Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo!!
Flanzonyc: I think its great that you guys actually have something to say in regards to this movement. I find most "Occupiers" dont have a clue what they are protesting, but thats not what Im here to post about.
Anyways, the point I wanted to address was your comment about education and how you feel that "our children are falling behind" is an overblown statement.IT IS NOT an overblown statement at all! As you are well aware the amount of money that each state and district provides for education VARIES WIDELY which leads to many inequalites. This obviously affects kids in "low income" areas more so than others. Its not only the supplies and school funding that falls short, but the training for many of the teachers in these schools. Your Gov only contributes roughly 8% to education....this should change!
There's also no common formula for deciding how states and local governments will fund education. Each state has a hodgepodge of property taxes, sales taxes, lottery funds, and other revenue generators, all calculated inconsistently. If a state depends primarily on property or sales tax, then when a recession hits, as is the case now, billions are slashed from education. And depending on the state, school districts in lower income areas often have less money to spend per student because of the way property taxes are calculated and redistributed. This means your public schools depend on the success of the state lottery, or the value of local real estate, to get money, even though those sources of money have nothing to do with the actual needs of the schools. This has a direct impact on the "No Child Left Behind Act".
According to NCLB regulations, the Department of Education has the right to withhold money from a school or district if it doesn't meet annual standardized testing targets for reading and math. Cash-strapped schools in low-income areas can't always afford to purchase the extra instructional materials and supplies they need to help catch kids up, so schools fall into a vicious cycle where they don't meet targets, and are denied federal money, making it even harder to meet them the next year.
I have family that has worked in Philidelphia, Atlanta and now Texas dealing with this issue for over the past 20 years. You should go and sit in your local under-resourced, low-income school's budget meetings and listen to principals and teachers fret over the lack of funds. Listen to them have to decide between spending on a math coach or a reading coach, or on keeping two classroom teachers so that class sizes don't have jump up to 40 to 1. Art, music, physical education? They're quickly becoming relics of a bygone age. Some schools are even slashing sports program. You need a fair and stable source of funding from the federal government so your kids don't pay the price when bankers sink your economy.
Been mostly a lurker lately but the the question of the great disparity of groups/causes contained in the OWS crowd is not a weakness. It is a strength. It demonstrates that the flaws in our system are so deep that they affect everyone, regardless of political philosophy.
I can use the analogy of the American Revoltuion to illustrate. The Revolution contained many persons of widely varied political philosphies ranging from Jefferson to Adams to Hamilton. These Founding Fathers disagreed to the point of outright hatred once the US got its independence but they realized that the British system of mishandling its colonies was a greater evil which they all must correct first before the "details" of governing were even considered.
We are in a similar situation. Corporations and money own our government. EVERYONE agrees on this be it Tea Party, Libertarian, OWS, Socialists, Democrats or Republicans. The wealthiest 1% have more voice in our government than the remaining 99%. The division propagated by the corporate media serve their corporate masters. OWS has not allowed this to detract from their solidarity.
I would LOVE to see the Tea Party join this movement but we have been taught by the forces wishing to control us that our differences define us, not our common values. The people must look past their secondary differences and united for the greater good. The OWS crowd is attempting to do just this. The disparate and differing messages show only their willingness to put aside "petty" differences to fight the greater fight.
Been mostly a lurker lately but the the question of the great disparity of groups/causes contained in the OWS crowd is not a weakness. It is a strength. It demonstrates that the flaws in our system are so deep that they affect everyone, regardless of political philosophy.
I can use the analogy of the American Revoltuion to illustrate. The Revolution contained many persons of widely varied political philosphies ranging from Jefferson to Adams to Hamilton. These Founding Fathers disagreed to the point of outright hatred once the US got its independence but they realized that the British system of mishandling its colonies was a greater evil which they all must correct first before the "details" of governing were even considered.
We are in a similar situation. Corporations and money own our government. EVERYONE agrees on this be it Tea Party, Libertarian, OWS, Socialists, Democrats or Republicans. The wealthiest 1% have more voice in our government than the remaining 99%. The division propagated by the corporate media serve their corporate masters. OWS has not allowed this to detract from their solidarity.
I would LOVE to see the Tea Party join this movement but we have been taught by the forces wishing to control us that our differences define us, not our common values. The people must look past their secondary differences and united for the greater good. The OWS crowd is attempting to do just this. The disparate and differing messages show only their willingness to put aside "petty" differences to fight the greater fight.
