I've bitter about the way our country selects its leaders. Reading posts around here, I can't help but think that many feel the same way I do. Most of the problem lies in what issues we consider when choosing whom to support and how we go about doing so. We complain about candidates and the media using "negative campaign tactics", yet we replicate the same dynamic in our own communities and with our own voices.
This comes back to the factionalized mentality that we have in relation to politics. To many, it's nothing but a sporting event and we don't care how our team wins as long as it wins. As the Onion puts it, "The main issue for this year's campaign will be the same as any other year--'bullsh*t'"
But ultimately, though we may have forgotten, we are on the same team. The only people we have to blame for the state of the country are ourselves for putting our party affiliations ahead of our country's well being.
I don't think is a problem of ill-intentions. I think we as a nation have simply forgotten what it means to be positive in the first place. So let's lay out a few ground rules.
We need to draw a distinction between personal attacks and policy criticism. I am not pro-gun, but I have always respected that position. I simply like to ask questions. For example, when the bulk of urban folks would like to see extreme enforcement of guns laws and more restrictive laws, how can we moderate that with the logical rural attachment to firearms? Where was the NRA when the government was setting up concentration camps, or when the NRA was being all KKK friendly?
These are many of the questions I asked myself before I arrived at my thoughtful anti-gun stance. But that doesn't mean anyone who disagrees with me is a moron. The only judgment I make is on those who refuse to even consider the evidence at hand. Obviously, some will thoughtfully consider and arrive at a different conclusion and that's one of the things that make the society great.
Unfortunately, this approach is not currently supported. Look at this site--everyone can see that the Clinton campaign is the anti-thesis of thoughtful American discourse, however, people are eager to support her campaigns slander and framing simply because "the enemy of our enemy is our friend".
Obama has run a respectful campaign. His "attacks" have merely being to say, "Please don't make **** up!"
Let's let him and McCain run their campaigns and focus on their policy proposals and abilities and be sure that there is a fair election.
Perhaps you think I am merely using rhetoric. I want to remind you that I did not support our current governor or president. I would have certainly supported Clinton on policy--her positions are more conservative than mine, but I would certainly have taken her as president.
I would not under any circumstances support her at this juncture. I would not support any of her style of attacks on McCain. I can no longer reward this type of politicing. And if you feel the same way, maybe it'll actually mean something.
Seriously, a few more people saying, "I don't like Obama. I think McCain is the better candidate, but let's stop talking about this bullsh*t and start the real election discussion so we can have the best candidate for our country!" would make a big difference.
As my discussions with Kevin seem to have bore out, a lot of this seems to come down to perspective on how we interpret and/or find relevance in what candidates have said or done. Sometimes it just comes down to us being a bit too forgiving of the candidate we support and/or too eager to jump on their opponents missteps.
And some of it is just pure foolishness: like emphasis of Obama's middle name to keep the muslim smear rumors alive in peoples' heads or pointing to McCain's time as a POW in a manner to suggest his mind is broken or he's an anti-American traitor. Both are infuriating. But the people who believe this nonsense find it very relevant, even if for twisted reasons, since they believe it speaks to their capacity or willingness to do their job in a time of war in spite of their rhetoric on policy. It goes along with the theory that even some of the worst characters rarely see themselves as the bad guy.
We've pretty well beat the "bitter" issue to death here, but there seems to be a definite divide on what he said/meant and how relevant or irrelevant it is to the campaign. Many feel that it was just a mangled take on wedge issues that was adequetely explained later, and therefore no contradiction to his presentation of himself as uniting figure or to his policy positions. Others feel it it painted a segment of voters with a broad and condescending brush, and his explanations afterwards narrowed the subject to the more defensible ideas out of it while ignoring or possibly even affirming the rest. The relevance to those who took it negatively is that they care about these issues and someone looking at them as mere wedge issues seems unlikely to temper his well known policy positions on them that already have them a bit wary. On the comments that they took negatively against rural America more generally it raises worries that his policies may generally ignore their concerns over instituting more urban centric policies. I think this is why Obama's responses immediately switched to ensuring they are being listened to, over and over, driving that idea home to contradict that impression. Meanwhile the perspective of those who saw nothing contradictory or wrong with his statements are unlikely to see any actual policy implications to worry about.
