Why Slayer420 is Wrong

[Horselover Fat]

I had a nice answer 420 but it got deleted and I am too pissed to remember what I said, sorry dude.

[slayer420]

It was somthing about me being an azzhole :D

[Horselover Fat]

Here we go again, do the words "acting like" mean nothing anymore?

[Horselover Fat]

And I was talking about the good part before that

[slayer420]

LOL Its cool, I was just giving you a hard time, because you gave me one when I started posting. No hard feeling I hope.

[Horselover Fat]

No, that's cool, I hope you at least can see what I'm talking about though.

The part about it being the job of the union to protect the rights of their members I mean

[DanteGabriel]

My thought is that we have deep ideological roots in individualism, free enterprise, and a general mistrust and dislike of government.

Honestly, the paradox of American identity is that we live in a Post-New Deal world of government but we still cling to Jefferson's antiquated vision for America.

Okay, to get away from the teaching thing for a bit, I'd like to tack back to the concept of individualism in the American character (as much as any such thing can be generalized about). S John's and MFC's posts have helped me kind of crystallize a bunch of stuff I was bouncing around in my head about another paradox of American identity.

America, I agree, does certainly have a streak of valuing rugged individualism -- it is a trait that is widely admired and celebrated here. It often leads to admirable results. There is also a great value placed on the worth of the individual, protection of an individual's rights. No one is supposed to be better or more privileged than someone else just by virtue of noble birth, and all citizens are treated equally under the law. Also good stuff. Then there's a current of the inherent virtue of the "common man" -- a citizen should be trusted to make good decisions in civic life and elect good leaders after carefully weighing their policies and personal qualities. Thomas Jefferson wanted us to be a nation of farmers -- which is pretty funny coming from a guy who owned a slave labor plantation, as I think his view of Ideal America would have turned into apartheid South Africa or something, but that's beside the point. I'm all for valuing the rights of the individual, I'm still not sold on the inherent virtue of the "common man."

I think equally (if not more deeply) entrenched in the national character is the power of wealthy elites. This country was founded by, and its government established by, wealthy (often slave-owning) white men who owned a lot of land (the corporate equity of the 18th century). Wealthy white Protestants are a social class that has historically contributed an overweening proportion of its legislators, judges, and Presidents. The guys (and I do mostly mean "guys") who provide our much-bragged-about checks and balances have pretty much been members of the same country clubs since the nation's founding. The government the founders established was meant to defend their capital interests, promote stability (protect the status quo), and make it very difficult to enact great governmental change. This is a country that has amended its governing charter 27 times in 220 years (ten of which were a package deal, a launch day patch, and another that repealed a previous amendment).

The American Revolution is a funny old name. Was the revolt against British rule a true effort driven by the masses? It seems to me that the Revolution was driven forward by the agitations of the colonial elites who wanted more self-rule from overseas government. "No taxation withot representation" -- rich guys bitching about taxes even then. They achieved popular support through propaganda and agit-prop incidents. The birth of this nation was a god damn Astroturf operation! And what was the nature of the government they established in the place of imperial rule? It's not like they threw over the King and instituted an anarcho-socialist collective. They restricted the vote to land-owning white males. The founders further insulated the government from even that limited pool of popular opinion from the get-go, as Senators, members of the more powerful, longer-serving chamber of Congress, were initially elected by state legislatures instead of popular vote. Sounds more like a coup d'etat than a revolution. But actually a revolution is a perfect name -- it went 360 degrees.

I'm in no way arguing that America is unique in its culture or government by being dominated by the capital class. It's true of probably every Western country in the last few hundred years, except for Communist states, (party elites), and theocracies (religious elites). But Americans seem to believe that they are, to use a much-loved phrase on this board, a unique and special snowflake in all of world history. Would anyone argue that all Americans are truly treated equally in the eyes of the law? I think most of us would agree that the wealthy mostly get treated better by law and society (except for the occasional wealthy or powerful person that gets publicly beaten down by the law to let everyone see that it happens from time to time), and that people born into wealth tend to stay wealthy. We do have a noble class, they just don't call themselves "sir" or "lord."