Correct me if I am wrong, but those founding fathers put down their grievances in a little document known as the Declaration of Independence, no? So, as I said earlier, until you put down a manifesto of some kind, basically an outline of the main issues and what gov't action the movement demands in order for the movement to feel that its concerns have been addressed, it's going to continue to be ineffective.
If you have 30 people in a room with 30 different perspectives, you're not going to solve something by having all 30 people scream at once. You need order. You need to be organized and bring forth your argument in a concise and intelligent manner.
The current state of these protests has brought a great degree of awareness, but little else. Without a clear message, it will continue to be this way.
Flanzonyc: I think its great that you guys actually have something to say in regards to this movement. I find most "Occupiers" dont have a clue what they are protesting, but thats not what Im here to post about.
Anyways, the point I wanted to address was your comment about education and how you feel that "our children are falling behind" is an overblown statement.IT IS NOT an overblown statement at all! As you are well aware the amount of money that each state and district provides for education VARIES WIDELY which leads to many inequalites. This obviously affects kids in "low income" areas more so than others. Its not only the supplies and school funding that falls short, but the training for many of the teachers in these schools. Your Gov only contributes roughly 8% to education....this should change!
There's also no common formula for deciding how states and local governments will fund education. Each state has a hodgepodge of property taxes, sales taxes, lottery funds, and other revenue generators, all calculated inconsistently. If a state depends primarily on property or sales tax, then when a recession hits, as is the case now, billions are slashed from education. And depending on the state, school districts in lower income areas often have less money to spend per student because of the way property taxes are calculated and redistributed. This means your public schools depend on the success of the state lottery, or the value of local real estate, to get money, even though those sources of money have nothing to do with the actual needs of the schools. This has a direct impact on the "No Child Left Behind Act".
According to NCLB regulations, the Department of Education has the right to withhold money from a school or district if it doesn't meet annual standardized testing targets for reading and math. Cash-strapped schools in low-income areas can't always afford to purchase the extra instructional materials and supplies they need to help catch kids up, so schools fall into a vicious cycle where they don't meet targets, and are denied federal money, making it even harder to meet them the next year.
I have family that has worked in Philidelphia, Atlanta and now Texas dealing with this issue for over the past 20 years. You should go and sit in your local under-resourced, low-income school's budget meetings and listen to principals and teachers fret over the lack of funds. Listen to them have to decide between spending on a math coach or a reading coach, or on keeping two classroom teachers so that class sizes don't have jump up to 40 to 1. Art, music, physical education? They're quickly becoming relics of a bygone age. Some schools are even slashing sports program. You need a fair and stable source of funding from the federal government so your kids don't pay the price when bankers sink your economy.
My 2 cents.
I went to a low-income, low-budget public high school. For four straight years while attending that high school we operated under austerity budgets. Football or the music program? Art classes or shop classes? BOCES (a trade school) or school-offered SAT classes? These were all heated debates I grew up with, so the lack of funding is not a new topic for me at all. For the record, I blew away my standardized test scores and graduated at the top of my class (enabling me to incur a mountain of debt at a top-flight private Jesuit school! lucky me!), so the school itself didn't hold me back. I strongly believe (and I may be chastised for feeling this way) that parents are more to blame than the educational system itself.
I coach youth sports in a very poor neighborhood (I myself live in a low-income neighborhood) and I try to help my players (usually in the 8-11 year old range) with their schooling when I can afford the time and they're willing. Now, this will be a general statement, so don't kill me with a "it's not like that EVERYWHERE" comment, because I already know that to be the case, but what I've found is that, generally speaking, the modern parent puts the entire onus of education on the teachers/school. Now, I don't know about you, but my parents were very actively involved in my education. They constantly pushed me and were actively involved in keeping track of my progress as a student and child/young man.
Until parents start looking at themselves and their child as being responsible for the intellectual growth of said child, this cycle will continue regardless of social standing, funding, etc. You can give every kid in a school a Macbook, but that doesn't mean they're more likely to be intelligent, they're just more likely to know how to use a Macbook.
NCLB is a horrendous policy, in my opinion. It promotes the pushing of students through grades even if they genuinely haven't earned that right (or need special attention to do so, attention that is rarely afforded to them), just so the school doesn't get penalized. You are right, the fact that the federal gov't provides such a low percentage of education funding is deplorable, it should not be solely the burden of the state to handle the costs of educating its youth (especially when most individual states don't have a state GDP capable of handling that burden).