"We need to draw a distinction between personal attacks and policy criticism. I am not pro-gun, but I have always respected that position. I simply like to ask questions. For example, when the bulk of urban folks would like to see extreme enforcement of guns laws and more restrictive laws, how can we moderate that with the logical rural attachment to firearms? Where was the NRA when the government was setting up concentration camps, or when the NRA was being all KKK friendly?"
The distinction can be difficult because there are so many issues that fall in between personal attacks and policy criticisms that are equally relevant. A policy position may not be the issue as much as a candidate's record on that policy, prior statements/actions/votes that reflect upon what they actually believe on a policy, and whether their stated policy position is a bunch of hot air. Calling a candidate dishonest is a personal attack, but can be extremely relevant on whether one finds their policy positions credible. Gaffes are often jumped on for this very reason. Did they really misspeak or was it a freudian slip or an insight into how their true beliefs that contradict with the image they're trying to sell the public. Some of the disagreements on this stuff will obviously come down to perspective and none of the candidates still in the race are immune.
The NRA example is probably a great example of the perspective issues. Where you see a group that was formly tied to the KKK, most people in the NRA are fully aware that it was started by Union generals from the civil war who were primarily concerned with ensuring that those providing for the defense of the nation had a better familiarity with firearms, a real issue in the north that had become heavily industrial with far smaller percentage of rural folks where food and security depended regularly on firearms. The recruits for the Union armies were often unskilled in shooting and made it more difficult to have them battle-ready and effective, from the militia units to the strictly federal forces. Confederate sharpshooters were plenty, though they suffered in maintaining supplies of accurate weapons to match their skills, they still caused devestating losses for the Union. Burnside's Bridge at Antietam was a classic example I got to see first hand on my last road trip.
Though both the NRA and the KKK emerged at roughly the same time, they did so in different regions of the country and by a completely different set of folks for a completely different set of motivations. I'm unaware of anytime the groups were in cahoots, but aware that NRA chapters often worked to help arm blacks against KKK domestic terrorists and later against lynch mobs in general. The NRA today still considers gun control measures geared towards predominately black areas to be inherently racist in nature, if not intent. People in areas with high levels of violent crime would be the last people in the world they'd want to see denied the right to defend themselves and their home. The alternate perspective is that you have to disarm the victims to help disarm the criminals too. NRA folks put that on par with banning computers because some people use them to be sexual predators. It's a perspective issue to be certain. In spite of the good intentions of both sides of the debate, insidious intentions are often applied to each side to the other, to further villify them over a disagreement on policy.
I honestly don't know what, if any, policies the NRA had during the internment camp push that would have or could have been relevant. Their goal was to ensure that people owned firearms and were familiar with the art shooting, not to incite or start rebellions against the federal government for its actions. I'm unaware of any policy at that time that excluded any citizens from owning firearms, regardless of their heritage. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I've never heard about it. In that sense they were doing what they've always been doing, promoting firearm ownership and familiarity with shooting... but the NRA has never been some sort of militia that swoops in to take on authorities with force.
"Obama has run a respectful campaign. His "attacks" have merely being to say, "Please don't make **** up!""
Opinions vary on this one as well. From the 100 years war distortions and lying about how he hadn't phrased it that way to the more recent incident where he took a McCain interview where he was pointing out the tough economic situation and Obama removed one sentence in the middle of his dismal analysis that noted some progress to paint his entire view as thinking everything was hunky-dory with the economy. Further to his claims of himself, such as having 'sound judgement' on going into the Iraq war when he had clearly stated in the past that he merely had reservations not that he was basing his opposition on any real facts or figures, and the infamous admission, "What would I have done? I don't know." back in 2004 while defending Democrats who voted for the war. His sudden confidence on his Iraq war opposition seems to be a recently manufactured one.