It seems like the rugged individualism and the lip service paid to the value of the individual makes people a little blind to the fact that they're still pretty much ruled by the wealthy. Like we're a nation that can be naive about its leaders and their motivations. Like being taught from grade school about the inherent virtue of the American political system, the sanctity and brilliance of the Founding Fathers (what a term!), and the idea that the Constitution protects us against the oppression suffered by other countries makes us unprepared to deal with the truly cynical manipulators who so often make their way into politics, and seem to continually triumph over the genuinely interested in public service. You know, I'd liken it almost to a religion -- the Founding Fathers are our gods, the Constitution our holy text, politicians our overprivileged and corrupt priests, who don't actually believe what they're peddling, but use it to take advantage of others' civic piety. Politicians and their adherents continuously invoke the Constitution and the founders' intent (more appropriately, their self-serving interpretations of the source material) to push for policies. True Believers in political ideology are just as tiresome and yet as dangerously determined as religious fanatics. The religious overtones of political rhetoric probably also dampen rationality when considering political questions.

And the virtue automatically assigned to the "common man" has devolved into a popular distrust for education and some twisted pride in ignorance. Americans are also just as susceptible to groupthink, propaganda, and manipulation through fear and greed as any other people. We're (most of us) a nation of people who are pretty conservative in actual practice, distrustful of change, firmly convinced of their own rightness, and easily pacified by getting to drop a ballot for one of the pair of rich or connected people the two parties decided to let them vote for. We're also mollified by the high standard of living provided first by the country's vast advantage in natural resources, and then by American dominance of the global economy. (Let's also not forget the military adventurism that seized all those natural resources for us, and which furthers capitalist interests even today.)

I guess I sound pretty down on the United States, and terribly cynical, but I'm really a disappointed idealist. I've seen a lot worse in other countries, and I love where I am and feel very lucky to be here. I have higher expectations for this country than other places. And I get really angry and worked up over our own corrupt priests, many of whom I have complained about profanely in the US Politics threads. I like what Hunter S. Thompson said in 1972 -- "What a fantastic monument to all the best instincts of the human race this country might have been, if we could have kept it out of the hands of greedy little hustlers like Richard Nixon."

I think the United States is built on some wonderful ideas that fall short in practice. More flawed than most Americans believe. The civic values of individual rights and equality before law are worthy ideals. I just don't think we're as good upholding them, and at resisting the sins of history, as most Americans think we are.

Oh yeah, and I can't abide the non-ironic "America! Fuck yeah!" sentiment. The fact that Obama is expected to pay lip service to the idea of "American exceptionalism" is appalling to me.

I've come up with all this mostly from observations of other countries (especially country in which I was born, whose political and socioeconomic character make an interesting contrast with the US...) and an amateur interest in history. I'm sure there's a lot I'm seeing simplistically or that I got wrong. Scholars of history, I am eager to hear your thoughts.

[slayer420]

Let me start by saying I agree with a lot of what you said, I would also say that America has many flaws and don't agree with the current state of politics. I don’t agree with how are elected officials behave once they get there. I would have to say that any one born here can become president though. Just look at Obama, I don't think he was from a "rich" family. Also I don't think Reagan was from a rich family. Need to check my facts but I am sure you guys will do it for me :D. We do have some "Old money" rich here. We also have a lot of "New money" people who started out poor and worked hard, got lucky, whatever. Wouldn't you want those people that worked hard to lead your country though? Not so much the Old money guys, but people who worked hard and made it. I know they have there flaws. Who would you say was better to rule the country? How do we get them elected? I really don’t agree with the take from the rich, give to the poor movement. who decides who is rich? How would you decide when to stop taking from them. I have a cousin, it wouldn't matter how much money you gave him, It would be gone in a week. I like how we elect are government, if there were only a way to make them do what they said they would do once they got elected, I think we would have the whole thing figured out.

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

I guess I sound pretty down on the United States, and terribly cynical, but I'm really a disappointed idealist.

Minor Point: A cynic and a disappointed idealist are fundamentally the same thing.

[Crazydog7]

I think the United States is built on some wonderful ideas that fall short in practice. More flawed than most Americans believe. The civic values of individual rights and equality before law are worthy ideals. I just don't think we're as good upholding them, and at resisting the sins of history, as most Americans think we are.