But my point wasn't really about the funding of education, or lack thereof. I actually mentioned how I've seen these stresses take a toll on my Mother for over 2 decades. My post was pointing out that, despite the lack of real funding and the glaring flaws in the system, the typical US youth is more workforce-ready than their counterparts worldwide. Standardized testing is an inherently flawed system, so to base the success/failure rate on these tests is irresponsible. Yes, we test middle-of-the-pack in these "standardized" areas, but in terms of workforce functionality the US produces more success per capita than most every country worldwide.
Our children are "falling behind" in math & writing test scores, that scores every child on the same rubric. How is that a productive system? Let's say all I want on this Earth is to be an engineer. Engineer's barely have to know how to write, but they are incredibly math-intensive jobs. So if a kid scores a 99 (out of 100) in Math, but a 40 in reading/writing, he's a "failure" by the standardized testing rubric. But in terms of his chosen profession, he's perfectly suited to be a successful engineer.
The system is pointless, I don't care what kids in India, or Sudan, or Australia, or France are doing in terms of their math and writing skills (also, the fact that they have "standardized" reading/writing international tests when people don't speak a unified language on this planet is hilarious). How successful are their children when they go into the work force?
There's a reason people from all over the world come to study at American Universities. It's because, despite the negative connotation associated with "American Education", the US still has some of the highest quality post-secondary education in the world. The system certainly needs an overhaul, but the onus starts at home, at least in my mind.
Been mostly a lurker lately but the the question of the great disparity of groups/causes contained in the OWS crowd is not a weakness. It is a strength. It demonstrates that the flaws in our system are so deep that they affect everyone, regardless of political philosophy.
I can use the analogy of the American Revoltuion to illustrate. The Revolution contained many persons of widely varied political philosphies ranging from Jefferson to Adams to Hamilton. These Founding Fathers disagreed to the point of outright hatred once the US got its independence but they realized that the British system of mishandling its colonies was a greater evil which they all must correct first before the "details" of governing were even considered.
We are in a similar situation. Corporations and money own our government. EVERYONE agrees on this be it Tea Party, Libertarian, OWS, Socialists, Democrats or Republicans. The wealthiest 1% have more voice in our government than the remaining 99%. The division propagated by the corporate media serve their corporate masters. OWS has not allowed this to detract from their solidarity.
I would LOVE to see the Tea Party join this movement but we have been taught by the forces wishing to control us that our differences define us, not our common values. The people must look past their secondary differences and united for the greater good. The OWS crowd is attempting to do just this. The disparate and differing messages show only their willingness to put aside "petty" differences to fight the greater fight.
Correct me if I am wrong, but those founding fathers put down their grievances in a little document known as the Declaration of Independence, no? So, as I said earlier, until you put down a manifesto of some kind, basically an outline of the main issues and what gov't action the movement demands in order for the movement to feel that its concerns have been addressed, it's going to continue to be ineffective.
If you have 30 people in a room with 30 different perspectives, you're not going to solve something by having all 30 people scream at once. You need order. You need to be organized and bring forth your argument in a concise and intelligent manner.
The current state of these protests has brought a great degree of awareness, but little else. Without a clear message, it will continue to be this way.
It took years for the American Revolution to take shape. Patrick Henry began spouting "treasonous" rants in 1765. The Boston Massacre (a police action against protesters) occurred 6 years before the Declaration of Independence was written, the Tea Party was 3 years before the DoI and actual war broke out more than a year before the DoI. It is not unreasonable that OWS has not yet written their grievances and expressed concrete solutions.
I would agree that the sooner OWS can formulate concrete goals the better but I would say it is more unreasonable to expect such rapid cohesion than it is to expect the loose configuration we have now.
It took years for the American Revolution to take shape. Patrick Henry began spouting "treasonous" rants in 1765. The Boston Massacre (a police action against protesters) occurred 6 years before the Declaration of Independence was written, the Tea Party was 3 years before the DoI and actual war broke out more than a year before the DoI. It is not unreasonable that OWS has not yet written their grievances and expressed concrete solutions.
I would agree that the sooner OWS can formulate concrete goals the better but I would say it is more unreasonable to expect such rapid cohesion than it is to expect the loose configuration we have now.
Those founding fathers spread their word via letters, op-eds in newspapers, literally standing in the middle of a town and screaming, and riding horses from town to town. Now one person presses a few buttons and millions of people can read what they write.