I'd also highly recommend adding factcheck.org to one's RSS reader. Obama's claims and assertions are regularly debunked in claims on himself and his opponents along with the others... yes, even McCain on ocassion. Hillary of course still takes the cake, but Obama is hardly a saint on the subject of being candid. The problem Obama faces is that people know Hillary will fight and fight dirty in the general, and while they may not like it, they may consider it necessary to win. The other problem Obama faces is that he's set the bar pretty high for himself with his rhetoric on a new kind of campaign... a bar he often falls short of, opening him up to the "gotcha politics" that he understandbly wouldn't like.
"Seriously, a few more people saying, "I don't like Obama. I think McCain is the better candidate, but let's stop talking about this bullsh*t and start the real election discussion so we can have the best candidate for our country!" would make a big difference."
Almost every politophile has chimed in on that heavily months ago. Whether either fits more with their political philosophy, or which policies are great, which ones are awful, or which ones are more or less of a priority, etc. Such policy centric discussions and arguments have been a part of the discourse since the beginning when people drifted to their candidates of choice during the primaries and were debating folks who had drifted to other candidates. Character issues such as honesty, integrity, committment, honor, etc that may give some insight on whether their rhetoric on policies meshes with what they have done or possibly will do have taken more center stage. Issues of experience, credentials, and qualifications on whether their policy positions are rightly guided or merely attempts to appeal to popularity without sound judgement also have become big topics given the huge differentials between the candidates.
And here we come to another perspective issue. The basis of our trust in a candidate to do the right thing. Being that we're talking about politicians, such trust is rarely easily gained. With an Obama/McCain fight in the general, there will be an inherent perspective issue on idealism versus pragmatism... just as is happening with the Obama/Hillary fight now. Obama wants to run on the policy positions and trust his rhetoric on them in spite of a brief record and little experience in the issue areas those policy positions apply to. This will necessarily lead people to ask, "That sounds great, but does this guy really know what he's talking about?" McCain has a different problem. His policy positions are hardly a dramtic change relative to Obama's from the current Administration, but he can claim they are based on a mountain of experience and credentials and emphasize what he believes are the key differences that are the basis of the current Administrations failures. This will necessarily lead people to ask, "Sure he may sound like he knows what he's talking about, but will it be enough change or the right changes to actually bring things around?"
Either way, the candidates are emphasizing the attributes that sell the best to the public while attacking the others where their campaigns face the biggest challenges in winning the voters over... and of course attempting to poke holes in their campaign strengths. Just the usual. And it is unlikely that will change any time soon no matter how much either candidate or their supporters would prefer people merely focus on their best marketing ploys and ignore the fine print.
I don't think Obama supporters are going to have any luck avoiding the questions about the man who is proposing the more dramatic change of policies any more than McCain supporters like myself will have any luck avoiding the McBush/Bush's 3rd term/McSame tactics from the other side while empahsizing his character and qualifications behind his far less dramtic change in policy positions. Not because we're avoiding the policy positions, we know why we like or dislike their policies, but because of all of the voters out there who aren't so sure about which policy positions would be best, even if they might or might not appeal to them, and/or who they trust to make decisions in areas they may not be overly familiar with. The battle for the undecided voters, the swing voters, etc has already begun... especially for their trust and capitalizing on their doubts, with all of the remaining candidates.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
But on a less serious note, and being that the Friday Funnies are a bit light this week, this seems to be getting at the sentiment you're referring to:
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
Well, unless the GOP wakes up and dumps McCain like IP and his Ron Paul friends suggest,
the election will be decided between BHO and HC. After that its a cake walk.
"Well, unless the GOP wakes up and dumps McCain like IP and his Ron Paul friends suggest..."