Oh yeah, and I can't abide the non-ironic "America! Fuck yeah!" sentiment. The fact that Obama is expected to pay lip service to the idea of "American exceptionalism" is appalling to me

But WE THE PEOPLE its on the money and everything. Money doesn't lie so that statement has to be true. So it therefore follows that when you have alot of money you can't tell a lie.

Seriously: Yeah that is essentially me problem with the whole concept it was probably always this way but the older I get the more our politicians seem to embracing the idea that outside of America live lesser people. The idea that a country outside of the boarders of the United States could look at a problem and fix it better then we can is treated with derision and scorn.

[Lyanna Stark]

I would say that the British National Party is to the right of the GOP, even pretty conservative ones, at least on some issues.

The BNP is not a large nor a really influential party. If you are concerned about right-wing parties or socially conservative parties, you may want to check out the Netherlands (not right-wing as such, but populist anti-immigration party, which could be bunched up with the righties), France (much the same as the Netherlands), Austria (immigrants + socially conservative party), Poland and Hungary. Poland has a religious socially conservative party that has a lot of power and Hungary is just...nuts right now.

In general though, while Europe has fringe right-wing parties, they can rarely draw upon such a large supporter base as the GOP. They often also take on the role as parties here the disgruntled vote for when they feel that things used to be better back in the day, the immigrants are about to take over, religion [insert denomination here] should be more important, gays should not be allowed and isn't the youth of today just apalling and someone needs to ban Marilyn Manson.

Whether this means that the Dems would be centre-right or just centre in Average Euroland, I don't really know. They are certainly to the right of our current government which is a centre right government, but that doesn't really say much. Everyone apart from the nationalist scum is pro workers right and pro feminism here these days.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Arthmail,

Fiscal conservatives will have no problems funding more prisons, or increasing the number of cops and border patrol, or letting the industrial military complex go right off the fucking deep end, but paying for education or increasing wages for public sector employees is an evil likely to bring down the economy. They are also the types most likely to keep dropping taxes because thats what the job makers need.

That's a mighty broad brush you are painting fiscal conservatives with and quite a few words you are shoving in our mouths. I, and I suspect others of my political persuasion, am on record as supporting cuts to defense spending, legalizing and taxing currently illegal drugs (which will go a long way toward reducing prison populations and the costs of prisons), and supporting some small scale tax increases to bring additonal revinew to the government to help balance the budget. Most oppose tax increases because it seems that money is rarely used to balance the budget but is simply seen as new money for new spending.

See, not all fiscal conservatives are inconsistent assholes.

Oh, and for the record I'm not against Teacher's Unions. I'm against the effort Teacher's Unions exert to prevent any efforts to find a metric by which in class performance of a given teacher can be used to determine that individual teacher's compensation or bonus for their work. After all there are methods other than standardized testing. What about a combination of teacher self review and peer review to examine the teacher's in class performance? Is that perfect, no, but it's a hell of a lot better than solely relying upon standardized tests. Regardless, not paying teachers for good work seems foolish to me. It is an incredibly hard job and those who do it well should be comensurately rewarded for their excellence. Conversely, those who suck at it and who never improve should be encouraged to leave the profession. Never getting a bonus may serve to give them the impetus they need to find what thier real calling is in life.

[All-for-Joffrey]

Arthmail,

That's a mighty broad brush you are painting fiscal conservatives with and quite a few words you are shoving in our mouths. I, and I suspect others of my political persuasion, am on record as supporting cuts to defense spending, legalizing and taxing currently illegal drugs (which will go a long way toward reducing prison populations and the costs of prisons), and supporting some small scale tax increases to bring additonal revinew to the government to help balance the budget. Most oppose tax increases because it seems that money is rarely used to balance the budget but is simply seen as new money for new spending.

See, not all fiscal conservatives are inconsistent assholes.