I just don't see how you can compare the battle for freedom from oppression to OWS. Would you compare OWS to the battles for freedom in Tunisia, Libya and Egypt? Because I certainly wouldn't.
OWS is about equality, not freedom.
Last Edit: Nov 9, 2011 16:20:33 GMT -5 by flanzonyc - Back to Top
The means of getting the message out is quicker but the reaction time of the recipient is still the same. People are still people and any message takes time (decades?) to resonate.
And I think OWS is very comparable to the demonstrations in the Arab world. There is no freedom without a voice in government. By that reasoning, OWS is all about freedom. Our attack on freedom is just more subversive.
Are you suggesting that we should wait until things are as bad as they are/were there before we resist?
The means of getting the message out is quicker but the reaction time of the recipient is still the same. People are still people and any message takes time (decades?) to resonate.
And I think OWS is very comparable to the demonstrations in the Arab world. There is no freedom without a voice in government. By that reasoning, OWS is all about freedom. Our attack on freedom is just more subversive.
Are you suggesting that we should wait until things are as bad as they are/were there before we resist?
I'm saying that things will never be that bad. Those were countries with oppressive multi-decade dictators.
You are free. You typing on this discussion board is proof of the freedoms you possess. In those Arab countries the gov't regulated the internet (or tried to). Once those nations started using mass social media to organize, the gov'ts they were opposing tried to shut down those networks.
You want to know what a lack of freedom feels like? Look at the current events in Syria. Those people are getting killed for merely assembling.
You are free. You may have an unequal voice, but you have a voice.
So I should be happy being subordinate to corporate and monied interests? The rights with which I am endowed by Creator are relative to what others experience elsewhere?
Tyranny rarely comes instantaneously. It comes almost unnoticeably by degrees. The further it progresses, the more it takes to stop. I choose not to wait until all out war and violence is required. I choose to stand up for my rights and everyone's equality and stop this steady erosion before it becomes entrenched, requiring the blood of the citizenry to reverse.
You may say I am exaggerating but when the central inherent right of all men (a say in governance) is at stake I say the "wait and see" and "things aren't so bad yet" attitude you display can be dangerous. Freedom requires diligence. Freedom requires active citizenry. It is time we disply both.
I do not accept 2nd class citizenship. I say an unequal voice is equal to no voice at all.
Last Edit: Nov 9, 2011 17:32:30 GMT -5 by troo - Back to Top
Ugh. When did I say you don't have the right to stand up for yourself or voice your opinions? In fact, i said the exact opposite, multiple times.
I merely used those Arab countries as examples because they are recent and puts the OWS protests in perspective. The gov't isn't trying to silence these people with oppressive displays of force (at least, for the most part, there are obviously instances where police have shown the use of force towards protesters). The gov't acknowledge the protests, something those true revolutions never received from their respective gov'ts until the revolution was already underway.
You are not under the rule of a tyrant, and you never will be. For all the flaws in the gov't, no singular person will ever have uninhibited control over the country. So to compare a system of elected officials (key word: elected) to a system where a single person held power for decades isn't logical.
Do you honestly think this country is headed towards a revolution of "all out war and violence"? Be realistic. Violence seems to go against the very fiber of the OWS Movement's being. Conversely, the gov't is not going to attack a group of people for assembling.
The way you word your response, you make it seem as though you would expect the OWS movement to continue on a path leading to a similar outcome as the Arab nations already mentioned. This is why I feel you exaggerate the current state of affairs in this country. Is inequality a very real and rampant problem? Yes. Are you forbidden from speaking out about it? No. Are you going to be "tagged and bagged", thrown in a 6x6 cell and left to rot for voicing your opinion? No.
There are real and frightening disparities between classes in this country. I would be foolish to say otherwise. But the issues facing this country pale in comparison to the ones mentioned earlier.
Last Edit: Nov 9, 2011 17:50:32 GMT -5 by flanzonyc - Back to Top
You say I exaggerate the problems. I say you downplay/dismiss real dangers. You say I imagine dangers that are not, and never will be, real. I say you ignore real and frightening abuses that exist now.
I could point out that our country has been pushed to the point of blood and violence by government and corporate abuse many time in its short history (labor rights, civil rights, etc.) so the "never happen" argument is historically invalid but suffice to say we see the world through totally different eyes. I would never say our freedoms are secure in perpetuity. You will never accept that we are in real and present danger.
I can only say I hope and pray you are right and I am wrong. But I will never relax in my diligence in protecting my rights be it seen as paranoid and the dangers imagined.