I'm sorry it's taken me a moment to respond, Glock. I hope you won't take my response as laziness, but I take your response as "there are shades of gray" and of course you are right.
However, your comic hits on exactly what I am referring to. And in activist circles, we always try to say, "Fight together and then argue over the details."
What I would push is that we differ on the details. The line of what is "bulls*t" and what is a character is going to be different for each person. But I think we can all agree that the media and most people in our country are drawing the line at all. They are merely referring to the line as a hypothetical that moves depending on whether the transgression involves their candidate or not.
So when you discuss Gun Control, that's exactly what I'm talking about. One of the things I referred to was an urban legend--easily disproven with a little research. The other is a more subtle discussion of what the point of the right to bear arms is--is it to protect individual citzens safety or does it bring responsbility to create militia to resist local law enforcements and government's transgressions on human rights? If it does the former, but not the latter, is it worthwhile?
So you explained the inaccuracy in a civil way and then instead of writing me off or carcaturizing me, you put forth your argument for the latter question. Now we could discuss the merits of either.
However, whatever we decide, which may be to simply disagree, we are having a thoughtful discussion.
This is the exception rather than the rule in American politics. 2008 is a special year in that we actually have three quality candidates. Clinton, McCain and Obama would all make decent presidents. However, Clinton still represents the reason we ended up with no feasible candidates in the last election and had a president who ranks in the bottom ten percentile in terms of presidential ability among all three hundred million Americans for the last eight years.
So when she or the media steer the discussion in that direction--"Obama is a black nationalist racist because he went to a church that good white Americans would never set foot in!" "He sucks at bowling--must be a bad presidential candidate" "McCain is too old!"--we must do all we can to reorient the discussion.
The former you might see as different, and it might be challenging for you to see why it fits with the latter two examples, but to those of us who have seen good, thoughtful white Americans avoid our entire end of the city for decades now complaining about a couple of soundbites, it's challenging to not agree with Wright's words.
Many of us are meeting that challenge, as Obama did. However, we don't feel like there is empathetic reciprocation and certainly we haven't seen you at Church.
I'd just mention two things. First, Wednesday's debate has been widely criticized for being too divisive. The ABC folks look really bad right now, mainly because they spent the better part of the first hour trying to direct attention to meaningless issues like flag pins, Rev. Wright, and the meaning of "bitter". Americans are obviously sick of it, even if some folks 'round here aren't.
Second, having visited Antietam on two occasions, I am not sure that the reason for the conferederate's success at Burnside's bridge has a lot to do with being sharpshooters. Frankly, I could have probably killed dozens of the yankess who were forced to cross that bridge in close ranks.
Not a big deal, obviously, but I just wanted to clarify that point.
We do a better job selecting our leaders than Jordan, China, Russia and Zimbabwe
Michael Fuerst
Elephant in the Kitchen - Jerry Day
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7iW5kOB1pmg
So... why didn't all those internet users actually go and VOTE for the guy?
xian... not sure if it'll get better or worse from here. Right now it seems like the disinformation super-highway has far more traffic than the information super-highway. The media, the independent media, and even the people being the media themselves overwhelmingly seem to be geared to audiences that seems far more accepting of the sensationalism and gotcha politics. While there may be a small percentage of voters who want something more objective, whether it helps their preferred candidate/party/etc or not... I don't see cable news junkies giving up sensationalist news/opinion/info-tainment for something closer to C-SPAN. Nor do I expect the DailyKossacks and RedStaters to start reading like factcheck.org anytime soon.
But I do think there is some hope. There seems to have been a slow but growing demand for more objective and reliable sources of information on both television and the internet. A lot of folks may enjoy "feeling" right and having their views affirmed, but I think enough people have been burned by unreliable sources and left looking like a yahoo that there is actually a bit of a market for them now. Alternatively though, there seems to be quite a few people so desperate to continue to feel right, even when the facts contradict their prior impressions that they'll rely on some of the most convoluted and conspiratorial information available... and the internet makes that stuff a click away.