Oh, and for the record I'm not against Teacher's Unions. I'm against the effort Teacher's Unions exert to prevent any efforts to find a metric by which in class performance of a given teacher can be used to determine that individual teacher's compensation or bonus for their work. After all there are methods other than standardized testing. What about a combination of teacher self review and peer review to examine the teacher's in class performance? Is that perfect, no, but it's a hell of a lot better than solely relying upon standardized tests. Regardless, not paying teachers for good work seems foolish to me. It is an incredibly hard job and those who do it well should be comensurately rewarded for their excellence. Conversely, those who suck at it and who never improve should be encouraged to leave the profession. Never getting a bonus may serve to give them the impetus they need to find what thier real calling is in life.

Ser Scott,

In Arthmail's defense, I think he was referring to people who claim to be "fiscal conservatives" (ie: republicans). I know countless people (again, republicans) who sanctimoniously claim the title of "fiscal conservative" for themselves but are in favor of all the aforementioned policies, which automatically makes that an inaccurate label to describe themselves (but they just don't seem to get it).

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

AforJ,

That may be the case. But he damns everyone who claims that label without any qualification. Hence my response.

[Nukelavee]

Arthmail -

But, you didn't answer the very question you bolded. Give a value for "many". You didn't. You gave a bunch of anecdotal comments about "people you know", and a career you didn't follow. That's totally devoid of any worth, it means nothing - because I have exactly the same sources of experience to refer to and support my view.

You called me out, and i responded. Clearly your mom being a teacher wasn't enough, and getting accepted doesn't mean anything.

So......because I don't agree with you, my observations are wrong? Very mature. So glad you didn't go thru with teaching.

We use the same techniques the Romans use...really? We stress rhetoric? We personally hire the best we can personally afford? We don't teach modern subjects, with modern information and new discoveries? Classrooms don't see upgrades in new equipment?

Subbing? really? What part of "Have you talked to recent brand new teachers, who can't get sub work because established, "retired" teachers dominate the lists?" are you in denial about?

And, at what point did I paint the entire profession with the "bad" brush?

I simply said "teachers unions are like any other union - for their members." Meaning that, again, sometimes it helps us by helping good teachers, sometimes it screws us by keeping useless teachers employed.

[TerraPrime]

Re: Dante

Nice post.

I'd also say that the apparent disparity between who the people in power are and the type of common-man rhetoric they espouse is still alive and well today. Look no further than our beloved Rush Limbaugh, who is a multi-millionaire and who is thus privileged by virtue of his wealth, and yet who continues to beat the drum of Everyman, selling his political diatribes to audience whose SEC is a few standard deviations away from his own by convincing them that hey, he's really just one of them.

This weirdness is also present in the reverse orientation, like when so many people become upset over estate tax, even though fewer than 1% of our population will even have a chance to worry about that. These people are outraged on the behalf of those who are way more wealthy, with way more power, than they are. Altruism (in the true sense of the word, as in sacrificing self interest for others) does not get better than this (oh, how Rand would roll in her metaphorical grave). I always think that the ability of the conservatives (broadly speaking) to convince the common masses to care about their estate transfer of wealth is a genius stroke of salesmanship. I'm betting that you will get more people to agree that it's not fair to tax the estate transfer than you will get people to agree that the widening pay gap between the executives and the regular workers is unfair. Truly a weird situation for the U.S. (though it might be true for other countries, too).

At any rate, these weirdness are all rooted, imo, in the individualist mytho that we're talking about. It's not for nothing that Thoreau's "Walden" is commonly read in U.S. high school.

All that said, I do have to give credit to the founding fathers that they at least have the spirit of egalitarianism in them, albeit having failed to put that spirit in practice right away, because their framework has allowed the subsequent championing of a more fair society where slaves were emancipated, women gained suffrage, and soon, LBGT people can be treated as equals. Assuredly, they could have created a society that made these things a lot harder to happen, but they drafted a document that gave merit to these ideas of fairness and equality. So they didn't build a great house, but they at least provided us with a decent blueprint.

[Arthmail]

Arthmail,

That's a mighty broad brush you are painting fiscal conservatives with and quite a few words you are shoving in our mouths. I, and I suspect others of my political persuasion, am on record as supporting cuts to defense spending, legalizing and taxing currently illegal drugs (which will go a long way toward reducing prison populations and the costs of prisons), and supporting some small scale tax increases to bring additonal revinew to the government to help balance the budget. Most oppose tax increases because it seems that money is rarely used to balance the budget but is simply seen as new money for new spending.