Went to Occupy Freedom today in Freedom Plaza, Washington D.C. While there were a few with real convictions and a good grasp of what's going on. I felt most were either displaced homeless or angry people that's overall clueless. Now I know it's pretty judgmental for me to say that. But if a K street lobbyist or a Wall Street executive saw what I saw. They wouldn't be scared a bit and would feel no need to change their current state of affairs. Just sayin'. Not sayin the effort is hopeless, it just needs more direction.
That being said, did you hear about Occupy Oakland. Those people got the tear gas and the riot gear.
Went to Occupy Freedom today in Freedom Plaza, Washington D.C. While there were a few with real convictions and a good grasp of what's going on. I felt most were either displaced homeless or angry people that's overall clueless. Now I know it's pretty judgmental for me to say that. But if a K street lobbyist or a Wall Street executive saw what I saw. They wouldn't be scared a bit and would feel no need to change their current state of affairs. Just sayin'. Not sayin the effort is hopeless, it just needs more direction.
That being said, did you hear about Occupy Oakland. Those people got the tear gas and the riot gear.
Yeah, dude. That happened two weeks ago. Simular things have happened all over the country. Atlanta had full on riot cops and a helicopter to arrest 3 people on Sunday night.
Berkeley students are having a standoff at this very moment.
Thanks dude. Checkin it out. I'm assuming this is the Citizens United nationwide livestream. They did this here, 7:30 Eastern Time. Berkeley definitely has a bigger turnout then here. Solidarity. Can't believe it has reached 1900 occupied sites worldwide. We had journalists from New Delhi Television came to cover the Occupy Freedom site.
Inside Job. Nice I've been meaning to check this out.
I also recommend HBO's original film "Too Big to Fail". It's a really good portrayal of the major banking institutions during the 2008 financial collapse.
I also recommend the above link because it's a good analysis from an expert of what our economy could be like in the next few years. And what it's geo-political effects might be. Some parts should be questioned though. I also put this link in the Scott Walker is going down thread.
Post by awolfatthedoor on Nov 10, 2011 10:03:01 GMT -5
Which of them are not?
I want to reinvest in our national infrastructure. I do not feel we have fully learned the lesson of the Minnesota I-35 bridge collapse or other similar incidents. This means a smart electrical grid, this means rebuilding roads and pipes, this means increased broadband access, this means high-speed rail connecting major cities...
I want a top-to-bottom efficiency review of the federal government. I want a nonpartisan, not bipartisan, approach to recommending spending cuts similar to the one which insulates military base closures from political pressures.
maybe
it might be a bit ridiculous to want to impose your political beliefs, which would result in a complete upheaval of the way our system has worked since the nation has started. and if you dont get your way completely say thats not good enough
Last Edit: Nov 10, 2011 10:04:14 GMT -5 by flanzonyc - Back to Top
Inside Job. Nice I've been meaning to check this out.
I also recommend HBO's original film "Too Big to Fail". It's a really good portrayal of the major banking institutions during the 2008 financial collapse.
I also recommend the above link because it's a good analysis from an expert of what our economy could be like in the next few years. And what it's geo-political effects might be. Some parts should be questioned though. I also put this link in the Scott Walker is going down thread.
...it might be a bit ridiculous to want to impose your political beliefs, which would result in a complete upheaval of the way our system has worked since the nation has started. and if you dont get your way completely say thats not good enough
Well clearly our system ain't workin' these days. There is somethin' very broke, and it ain't just a lot of Americans.
...it might be a bit ridiculous to want to impose your political beliefs, which would result in a complete upheaval of the way our system has worked since the nation has started. and if you dont get your way completely say thats not good enough
Well clearly our system ain't workin' these days. There is somethin' very broke, and it ain't just a lot of Americans.
nah its not the system its the people. if you want your views represented in laws a pr system is not the answer. our government is bogged down enough as is. we have a system that allows for diversity within a party which allows for your individuals views to be represented. the answer isn't upheaval. make other people think the way you do if you want your views reflected in laws. give $ or go out and work for your party. dont be ridiculous and demand a new system of government
I want to reinvest in our national infrastructure. I do not feel we have fully learned the lesson of the Minnesota I-35 bridge collapse or other similar incidents. This means a smart electrical grid, this means rebuilding roads and pipes, this means increased broadband access, this means high-speed rail connecting major cities...
