikely. She's been dead for nearly 4 years.

<chuckle!>

Aggh! I thought that name looked familiar.


Prince

PS: I guess now I'll have to go brush-up on
my knowledge of fantasy-romance writers!

Originally Posted by B Butler

... Not that I'm having much luck communicating, myself. ...

Sure you do, Bob. IMO, you're like the least offensive of the male-Boomers
that post on this message-board(sans 'the JPT-incident', of course. )

But, generally-speaking, I'd say you're on the right track. As far as I'm concerned,
if the 'communication-process' is broken, it really doesn't matter what message is
being attempted to be conveyed. I'd say you do a pretty decent enough job.


Prince

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

It's disappointing--but hardly surprising. The Missionary Generation produced the "Tribal 20s" in THEIR stewardship, a revived Ku Klux Klan and three bad Presidents (Harding, Coolidge and Hoover) before a great President, Roosevelt. And Roosevelt would have gotten nowhere with Congress if the Great Depression hadn't lasted as long as it did before he was elected.

The economic meltdowns from the peaks of 1929 and 2007 were similar in cause and (within a year and a half) severity. For about 100 market days in early 1931 and early 2009 the blue and gray curves are practically overlays. Then something happens: the gray curve keeps going down to absolutely-horrible depths, and the blue curve shows a recovery. People elected FDR and Obama to refute the economic calamity that they saw happening. Both offered liberal solutions that refuted the economic policies of all-for-the-few government that saw itself as the facilitator of prosperity through greater economic inequality. Both would get solid results early in their administrations.

The difference? Obama was elected when people feared a nasty recession becoming a new Great Depression, in the equivalent of the late autumn of 1930. FDR was elected about as things could not get worse. Obama was able to press for economic reforms that ended the meltdown after a year and a half -- but when economic elites had not been mauled so badly that they couldn't strike back. FDR took over when the economic elites had been cut to size after three years of destruction of the economy.

Of course, one gigantic difference was a Depression-era reform: insurance upon bank deposits that guaranteed that bank failures would not cause the destructive bank runs that practically destroyed the banking system and destroyed savings and business deposits (that met payrolls and accounts payable) that allowed people to hold jobs. After the early part of 1931 the bank runs brought one disaster after another; nothing of the sort happened in 2009.

By 2010 Barack Obama had saved capitalism -- but he also saved the economic interests that faulted Dubya for not being plutocratic enough. For them, no human suffering is excessive if it churns a profit, whether such implies the impoverishment of the middle class, the annihilation of competition by small business, the reduction of the middle class to poverty, environmental wreckage, the destruction of liberal politics, the reduction of workers to serfs, and even wars for profit. The American Master Class comprising big landowners, tycoons and financiers, and the executive elite operates largely in political lockstep; ideologically it is little different from the plutocrats who bankrolled Hitler because he would destroy such power as working people had in the economy and in politics. The Master Class may not be raging fascists, but they would surely prefer hunger to consumer goodies as incentives for productivity in the workplace.

The Tea Party is in its way the equivalent of the Business Coup planned to overthrow FDR -- except that the Tea Party succeeded by gutting the power of the President.

Roosevelt had one thing going for him that any current Baby Boomer presidential candidate (even Jim Webb) dosen't. There were some obvious alternative social and political systems (Naziism, Soviet Communism) that were seen as viable alternatives by many Americans at the time and frightened the plutocrats of the time a lot more than what Roosevelt was proposing did. So in the end, they went along Roosevelt.

To the contrary there is an alternative -- a reversion to the Gilded Age, a return to those wonderful days of brutal management with no regulation of workplace safety or environmental destruction, a time in which industrial workers toiled 70 hours a week and got a 40-year life expectancy instead of the 40-hour workweek and a 70-year life expectancy that Americans have had as a norm since the 1930s. American elites want what B Butler calls a hybrid of the command-and-control structures of the Agrarian Age with the high technology of modernity, which implies such monstrosities as Hitler, Stalin, Tojo, Franco, Mao, the Kim dynasty, Assad, the Apartheid regime of South Africa, and the nasty military regimes of South America in the 1970s and 1980s. Such a hybrid is in some ways worse than the Agrarian Age. The ideals of the American and French Revolutions occurred when America and France were still in the Agrarian Age. The Old Order Amish, who have largely rejected the ways of technological indulgence, at the least have no exploitative bureaucracy and no garish displays of material excess.