"The other is a more subtle discussion of what the point of the right to bear arms is--is it to protect individual citzens safety or does it bring responsbility to create militia to resist local law enforcements and government's transgressions on human rights? If it does the former, but not the latter, is it worthwhile?"
The militia is technically an arm of the State government when not in the service of the federal government under both State and federal law going back to the beginning. They are subordinate to government authority as opposed to being an entirely independent entity. The militia in Illinois is pretty much everyone residing in the State who is capable of providing for the common defense, though legislation generally exempts kids and the elderly from being subject to call. When not actually in the service of the State or the federal government they are subject to the law as normal. When serving, however, they are subordinate to the chain of command and would likely be treated as support divisions and/or reserve infantry. It's usefulness would be in a time of extreme national distress in times of rebellion, insurrection, war, disasters, etc where civil authority, especially federal authority is severely disrupted or non-existant. An unlikely scenario, but it's better to have a plan for the worst while hoping for the best.
The right to arms can be useful to rebellions and revolutions, etc. But the right to throw off one's government pre-dates the Constitution and is not dependent on it. The assumption is that the Constitution guarantees the people the ability to change their State and federal governments peacefully through elections. Congress is empowered to authorize the militia for use in putting down such rebellions, so the idea that the right is there to encourage rebellions is a bit contradictory. For any rebellion to be viable it would require the support and coordination by State authorities, and probably multiple State authorities, as with the civil war. This is more true than ever. Without the heavy equipment and arms of a State's National Guard or Air National Guard a rebellion would be extremely difficult to pull off against federal authorities today and would almost certainly lack any widespread support for light or transient causes (in this case transient).
My militia primer covering these ideas in more detail are here. It was written for an audience of gun nuts, who at the time were driving me a bit up the wall with their "militia of one" philosophy.
Unfortunately with the injustices faced by the Japanese and Americans of Japanese decent during this time, they were generally screwed by their fellow Americans who were scared of them and the slowness of the justice system to appropriately respond with the government heavily on the side of the hysterical perspective. An armed rebellion by the Japanese would have both confirmed their fears in their own minds and would have had little, if any widespread support at the time... essentially inviting a massacre. They needed something more like the modern ACLU going to bat for them.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
Now that I watched the whole thing though, it strikes me that some of the "media favors Obama vs. Ron Paul" and "media favors Clinton over Ron Paul" is a bit misleading. I think a large part of that is "the media is following the Democratic primary race much closer than they are following/have followed the Republican race."
There is a sense in many circles (happy or not, depending on location) that the Democrat is going to win the White House in November, largely due to the war in Iraq (and yeah, the irony there w.r.t. to the Ron Paul camp is interesting), so the outcome of that race is more important. ADD to that the fact that the Democratic primary has turned into a race of "firsts" (will it be "first black guy" or "first woman"?) and the proportional delegates business that has people talking about math and superdelegates, and I can understand the Democratic race getting more coverage than the Republican one.
The end part of the video comparing Ron Paul with McCain was more interesting, as the relative interest of the parties is gone then. There, I do wonder what happened. From what I can tell, a lot of people seem to consider Ron Paul to be a third party candidate (a Libertarian candidate) even when he's running on the Republican ticket. I don't know why that is, exactly - he has some "non-mainstream" (compared to the other entries) planks, but it is IS interesting just how "oh yeah that guy, but he's a spoiler, isn't he third party or something?" happened.
Aside from that I will say that I can empathize with someone who sucks at bowling. Most definitely.
Re: elephant in the kitchen... as hilarious as it is to base popularity on the number of YouTube videos or web pages search hits which have no restrictions on the number posted by the same people and only has an indirect relation to actual voters/supporters... the scientific polling and now the voters themselves have shown and confirmed his actual support was relatively dismal. The media generally gives more attention to candidates who their viewers are more interested in. The scientific polling and the actual turnout helped confirm their decisions were less bias, but an acceptance of objective data over the "YouTube proof" nonsense.