I want a top-to-bottom efficiency review of the federal government. I want a nonpartisan, not bipartisan, approach to recommending spending cuts similar to the one which insulates military base closures from political pressures.
You want a list of demands? I'll throw some out there.
I want the American Dream to remain possible, and I fear for its fate in this age of social immobility.
I want growth with equity, something which has been sorely lacking for generations.
I want it clearly stated in our body of law that corporations are not people and that money is not speech. It is a shame that this cannot go without saying in this day and age.
I want recognition that calling the wealthy "job creators" is a myth. I want recognition that the wealthy's tax cuts have not created jobs. I want an admission that Reaganomics is a supply-side solution to a demand-side problem, and its subsequent abandonment by our policy makers.
I want public financing of campaigns to remove undue influence on democratic processes by wealthy special interests. Government cannot be of, by and for the people unless sponsored by we the people.
I want the investigation into and/or resignation/impeachment of Clarence Thomas for having such a relationship to these wealthy interests as to undermine judicial impartiality. Supreme Court justices facing similar situations have resigned in the past.
I want a tax system which treats work and wealth at minimum, equally. I think our current system favors wealth over work, which I feel contradicts the very ethos of the American Dream.
I want the United States to withdraw from or renegotiate free trade agreements like NAFTA which have led to the hemorrhaging of jobs. I want the United States to withdraw from or alter international non-governmental organizations such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organization.
I want an end to tax credits for businesses that outsource American jobs, companies headquartering in offshore tax havens, and other loopholes which deprive us of revenue. I want a STET tax (in the neighborhood of a quarter of a percent) applied to stock transactions. I seek this to deter those whose computers are capable of millions of transactions per minute, squeezing every last bit of profit they can from stock trades - but also capable of exaggerating market trends.
I want government oversight into unregulated financial instruments like derivatives or collateralized debt obligations. The financial industry has shown they can't be trusted to self-regulate them... or much of anything. I want hearings and/or investigations into the American Legislative Exchange Council. I want their claimed tax-exempt status to be reviewed and changed and I want their influence on our legislative process investigated.
I want to reinstate the Glass-Steagall Act, recreating walls of separation between investment and commercial banking.
I want legislators in every single state to implement recall provisions, and I want those citizens who do not presently have them to clamor for them. What good is a politician who's afraid of increased accountability?
I want the outsourcing of jobs, inequitable tax policies, harmful trade policies, and preferential treatment of the wealthy to be deemed the treason that it is, considering their negative impact on our country. As such, those who supported/advanced such policies should be treated accordingly.
I think we need more enforcement of the Alien & Sedition Act. I think we need more enforcement of the Sherman Antitrust Act. I think we need more enforcement of the RICO Act.
I want some accountability on the world stage for those who instigated the war on Iraq.
I want Congress to actually declare war when it wants it, unlike their actions of the past 50-60 years. I want our so-called leaders to resist the influence of Grover Norquist, whose rigid anti-tax pledge has proven itself to run contrary to our national best interest. I feel this pledge directly contradicts a more important oath, the oath of office. (He has 41 Republican senators and a majority of the House majority on board.)
I want our politicians to spend as much time in town hall meetings as they do fundraising.
I want our Senate rules to actually require filibusterers to filibuster to stall a bill. I want our Senate rules to no longer allow a single Senator to anonymously hold a piece of legislation. These and other such rules are entirely at the chamber's discretion.
I want an expanded House of Representatives, keeping those members closer to the people in accordance with the Founding Fathers' intentions. Our current representation cap resembles something like a racket to me.
I want our elections to transcend the single-member districts which presently embody them. These districts create systems with only two viable parties, and we have seen how well that works. I want at-large representation and instant-runoff voting to better reflect the will of the people. I want us to move toward a renewable energy conversion, and I can leave the global warming controversy out of it: for decades, our economy relied on cheap energy which is no longer so cheap. Alternative energies, once instituted, can lower the cost of power and thus reverse negative economic impact from rising oil prices.
I want the profit motive to be removed from sectors which are necessary for the general welfare. Yes, I'm talking about health care, a universal human necessity. Treat it as a utility, not a business. Not every collective endeavor needs to have every possible bit of profit extracted from it, and this is one of them.
I want to reinvest in our national infrastructure. I do not feel we have fully learned the lesson of the Minnesota I-35 bridge collapse or other similar incidents. This means a smart electrical grid, this means rebuilding roads and pipes, this means increased broadband access, this means high-speed rail connecting major cities...