See, not all fiscal conservatives are inconsistent assholes.

Oh, and for the record I'm not against Teacher's Unions. I'm against the effort Teacher's Unions exert to prevent any efforts to find a metric by which in class performance of a given teacher can be used to determine that individual teacher's compensation or bonus for their work. After all there are methods other than standardized testing. What about a combination of teacher self review and peer review to examine the teacher's in class performance? Is that perfect, no, but it's a hell of a lot better than solely relying upon standardized tests. Regardless, not paying teachers for good work seems foolish to me. It is an incredibly hard job and those who do it well should be comensurately rewarded for their excellence. Conversely, those who suck at it and who never improve should be encouraged to leave the profession. Never getting a bonus may serve to give them the impetus they need to find what thier real calling is in life.

There are exceptions. But you do not fit the popular mould. So i do damn with a broad brush because of how Republicans tend to trend. And i mean, when you really look at the numbers, there has been no indication from Conservatives that they are fiscally responsible, or more fiscally responsbile, i should say.

Arthmail -

But, you didn't answer the very question you bolded. Give a value for "many". You didn't. You gave a bunch of anecdotal comments about "people you know", and a career you didn't follow. That's totally devoid of any worth, it means nothing - because I have exactly the same sources of experience to refer to and support my view.

So......because I don't agree with you, my observations are wrong? Very mature. So glad you didn't go thru with teaching.

We use the same techniques the Romans use...really? We stress rhetoric? We personally hire the best we can personally afford? We don't teach modern subjects, with modern information and new discoveries? Classrooms don't see upgrades in new equipment?

Subbing? really? What part of "Have you talked to recent brand new teachers, who can't get sub work because established, "retired" teachers dominate the lists?" are you in denial about?

And, at what point did I paint the entire profession with the "bad" brush?

I simply said "teachers unions are like any other union - for their members." Meaning that, again, sometimes it helps us by helping good teachers, sometimes it screws us by keeping useless teachers employed.

This is stupid. How do you quantify a number of many based off of data that doesn't exist? I'm not going to spoon feed you man. If you can't extrapolate the amount of after school activities and programs from the fact that most teachers don't run more than one a year, you might have an answer. I could say fucking 100% because they all take papers home to grade at some point, or scores tests at home, save for teachers in elementary school, though they are almost all involved in some degree with the christmas play or what have you. Bake sales.

Its not because you didn't agree with me that you are wrong, it's because you've clearly not paid any attention to the issues involved and have no friggin clue what you are talking about. Keep the rest of your snide bullshit to yourself.

The bolded piece is possibly the worst piece of posting i have seen in awhile. Really? This is part of an argument? Yes, you're right. In my post i clearly state that we have not moved beyond using stones for math. Look at what i said. I said many of the methods are based of Roman methods. I didn't say it was the exact same. Teaching is not a science, it is not quantifiable as so many people want it to be.

Subbing? really? What part of "Have you talked to recent brand new teachers, who can't get sub work because established, "retired" teachers dominate the lists?" are you in denial about?

Yea. Two of my first cousins are teachers, and subbed for years before becoming full time. I knew it when i went into university years ago, it was the first thing they said to us. They knew it when they went to school, and they paid their dues. Much like people that try and become Conservation Officers, they spend years doing summer work until they can find something permanent. Some of those CO's don't find jobs for a decade. If you don't like the options that your profession offers you, don't do it. If teachers want to retire and then work some more, who do you suppose takes over their classroom? Why should they not be allowed to do it? They put in their time, they are first in line.

But this is going nowhere fast. And i'd rather start talking about DG excellent post.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Yea, there is. You're not providing a fucking service based on observable metrics. Its not a fucking business. People need to stop conflating this and health care with data points you can put on a fucking graph. These are people, and its far more complex than dollar figures or straight grade scores. You've completely ignored the points about children in lower socio-economic areas, who will suffer like hell for this idiotic policy.