Whereas Barack Obama is in the position of a sheep dog trying to describe wolves to a flock of sheep that have never seen a wolf. When Obama told business leaders that "it's me or the pitchforks", they flatly did not believe him and set out to stop him at every turn and basically just reboot the previous economy. Wealthy yuppie Baby Boomers came of age hearing Margaret Thatcher crow that "there is no alternative" to liberal, free market capitalism (apparently vindicated by the fall of the Soviet Union)--which they still believe, never having experienced any reason not to. If anything, probably a sizable majority of Baby Boomers see the 60s as something to atone for and prevent from ever happening again. This is not a recipe for questioning free trade globalism even if it is breaking down.

We have seen the ugliest aspects of plutocracy get expression in American politics that shouts down all else. I do not expect 'our' economic elites to ever develop any conscience. Economic indulgence fosters narcissism and cruelty. The myth of rugged individualism allows people to laugh at the idea of elites demand of us all, "Suffer for my greed and indulgence, you peons!" with "I am not a peon!" even if the economic order can transform workers into serfs unable to resist the demands of their self-proclaimed betters.

American elites offer the economics of fascism without the torture chambers and shooting pits so long as we accept our subordinate and impoverished roles. We are not to contest a 'strong' foreign policy that guarantees aggressive wars for profit. We are to accept cartels and trusts to know what is best for us. The elites allow some veneer of constitutional democracy so long as the right-wing elites get permanent dominance. We are to accept that the Enlightenment-Age concept that happiness is the expression of a wholesome and productive life is now obsolete. So believe what FoX Propaganda Channel tells you, and accept that politicians like Scott Walker, Joni Ernst, and Tom Cotton are the wave of the future. In return the televangelists tell us that for suffering for American elites we will get Pie-in-the-Sky-When-We-Die.

Such is a raw deal, and if we are to have any dignity or happiness we must reject it.

The current political parties are not governing by the consent of the governed. What I'm proposing is that the popular will dictates policy. Government does not have the right to suppress the will of the people. The masses should dictate what the government's does, GOVERNMENT FOR THE PEOPLE BY THE PEOPLE.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

The current political parties are not governing by the consent of the governed. What I'm proposing is that the popular will dictates policy. Government does not have the right to suppress the will of the people. The masses should dictate what the government's does, GOVERNMENT FOR THE PEOPLE BY THE PEOPLE.

Even a lynch mob operates on the principle of a majority decision. That's why we have a Constitution.

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

Sure you do, Bob. IMO, you're like the least offensive of the male-Boomers
that post on this message-board(sans 'the JPT-incident', of course. )

Prince

Silent : TnT [by default] Haven't heard from Croakmore?
Boom : Bob
Xer : tie Copperfield/Classic Xer
Millie : Chas'88


-------------------------------------------------------------
Most quarrelsome

Silent : TnT [by default]
Boom : Eric [our forever flower child]
Xer : Vandal'72
Millie : Cynic Hero

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

...
Boom : Bob ...

On second thought, I think it's Tim Walker.


Prince

PS: So, I'll say Bob is the second least-offensive
male-Boomer on the message-board.

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

Sure you do, Bob. IMO, you're like the least offensive of the male-Boomers
that post on this message-board(sans 'the JPT-incident', of course. )

But, generally-speaking, I'd say you're on the right track. As far as I'm concerned,
if the 'communication-process' is broken, it really doesn't matter what message is
being attempted to be conveyed. I'd say you do a pretty decent enough job.


Prince

As far as Democratic cronies go, Bob is much more respectful and much better at communicating with people who are different than the typical liberal crowd.