If we've learned anything thanks to Ron Paul, it is that internet popularity helps... but internet popularity alone does not equate to actual popularity in scientific polls or at the polls. The primary election results for Paul have always come within the margin of error for his actual turnout. He only exceeded polling in caucuses where small but energized support can give a candidate an advantage... just like... the internet... just like... limited audience phone polling... just like... straw polls... you get the idea.
The conspiracy theories are entertaining and all. But sometimes you just have to face the facts. But thanks for affirming part of what I was writing when you posted that:
"Alternatively though, there seems to be quite a few people so desperate to continue to feel right, even when the facts contradict their prior impressions that they'll rely on some of the most convoluted and conspiratorial information available... and the internet makes that stuff a click away."
I enjoy instant gratification. :-)
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
mjfuerst -
We do a better job selecting our leaders than Jordan, China, Russia and Zimbabwe.
It appears that China actually does a much better job of selecting leaders considered labour, effort, cost, and the actual outcomes.
China has actually had in the past century a history of excellent leaders (Sun Yishan, Zhou Enlai, Deng Xiaoping, Zhu Rongji) that
rival in integrity and ability our Theo. Roosevelt, our Dwight Eisenhower, and our Ronald Reagan. At the low end of the scumbag scale we have Clinton, Carter, Wilson, FDR, Truman, and the 2 Bushes, while post-1920-China can only point to the criminal gangster Jiang Jieshi (aka Chiang Kai-Shek). Let's leave it to history to decide whether or not Mao was right and Deng was right in what each did...
That may be the most disturbing take on China's leadership I've ever heard... China's modern leadership only looks good because they can be compared favorable to Mao fairly easily. Perhaps I have this thing about liberty that just doesn't allow me to appreciate authoritarian yahoos... even if they aren't nearly as bad as chairman Mao, with tens of millions of dead Chinese on his record and hundreds of millions who faced brutal oppression, torture, beatings, purges etc. Mao makes Hitler look like a better organized novice in the realm of bringing death and devestation on his own his own people. Granted, the Nationalists can also be blamed for a great deal of hell and death on China prior to the communist revolution finally taking power... but that hardly excuses the others in any way shape or form.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
American incarcerates more of its citizens than any other country on earth, including China.
Just food for thought. I agree that the Chinese are hardly exemplars when it comes to liberty and individual rights. But we have more than two million of our people in prison this afternoon. China has around 1.5 million, with several times our population. On some level, it is difficult to make the claim that we are defenders of individual rights when we our legal justice system is so aggressive and (it has to be said) racist.
Boon... while I agree that our system has many problems with criminal justice and idiotic laws that make many things crimes that shouldn't be (like marijuana use/possession) and target minorities often harder than others... see my "Not So Black Market" post. The differences between the two systems are practically night and day. While the black market in drugs certainly plays a role, our issues are mainly due to having a liberty centric society that has high crime rates driven by poverty related issues... whereas China's system is oppressive and has a justice system that makes ours look like heaven in comparison. We need to deal with our problems, without a doubt. But trying to equate us based on something that has so many underlying variables that have nothing to do with one of another is really disingenuous in my opinion. I think we can adaquetely demand reforms here without equation through implication to communist China. That kind of stuff doesn't get people motivated to deal with poverty and violence... it puts them on the defensive.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
Glock,
One can only hope that you are truly sincerely disturbed unto introspection as well as vision.
China is experiencing sustained economic growth at a historically unprecedented rate. The lives of their people are improving,
while in the USA our so-called leaders bring us war, death, taxes, bondage, and the police state.
But trying to equate us based on something that has so many underlying variables that have nothing to do with one of another is really disingenuous in my opinion. I think we can adaquetely demand reforms here without equation through implication to communist China. That kind of stuff doesn't get people motivated to deal with poverty and violence... it puts them on the defensive.
