Everyone gather around. Confused23 front and center.

Colleges and Universities A-Z Service Academy Parents
1

<p>I was thinking on the way home that maybe we were a little hard on the poor guy, and that we didn't really give him a chance to express his views completely before we piled on.</p>

<p>In the name of fairness, I propose we allow him to tell us what he thinks, without haste, and let the chips fall where they may.</p>

<p>OK, Confused, the floor is yours. Please answer the following question:</p>

<p>Tomorrow morning, you wake up to find yourself with absolute power over the United States of America. Complete and absolute power. What would you do politically, economically, diplomatically, militarily, or any other way?</p>

<p>I'm dead serious. All I ask is that when you finish, just put I AM DONE at the bottom of your last post so that we can comment. Everyone else, let Confused put everything he wants in there. If he's not done by this time Sunday, then the restrictions come off and we can comment.</p>

<p>Deal? Cool.</p>

<p>Ok, Confused. Go for it. We're listening.</p>

2

<p>I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say you are sincere and I'll be back later to start posting.</p>

3

<p>I appreciate that, and you have my word. We'll be standing by.</p>

4

<p>My Manifesto</p>

<ol>
<li><p>No more private fundraising for nationwide campaigns. This includes the election of the President and the Congress. The McCain-Feingold Bill was a nice first shot, but it didn't go far enough and people from both parties found loopholes to go around. All elections should be funded by the government with a certain amount going equally to all candidates. So it doesn't get costly and the government can keep some fiscal responsibility, you should need signatures from at least 100,000 registered voters to be on the ballot for President. For Congressional elections you should need signatures from 1 percent of registered voters in your district. This would limit the influence of special interests on prospective government officials. This could be assigned as a task to the Federal Voting Commission to monitor that candidates don't use private money. I know some people might say, but how can people support their candidates? By voting and passing out flyers, etc. I know that complications may arise so wait for 2,3,4,5 etc.</p></li>
<li><p>The Senate should be dissolved and only a House of Representatives should exist in the legislative branch of the federal government because the Senate is an undemocratic institution. This country was founded on equal rights and representation. The population of America is estimated to be 298 million. The top four states (population wise) are California, Texas, New York, and Florida. Their respective populations are roughly 36.1 million, 22.9 million, 19.3 million, and 17.8 million. Their total population is roughly 33 percent of the Union. Why should 33 % of the population have only 8 % of the representation in the Senate, arguably one of the most important branches of the government?
Result: Many Republicans don't like a large federal government, and would prefer the states to have more power. Not to give you a heart attack, but I somewhat agree. If there was only a House of Rep. and 1 per district based strictly on population the government wouldn't seem distant because the legislative branch would be watched closely by the people, due to the fact that Congressman are up for election every 2 years and after #1 they would be dependent on the people, not lobbyists, for support.</p></li>
<li><p>Dissolve the Electoral College and makes elections for President to be based on a popular vote. Nationwide elections only get about a 50 percent turnout. Not good. One reason why people may be turned off is because in an Electoral College if you live in California, New York, Texas, or South Carolina your vote really doesn’t count because the first two will go blue for decades to come and the latter will go red as sure as the sun will rise tomorrow morning. In a popular vote, no matter where you live, the vote would really count.</p></li>
</ol>

<p>There's more but let that sink in for a bit. TO BE CONTINUED</p>

5

<p>i like number one, but wouldnt it take some money to get 100,000 signatures?</p>

<p>i like number two</p>

<p>i like number three</p>

<p>but good luck getting anything changed... HAH!</p>

6

<p>Ah, ah, ah.....</p>

<p>We wait until he's done.</p>

7

<p>So much more, don't know where to start I want to keep this brief.</p>

<ol>
<li>To put it bluntly, people get obsessed with stupid issues. Even though we may have different opinions on national security, the economy, foreign policy, gun control, or Social Security these are important issues in that they have some value. But arguing about Creationism and gay marriage is ridiculous.

<ol>
<li>For example, with Creationism, it shouldn't be taught in schools, especially not in a science class. Why? Because there is no science involved. If someone wants to believe in it and practice at home they should go do that, but that's where it should start and end. Every religion has different interoperations on how the world was created and let them have it. But again. There’s no science involved.

<ol>
<li>Gay marriage. WHO CARES. What happened to live and let live. If it’s all about freedom and they don't try to make you become gay, let it be.</li>
</ol></li>
</ol></li>
</ol>

<p>Even if you don't agree, don't you think that the government should pay more attention on issues of national security, and the economy, etc? So basically, new amendment, Creationism can't be taught in school. Marriage is defined as a union between two people, regardless of gender.</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Religious institutions all lose their immunity from taxes. Make it a simple flat rate. The Catholic Church owns more of this country than Microsoft. Its time they pay like everyone else. Why? Because, in law, we are told that if religious institutions get involved in politics they lose their tax-exemptions. Every rabbi, cleric, priest, reverend is going to talk about politics and they should be allowed to. But they have to pay too. No double standards.</p></li>
<li><p>The media needs to be more independent. Spare me the liberal media accusation. Has anyone seen Fox News? I am saying it’s not independent, regardless of political leaning. Most media networks are connected to large conglomerates which are involved in politics, and that can effect the news reporting. The media should be forced to be an independent entity with no ties to any political groups or government contracts. I think this is slightly fixed with my proposal about election funding.</p></li>
</ol>