Originally Posted by B Butler

It would seem that if the "executive" controls one house, he would effectively become a dictator, able to unilaterally pass and enforce laws. I would disagree with this on two points. Effective government requires more checks on the powers of the elites at this point, not less. At this point I'd be looking for more checks and balances, not destroying what checks we have.

Your approach above would also allow a total rewrite of the US Code every time the executive branch changes hands. While in theory the Congress is supposed to be majority rule, in practice the process of rewriting old law is tedious with the minority able to delay or prevent a lot of stuff. If both parties and both houses of Congress have to agree in order to block the executive, wholesale rewrite of the law of the land would be likely. Also, the executive could likely rewrite his changes faster than the Congress could veto him. Looks like a formula for chaos.

Still, you do touch upon a common theme in Agricultural Age values. The only time in an autocratic system that one would expect victory and plenty would be when there is a very strong autocrat in charge. When they were leading Saddam to the gallows one of the guards yelled "you killed us". He responded that he had saved them. In a sense he was right. By autocratic values, he was right. How many people died or were displaced when Bush 43 destabilized the region? Saddam may have kept a lid on the various tribal, religious and political pressure cookers the only possible way... by brutal repression. We are still trying to get the lids back on the pressure cookers.

Autocratic government requires strong autocrats to work well. Your list a few messages back provides examples of strong autocrats. There were more weak ones than strong ones. However, Saddam's style of repression through death, torture and intimidation is representative of what it takes to be a strong autocrat. Strong autocrats require organizations like the Gestapo or Inquisition.

No thank you.

Again, you are allowed to daydream, but I don't see a constitutional convention and a supermajority of the states agreeing with you any time soon.

You have to understand and be familiar with the concept of a merit based system. A merit based system would not allow advancement via affirmative action or political connections or financial contribution. You have to actually have the ability and prove abilities by accomplishing and achieving goals on your own or with a group in order to achieve higher levels in society and government. In other words, a pure American based system. A nation of independents. A nation that has no political parties, no political cronies, no community organizers in a position to lead it, no political corruption controlling it or holding it back and no unnatural forms of advancement to place incompetent people in position of making huge mistakes resulting in mass failures that impact everyone but themselves financially like we have now. Ask yourself this question, how many of the initial steps and how much of the system is already in place and how much of the population identifies with it and prefers it over the system that's widely considered to be in place?

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Subcultures typically want certain aspects of their communication clear to others. The overt part is typically "Respect us". The secretive stuff tends to slip out inconveniently. CXr isn't part of any clear subculture as, for an infamous example, MS-13 is.

I don't see myself as part of any subculture, either. Bad grammar and incompetent word choice simply offend my sensibilities.



True. But all in all, language needs to be used precisely. It makes us human. If one is to break the rules to make a point -- fine.

You'd be wise to shut your mouth and learn to speak more precisely and not apply inaccurate statements and add to the definitions of a known term and falsely accuse and associate someone that you don't know personally and don't speak on a phone or in person and aren't associated with personally with those that you identify with and obviously despise and look down upon in your own world. You don't get or understand people who are associated with pride and integrity and possess a higher sense of pride and integrity. I singled out and defeated your group a long time ago with the help of a few new Xr friends . You are a remnant of a group that was rejected and disbanded a long time ago. If you read the definition of crony and accept its meaning as you presented then you are a crony based on that definition.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

You have to understand and be familiar with the concept of a merit based system. A merit based system would not allow advancement via affirmative action or political connections or financial contribution. You have to actually have the ability and prove abilities by accomplishing and achieving goals on your own or with a group in order to achieve higher levels in society and government. In other words, a pure American based system. A nation of independents. A nation that has no political parties, no political cronies, no community organizers in a position to lead it, no political corruption controlling it or holding it back and no unnatural forms of advancement to place incompetent people in position of making huge mistakes resulting in mass failures that impact everyone but themselves financially like we have now. Ask yourself this question, how many of the initial steps and how much of the system is already in place and how much of the population identifies with it and prefers it over the system that's widely considered to be in place?