Of course, I am not trying to motivate anyone to do anything. I have long since given up believing that anyone gives a rat's ass about the incarcerated in this country. I am not sure how anyone could draw any other conclusion, frankly.
Equating us with China "through implication"? I haven't done any such thing. The numbers speak for themselves, and do most of the implication and equation all on their own. The problem with America, and Americans, is that they are so damned excited about how "free" we are. We are repeatedly told over and over again that we are the free-est people on Planet Earth. That "at least we know we're free". As if the folks in Sweden are less free than we are. Or the folks in France. Frankly, most of the civilized world is pretty equally free, and some far more free than you or I. One bad car accident without health insurance ...
America is a great country. I've lived in other countries, and I am proud to call this place my home. Even when some expats would put Canadian flags on their backpacks to deflect post-9-11 criticism, I always refused. Walk proud. I am an American.
But tonight we have more citizens sleeping behind bars than any other country in the world. And there is something really, really wrong with that. If it makes people equate our country with totalitarian regimes then so be it. Perhaps we need to think a little harder about how to solve this problem instead of being so damned upset that anyone dare mention the American legal justice system in the same breath as the Chinese.
"But tonight we have more citizens sleeping behind bars than any other country in the world. And there is something really, really wrong with that."
Agreed.
"If it makes people equate our country with totalitarian regimes then so be it."
This would be wrong given the reasons behind the imprisonment and differences in the systems. But now I repeat myself.
"Of course, I am not trying to motivate anyone to do anything." and then "Perhaps we need to think a little harder about how to solve this problem instead of being so damned upset that anyone dare mention the American legal justice system in the same breath as the Chinese."
I accept your apology. </colbert> :-)
As I said... "I think we can adaquetely demand reforms here without equation through implication to communist China. That kind of stuff doesn't get people motivated to deal with poverty and violence... it puts them on the defensive."
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
Once again, it's arbitrary outrage. We don't live in China, we live here. What disingenuous is large groups of people (not you) who use "how bad it is in other countries" to distract from the reality--we have a choice to be a vengeful, hateful society or not. It doesn't really have much to do with the rest of the world--although we should look at the rest of the world more to learn HOW to improve.
To the people in prison, I don't think it matters too much that our system doesn't suck as much as China's. To the students deprived of a decent shot at an education, by lack of interest in the poor and folks of color in our country, I don't think they care that it's not state-sponsored segregation that screws them over, but the segregation imposed by a majority of Americans' decisions.
I hope that we are not the ones being targeted with torch protests in 2016, although if we don't improve, I will be resigned to leading them.
I think our prison system has many faults but it is a prison. If you can come up with some viable changes that people will listen to run for office or see the proper government agency to see if they will adopt the change.
"while in the USA our so-called leaders bring us war, death, taxes, bondage, and the police state." I don't think Glock is the one who is confused, or you don't have a clue what a police state is.
http://www.stopthenorthamericanunion.com/videos/UntoldStoryGunConfiscation.html#Title
http://bravenewfilms.org/blog/12088-the-militarization-of-our-police
http://www.sott.net/articles/show/151009-US-Woman-Hope-Steffey-Brutalised-and-Strip-Searched-by-Male-Officers
http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoons/cartoonists/csa/lowres/csan41l.jpg
Has this board been infiltrated by an apologist for the Chinese government?
Vengeful? Hateful? Lack of interest in "folks of color"? Yeah... now we're having a rational discussion. Well, I guess to a liberal, the only reason somebody could disagree with them is that person is either evil or stupid (or both, in the case of GWB). So much for agreeing to disagree.
I look forward to seeing Xian protesting the torch relay in 2016. I wonder what his sign will say. Maybe "Have more empathy, you hateful, vengeful people." Or maybe "We need affirmative action for juries." It might say, "Our criminal justice system is racist and barbaric - and saying this puts me on the moral high-ground so as to insulate my views from criticism - which leads to dialog, which on blogs I claim to support."