<p>7.Even thouh I don't think this is too important, but since I am a high school senior and it is on my mind. No more legacy points in college admissions. Just because someone is born in a certain family they shouldn't have these large advantages in the admissions game. There should be more federal and state aid for colleges because it is getting far too costly and is limiting people from lower socio-economic backgrounds.</p>

8

<ol>
<li>This is where things get interesting. The real controversial issues, so try to listen even if I disagree with you. From this point on I am going to work from an assumption that I think time has validated.
There are certain prime issues that have a large implication for society. A maximizer effect if you will. Education, for example, is important not because of its intrinsic traits but because of its effect on society. Education effects the economy, factors into voting because more educated people tend to participate more in a democracy. An educated populace may reduce the crime rate and lower the unemployment rate. More educational opportunties for people for disadvantaged minorities and the poor wil bridge the gap and improve race relations, which almost ripped this country apart in the 1960's. In summation, an issue that shouldn't be taken lightly. How it can improve? It needs more federal money. Not everyone is born a math wiz, but can be really good with their hands. Their needs to more money poured into the technical arts and the wages for teachers need to be higher. Many bright people who can make phenomenal teachers simply won't because of the money. There should be a mandatory pre-school up to the 12th grade so everyone has the opportunity to excel. Many states have standardized tests for students in high school. In California its the CAT 6 and in New York I believe its the Regents Exam, and I am sure other states have similar exams. There should be one federal exam and we can base progress and teacher performance on how students measure on such exams. There should be accountability, but there should also be adequate resources, which don't exist at many schools throughout the country. A school voucher system may help bring some competition and improve the situation. Result : A Win-Win Situation.</li>
</ol>

<p>To be continued tomorrow: Immigration, the Economy, and Foreign Policy.</p>

9

<p>Well done, my beamish boy. Truly. You stated your case without being inflammatory. It is obvious that you put a lot of thought into whtat you wrote. Not to be patronizing, but it is nice that a person of your age is thinking about stuff like this. </p>

<p>Interesting thought about Unicameralism. Denmark does it and I believe New Zealand? Canada and GB are defacto unicamerals. Question: Have you read the Federalist Papers? If so, what is your position on the logic the founding fathers used in creating a Senate? </p>

<p>Hehe, Zaphod already got you into a "homework" assignment you hadn't planned on. I don't mean to add to it. Just curious. Thanks for your earnest tone. It is much nicer and you have me listening.</p>

10

<p>what is your position on the relationship between Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie?</p>

11

<p>I've read parts of the Federalist Papers but not the whole thing. We have to keep in mind that when they wrote it they were trying to keep together 13 states, many of which did not like each other. The South didn't like the fact that the North had kind of pushed the colonies towards the war and that the new federal government was going to pay the debt, since the South did not have that much debt. The Senate, which most of you already know, was part of a Compromise because they were more interested in keeping all the states together in the short-run. They weren't thinking about population and voting rights in the long-run. And P.S. I could care less about Pitt and Jolie.</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Immigration. I know this sounds like a stereotype, but you have to blame the corporations. They are the largest employers in this country, Wal-Mart, McDonalds, etc and they are the ones that hire the illegal immigrants. As long as there are jobs, somebody will come find them. Stiffer penalties for businesses who hire the illegal immigrants are where this should be applied. Building a giant Berlin Wall where Mexico is not a good idea. Why? 1. Too expensive to maintain. 2. It would create bad-will with Mexico. Second measure: Help improve Mexico's infrastructure and help them with their own industry. I know it's not philosophically fair because why should we have to help them but let's face it; they'll come here if we don't. Establish amnesty for the immigrants who already here because it would be illogical to somehow be able to scoop them all out and send them back. And speaking from an economic standpoint, every country needs a relatively cheap labor source. If America were to send out all the illegal immigrants the economy would collapse, eventually recover after years of adjustment, but in the short-run it would collapse.</p></li>
<li><p>Economy. There has to be a balance between a free market and a socialist system. A mixed economy, if you will. We saw pure capitalism fail in 1920's America (Great Depression) and we saw pure communism fail in the Soviet Union. Certain industries should not be privatized, chief among them, the defense industry. Individuals corporations shouldn't be allowed to profit from death and destruction. ... To be continued , I haven't finished 10.</p></li>
</ol>

12

<p>
[quote]
what is your position on the relationship between Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Who cares? He's a womanizing dirtbag and she's a skank (even if she is beautiful). If they fell off the face of the planet tomorrow, I would neither notice nor miss them.</p>