Now that's a nice daydream. I could wish for a world that worked like that easily. Unfortunately, I haven't found any genie's lamps or rings of three wishes lately.

"A pure American based system?" "A nation of independents. A nation that has no political parties, no political cronies, no community organizers in a position to lead it, no political corruption controlling it or holding it back and no unnatural forms of advancement to place incompetent people in position of making huge mistakes resulting in mass failures that impact everyone but themselves financially like we have now." Now tell me, really, are you describing the America of today or the America of any point in her past? Well, maybe in the immediate aftermath of the Revolution there was something almost like that. The Founding Fathers were wrapped in the Enlightenment. They were much more idealistic than those who followed them. Still, the Federalists and Anti-Federalists were going at it way way back.

The reality is that if you can't use the word 'crony' properly, you can't become one. The urge to form peer groups and to strive for a dominant position within the peer group is very very human. Well, not just human. Lots of social animals have pecking orders, alphas and other traits that are both the backbone and the bane of human social systems. Humans are political animals. Humans will form groups, scratch the backs of their cronies, and expect them to scratch their backs.

It is said that the Mississippi legislature once passed a bill declaring that pi would no longer be 3.14159... It would be three. (It is not true that all wheels in the state immediately transformed to hexagons.) To declare that humans shall not form groups which help each other out would be roughly as futile as trying to change the value of pi.

What might be done is to give one group the ability to check the power of another other that is abusing power. In this case the general electorate ought to be able to block the elite from influencing politicians unduly. This might be possible. Currently, progressive voters hate and distrust conservative politicians, and conservative voters hate and distrust progressive politicians. The shift required would be to have all voters hate politicians who practice corrupt cronyism.

When the Great Depression hit, FDR was governor of New York. He immediately implemented a dry run of the New Deal at the state level. This put him in a great place to run for president and implement a full scale Crisis level transformation of the country.

I agree with you entirely that a lot of voters are very very fed up. It should not be impossible to do something similar to what FDR did, but focused primarily against cronyism. One needs a set of ideals, a practical agenda, and an opportunity to make the agenda work. There is enough awareness of just how broken the system is for such a transformation to take place.

What there isn't is enough blatant dysfunction for voters to consider changing their views of the world from hating the opposite political party to hating crony politicians. People do not reevaluate their way of looking at the world lightly. The problems in the country have not become severe enough for people to let go of their existing ways of looking at politics.

Anyway, after a bunch of arguments for Restoree government, you stumbled on one I can almost grab onto and chase. I don't think you are wording it well. I don't think you will be able to sell militaristic government modeled on Agricultural Age emperors or generals. That isn't American and is too far from the current Red or Blue world views to attract a critical mass.

Still, you have seen seeds of the same frustration and anger that I've seen.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

You have to understand and be familiar with the concept of a merit based system. A merit based system would not allow advancement via affirmative action or political connections or financial contribution. You have to actually have the ability and prove abilities by accomplishing and achieving goals on your own or with a group in order to achieve higher levels in society and government. In other words, a pure American based system. A nation of independents. A nation that has no political parties, no political cronies, no community organizers in a position to lead it, no political corruption controlling it or holding it back and no unnatural forms of advancement to place incompetent people in position of making huge mistakes resulting in mass failures that impact everyone but themselves financially like we have now. Ask yourself this question, how many of the initial steps and how much of the system is already in place and how much of the population identifies with it and prefers it over the system that's widely considered to be in place?

It is an interesting ideal to consider. Competent people in charge is a natural preference, and worthwhile to aim for. Mistakes have been made recently by powerful people that have not themselves had to reap the consequences of their actions, but have impacted everyone else. That is correct, especially in the fields of banking and finance as well as international affairs.

I consider it a somewhat utopian ideal, myself. I don't think it can exist without spiritual advancement of the sort we have not yet achieved or attempted, or are even especially interested in (we meaning Americans generally). There are some people who are advancing, but it is a small minority. Absent that, politics remains necessary, with all its potential faults such as corruption and cronies. And alliances naturally form as soon as politics commences; coalitions needed to win votes. Such was the case in the American and French Revolutions. "Left" and "Right" appeared, and have remained with us. So, political parties exist.