I want to convert to the metric system. To standardize with our trade partners, to align with scientific practice, because we can't completely avoid it as things are, because we should have done so already. A New Deal-style program of metric conversion would have a fixed, defined, limited-term goal and create work hours and employment opportunities across numerous sectors of the economy.
I want extended school years for our children, who are falling behind their international counterparts and no longer need all that summer time off to work in the fields.
I want comprehensive immigration reform, as I feel it is not an issue of border security versus integrating illegals into our system - but a matter of how to best achieve both simultaneously. Legalizing illegals expands our tax base; heightened border security and language education can provide more employment opportunities.
I want marriage to be recognized for the contract between two of-age individuals that it is; it is not solely a religious institution but a civil one which should not discriminate.
I want to just legalize it, regulate it, and make revenue off it already.
I want a top-to-bottom efficiency review of the federal government. I want a nonpartisan, not bipartisan, approach to recommending spending cuts similar to the one which insulates military base closures from political pressures.
To summarize, I want us to strive for greater accountability, transparency, efficiency and honesty from our government as we take on the challenges of the 21st Century.
I want evolution, even if it takes a revolution to get it.
We can and should do better than we are now.
That's how I would interpret it. I'm probable wrong on several but I feel some of his demands really shouldn't be interpreted as party based anyway. That's one of the problems I have with the two party system. It creates a unneeded divide between the public on issues that are truly against their best interest. That goes for both parties. Edit to add: I realize that liberal doesn't necessarily mean democrat but since we are stuck in a two party system that's the way I'm breaking it down.
it might be a bit ridiculous to want to impose your political beliefs, which would result in a complete upheaval of the way our system has worked since the nation has started. and if you dont get your way completely say thats not good enough
There is truth to this but what's the alternative? Sit back and continue with a bought congress that rarely has the interest of the common American in mind?
This system has gone through plenty of changes since the beginning of the country. How is the widespread deregulations of the 80s and repeal of acts such as Glass-Steagall in 1999 not consider a complete upheaval of the way our system works? Do you think the huge raise in wealth inequality that's taken place over the last 30 years is in no way related to huge amounts of money being funneled into DC?
Last Edit: Nov 10, 2011 20:14:19 GMT -5 by Deleted - Back to Top
Post by awolfatthedoor on Nov 11, 2011 0:23:38 GMT -5
was referring to this for the last part
I want our elections to transcend the single-member districts which presently embody them. These districts create systems with only two viable parties, and we have seen how well that works. I want at-large representation and instant-runoff voting to better reflect the will of the people
as far as money influencing elections yeah that exists to a degree, but if people who held the majority view were passionate and organized they would win elections and see their views reflected in office.
for example. if there was a higher degree of political involvement
I want our politicians to spend as much time in town hall meetings as they do fundraising.
this would happen.
tell people to get of their couches and care and then the shit you guys talk about would actually happen
Post by awolfatthedoor on Nov 11, 2011 1:50:01 GMT -5
i guess if were doing this were doing this. if the goal of ows is raising consciousness about numerous issues as a way to influence public opinion as a way to influence policy making im completely cool with that. do what you feel like you should do. and i do think that is the goal of the educated, directed people of the movement. but there seems to be a complete lack of academic theory in the movement. just a whole lot of bitching which isn't really productive.
advocating a different political system seems stupid. educated, passionate people with real solutions that reflect what the majority want will always outweigh $
I actually didn't see your response to Dan until after I posted my response to you. I'd went off to eat dinner while making it.
I want our elections to transcend the single-member districts which presently embody them. These districts create systems with only two viable parties, and we have seen how well that works. I want at-large representation and instant-runoff voting to better reflect the will of the people
as far as money influencing elections yeah that exists to a degree, but if people who held the majority view were passionate and organized they would win elections and see their views reflected in office.
for example. if there was a higher degree of political involvement
I want our politicians to spend as much time in town hall meetings as they do fundraising.
this would happen.
I think the problem with this is that people HAVE been passionate and organized in the past but feel that once officials get into office nothing changes. It's hard to know what Obama would have done if it wasn't for the financial crisis. Having said that, all the energy and hope he created hasn't come to fruition in any way. Speaking for myself, I voted for him but didn't really expect much to change. That's just my nature. He's actually the first democrat I've voted for in the four Presidential elections I've participated in.