<p>Let's allow Confused finish, please. That was the agreement....</p>

13

<p>


</p>

<p>you mean you COULDN'T care less? ownnnnned</p>

<p>and i was joking.</p>

14

<p>if you're taking suggestions: how about the military and the military academies?</p>

15

<p>"It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure. There are but two methods of providing against this evil: the one by creating a will in the community independent of the majority -- that is, of the society itself; the other, by comprehending in the society so many separate descriptions of citizens as will render an unjust combination of a majority of the whole very improbable, if not impracticable. The first method prevails in all governments possessing an hereditary or self-appointed authority. This, at best, is but a precarious security; because a power independent of the society may as well espouse the unjust views of the major, as the rightful interests of the minor party, and may possibly be turned against both parties. The second method will be exemplified in the federal republic of the United States. Whilst all authority in it will be derived from and dependent on the society, the society itself will be broken into so many parts, interests, and classes of citizens, that the rights of individuals, or of the minority, will be in little danger from interested combinations of the majority. In a free government the security for civil rights must be the same as that for religious rights. It consists in the one case in the multiplicity of interests, and in the other in the multiplicity of sects. The degree of security in both cases will depend on the number of interests and sects; and this may be presumed to depend on the extent of country and number of people comprehended under the same government. This view of the subject must particularly recommend a proper federal system to all the sincere and considerate friends of republican government, since it shows that in exact proportion as the territory of the Union may be formed into more circumscribed Confederacies, or States oppressive combinations of a majority will be facilitated: the best security, under the republican forms, for the rights of every class of citizens, will be diminished: and consequently the stability and independence of some member of the government, the only other security, must be proportionately increased. Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit. In a society under the forms of which the stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly be said to reign as in a state of nature, where the weaker individual is not secured against the violence of the stronger; and as, in the latter state, even the stronger individuals are prompted, by the uncertainty of their condition, to submit to a government which may protect the weak as well as themselves; so, in the former state, will the more powerful factions or parties be gradually induced, by a like motive, to wish for a government which will protect all parties, the weaker as well as the more powerful."</p>

<p>The Federalist No. 51</p>

<p>You need safeguards in the government to protect the minority.</p>

16

<p>what if we split the majority up into many minorities to give them the majority of the power?</p>

17

<p>Or, take the minorities and make them into the majority? Which will happen in the U.S. in about, what, 15 -20 years.</p>

<p>I am waiting for the "All Done," but can I ask a basic question?</p>

<p>Is the predicate that the Constitution has been suspended? [Which, of course, then means Confuses is no longer speaking of the United States and this whole discussion is about as meaningful as assuming that Martians now rule the United States.] Suspension of the Constitutions seems implied in the setup that Confused [what an appropriate screen name if ever] has "complete and absolute power."</p>

18

<p>Easy, Bill. Don't get ahead of him.</p>

<p>I said "absolute power", and that's what I meant. Interesting how far some will go with it, eh?</p>

<p>Don't worry. His recalibration shall begin in about 8 hours. ;)</p>

19

<p>Oh.... reading will be fun tonight!! Although I must admit...it seems confused hasn't really laid out much content to discuss yet...</p>

20

<p>10, cont.: There’s a need to more oversight over what corporations can do in this country and how easily people can be fired. Corporations should be REQUIRED to provide free health-care for all full-time employees (Cough) Wal-Mart! I would suggest the Japanese model of corporations, which has been quite successful.</p>

<ol>
<li>Foreign policy. TO understand how a country is viewed in the international arena we have to look at that country's history. Anything from 200 years ago is quite irrelevant, but everything from WWII onward is fair game. After WWII when the United States was competing with the Soviet Union, and although one may argue that the Soviets had a more intrinsically ruthless ideology, some of the people that America put in power and supported were not great people. I could bring up several names like Pinochet, the Shah, and others, but you get the point. This has undoubtedly and rightfully brought a lot of countries to be anti-American. I am not saying it’s your fault, but it’s the truth. When you become as ruthless as a ruthless enemy, you lose your righteousness.
“I like to believe that people in the long run are going to do more to promote peace than our governments. Indeed, I think that people want peace so much that one of these days governments had better get out of the way and let them have it."
-- Dwight D. Eisenhower
You have to understand that every time a great power will rise, it will fall. That's just history. The Roman Empire was not an eternal empire, neither was the British Empire. America is not immune from history. Until the fall of the Cold War, the United States intervened in several countries and harmed them, a fact that if you argue, you are deluded. Even Rice, America's Secretary of State, I can find a source later if you don't believe me, said that it was this country's policy to support dictators if they were pro-American dictators and that this country has been paying a price for it (alluding to 9-11, etc). Keeping all that on mind people have to understand that if America really wants to be a friend of democracy, which as Rice said, it hasn't, it shouldn't do it through military action. How many times did America intervene in Latin America during the Cold War? Countless times. How stable are those democracies? Not very. The only time America successfully intervened in another region and promoted a stable democracy was in Western Europe post WW-II, and that was successful because it was a largely a hands-off approach and America was giving only financial support through the Marshall Plan.</li>
</ol>