So within our system, in order to move it toward competence, the best we are going to do is to choose the best political party. Today that would be the Democrats, unless the Greens become more viable. That's not enough; we must also choose honest, ethical politicians. Politicians of any party may fall short of this.

However, choosing the correct party and the best politicians is not enough either. An engaged citizenry is needed to keep the politicians honest, and progressive.

We are and cannot be a nation of independents. We are all mutually dependent on each other. We can be individuals, by taking responsibility as fully as we can, including the responsibility to be informed and to contribute to others and society. There is no reason to hold a "pure American system" as the ideal. We are part of the world, and all cultures and peoples are making the world. But many American ideals are worthwhile, generally-speaking.

So we need to get our ideals straight, and to know the truth. In our world, three revolutions have been transforming the planet for 300 years. The way forward is to join in with those movements; to keep them honest and genuinely progressive and liberating, but not to go backwards and undo them. The three revolutions must build one on the other, in sequence: democratic, socialist, green. That is the way forward to a society that works today.

You seek "competence" in our leadership, as I read your question.

As I see it, competence in this respect means 1) someone who is well-educated, and skilled in dealing and communicating with people. This implies an education system that creates opportunities for all to advance and learn these skills. A meritocracy will not develop from a pre-selected, privileged group. Teaching to tests and privatization are not solutions; creative approaches and involvement are. It would mean leaders that are less corruptible. Character development would seem to be needed too for that, even though we don't typically supply it yet (that would involve first and foremost a spiritual emphasis).

2) It means the ability to make the right decisions. The right decisions are those that are in the best interest of all the people. Consequently, it means the ability to act and decide in the national interest, instead of just your own or your group's. It means the ability to be informed, and to understand the ideas of governing and policy and what happens historically when they have been applied. It means ability to see what is needed in the country today. It means the ability to let go of rigid ideologies, and instead make decisions based on concern, fact, compassion, imaginative vision, and interest in the advancement of the country and the world. A successful "meritocracy" would result in such leadership.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

Silent : TnT [by default] Haven't heard from Croakmore?
Boom : Bob
Xer : tie Copperfield/Classic Xer

I dissent!

Millie : Chas'88


-------------------------------------------------------------
Most quarrelsome

Silent : TnT [by default]
Boom : Eric [our forever flower child]

I dissent! Flower children are not quarrelsome!

Xer : Vandal'72
Millie : Cynic Hero

Hint hint: quarreling with vandal does not imply being quarrelsome! Remember that, Mr. Nordic.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I dissent!

I dissent! Flower children are not quarrelsome!

I would disagree. I remember a big quarrel between the flower children and the Military Industrial Complex, every racist in the South, and Richard Nixon. The flower children lived in an ugly world, demanded change, and to a great degree got it. They would speak of Peace, Love and Rock n Roll. They often genuinely wanted it, but they had an agenda, and if you got in their way they were in your face big time.

If I had my way
If I had my way in this wicked world
If I had my way I would tear this building down

I consider this to be a feature, not a bug. It was right for the time.

You too have strong values and are not shy in standing up for them. I find you a worthy remnant.

Originally Posted by B Butler

I would disagree. I remember a big quarrel between the flower children and the Military Industrial Complex, every racist in the South, and Richard Nixon. The flower children lived in an ugly world, demanded change, and to a great degree got it. They would speak of Peace, Love and Rock n Roll. They often genuinely wanted it, but they had an agenda, and if you got in their way they were in your face big time.

If I had my way
If I had my way in this wicked world
If I had my way I would tear this building down

I consider this to be a feature, not a bug. It was right for the time.

You too have strong values and are not shy in standing up for them. I find you a worthy remnant.

Thanks. And remember, flowers still provide seeds!

The hippies and the activists were not always the same people, using the same approach. Sometimes they were.