I think the occupy movement gained a lot of momentum from the dissatisfied left wingers that put so much hope in Obama. When you consider some of his top campaign contributors were the investment and commercial banks then I think it's clear who's side he is really on. It's also worth mentioning that when Obama won his party's nomination, he became the first major-party Nominee to reject taxpayer funding in the general election. That's not out of the kindness of his heart. The power elite don't get behind a candidate for ideological reasons. They do it for control. It's simply strategy. You pick the best horse and bet on him. It came to noone's surprise that a democrat won the 2008 election. After 8 year with that bunghole clown Bush. Look at the numbers...
Keystone XL is perhaps the biggest example of Obama teetering on all the environmental commits he made and has yet to come through on. Just now the State Department has halted a decission on this until 2012. Obama gets the last word on this. He want's to be reelected before he more then likely enacts what some environmental scientist call the "end game" for global warming. I'm sorry but I honestly doubt this is a coincidence. Many left wingers are against Keystone. There was a huge protest, largely ignored by the media, last weekend. His administration bloody well knows how many votes he will lose if he goes through with it now.
Ask LLL about my stance on this. She's a big Obama supporter. I will not even consider voting for him if he agrees to Keystone. I will not do it and I'll add a HUGE quack you Obama to that. This delay is so obviously politically motivated. The pipeline itself isn't even the main issue to be concerned about. It's the sand oils that will reck ungodly amounts of havoc on our planet. The White House has already made this an issue about the pipeline within the USA. Not the environmental dangers the sand oils could cause.
tell people to get of their couches and care and then the shit you guys talk about would actually happen
That's what is happening as we speak. That's why this tread exist. I love you wolf.
Last Edit: Nov 11, 2011 2:50:45 GMT -5 by Deleted - Back to Top
advocating a different political system seems stupid. educated, passionate people with real solutions that reflect what the majority want will always outweigh $
I agree with not advocating a different political system. I've read a ton about this movement. Most people don't won't a different political system. The large majority aren't against Capitalism(as Fox news would like everyone to belive) in any way. They just won't change and reform within the system that we have.
We will just have to agree to disagree on money in politics.
Last Edit: Nov 11, 2011 2:53:08 GMT -5 by Deleted - Back to Top
Post by awolfatthedoor on Nov 11, 2011 2:51:08 GMT -5
despite the fact that everyone ignored the $, the $ behind Obama before the 2008 election showed that he was the wrong candidate. the onus of these 4 years is on everyone that voted for the wrong candidate. its might be too late now, but the ows-informed democrat base could have an influence on him. still everyone fucked up in 2008
put the continued speech behind the anti-keystone movement and people will hear about the movement and be able to make a choice.
to me $ obviously = speech. $ allows people to spread the scope of their speech. to limit the ability of people to give seems like a limit on speech. i dont really think there should be any restrictions at all because it seems to me to be so obviously un-Constitutional. here's the Citizens opinion for everyone to read for themselves: www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZS.html. it is completely founded in past jurisprudence that goes back way beyond 2010. its completely founded, and if you don't think so feel free to sue and explain to the SCOTUS why they are wrong. its not like they ignore reason and superior legal arguments.
Last Edit: Nov 11, 2011 2:56:35 GMT -5 by flanzonyc - Back to Top
despite the fact that everyone ignored the $, the $ behind Obama before the 2008 election showed that he was the wrong candidate. the onus of these 4 years is on everyone that voted for the wrong candidate. its might be too late now, but the ows-informed democrat base could have an influence on him. still everyone fucked up in 2008
I wouldn't say that people quacked up. Who should have been elected? Would the state of the country be any different? I highly doubt it.
put the continued speech behind the anti-keystone movement and people will hear about the movement and be able to make a choice.
Speech doesn't mean anything if the people cannot hear it! We don't have a free press (outside the net, thankfully). We have a press that is bought and payed for. They are going to make the news. Using your own argument on this, the ones with the money make the news. They aren't going to go against their own interest. Why would they?
to me $ obviously = speech. $ allows people to spread the scope of their speech. to limit the ability of people to give seems like a limit on speech. i dont really think there should be any restrictions at all because it seems to me to be so obviously un-Constitutional. here's the Citizens opinion for everyone to read for themselves: www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZS.html. it is completely founded in past jurisprudence that goes back way beyond 2010. its completely founded, and if you don't think so feel free to sue and explain to the SCOTUS why they are wrong. its not like they ignore reason and superior legal arguments.
HUHHHHH? Wolf, are you trolling me?
Last Edit: Nov 11, 2011 4:25:23 GMT -5 by Deleted - Back to Top