And it will continue to ruin your education system. The US is so focused on business...financial engineering has nearly ruined Wall Street, and now you want to apply the same principles to other sectors of your society.

Hey, your question was:So, define "many". Give it a real value. What number does many equal? Does many even mean what you are implying, which is "most"? -

And then i related to you the teachers i knew, and know, and my association with them. You called me out, and i responded. Clearly your mom being a teacher wasn't enough, and getting accepted doesn't mean anything. I got accepted into law school and it doesn't mean i know shit about law. But i did do two years of an undergrad in education before i switched. And i clearly paid attention to what was going on. It's not a matter of bravery, you asked me to give a real value to you - if thats even possible - of how many teachers do extra work. I then related all of the school associated programs that they do FOR FREE. Its why when there is a labour dispute teachers will often stop doing that shit, FOR FREE, just to prove a point.

You guys have this sliding goal post, all of you against teachers unions, that you can move anywhere you want. It should be about passion, some say. No, it should not be about just wages, but then what the hell are the incentives for? It should be people doing a job, and some will do it well, and some won't, but it should always be about making sure every student from every segment of society gets a fair shift. And you will not get that with a merit system. So if you want to fuck poor kids, then give it a go and have fun with the associated costs of your societies degredation.

It prevents teachers with recent training, more up to date knowledge and skills, to gain experience or employment.

Come on, this isn't an engineering program. The basic methods of how we teach are based off of the fucking Romans. It does not change that much, it does not bring ideas so fresh and new into the mix that it will change how students learn. And this is an insulte to teachers that...you know....still learn, and do personal and professional development. (Besides which, there is always subbing. Its what many brand new teachers do.)

I see no point in arguing about teachers that want to stay past the point of retirement. If i see you out picketing the massive pensions that politicans get, i might think you are a little more genuine on this. But for the most part, if you enter a field that has less jobs than graduates, you have to suck it up. It should not be expected that the older generation just walk away because the new ones come up the ranks.

And please, actually read my previous posts. I have admitted that there are bad teachers. That there are teachers that need to be fired. But i've argued that the teachers unions for the most part are good (also consider the economy - as teachers unions getter higher pensions that actually goes into investing, which is why i believe it is the Ontario teachers union that owned a majority of the Maple Leafs for a time - so financially, its not all a drain), and this idea of painting them all with a bad brush because you had a teacher that you remember disliking in high school is stupid.

What makes you so sure that American unions are no different from Canadian unions? Issues of culture and historical factors can make unions in one country completely different from unions in other countries, and sometimes even within a country. German labor unions have a completely different approach than most U.S. ones, and that's sort of a genie that can't be put back in the bottle because it is cultural at this point. I've done union work in different parts of the U.S., and there are significant differences between dealing with unions in different places.

For example, in the U.S., governmental unions at the state level and below are not governed by federal labor law. Each state has its own set of laws and regulations for that, and as a result of that and historical factors, unions can be very different between states. And because teachers are not employed at the federal level, the differences between your teachers' unions in Calgary and in various U.S. locations may be stark.

[Arthmail]

Okay, to get away from the teaching thing for a bit, I'd like to tack back to the concept of individualism in the American character (as much as any such thing can be generalized about). S John's and MFC's posts have helped me kind of crystallize a bunch of stuff I was bouncing around in my head about another paradox of American identity.

America, I agree, does certainly have a streak of valuing rugged individualism -- it is a trait that is widely admired and celebrated here. It often leads to admirable results. There is also a great value placed on the worth of the individual, protection of an individual's rights. No one is supposed to be better or more privileged than someone else just by virtue of noble birth, and all citizens are treated equally under the law. Also good stuff. Then there's a current of the inherent virtue of the "common man" -- a citizen should be trusted to make good decisions in civic life and elect good leaders after carefully weighing their policies and personal qualities. Thomas Jefferson wanted us to be a nation of farmers -- which is pretty funny coming from a guy who owned a slave labor plantation, as I think his view of Ideal America would have turned into apartheid South Africa or something, but that's beside the point. I'm all for valuing the rights of the individual, I'm still not sold on the inherent virtue of the "common man."

I think equally (if not more deeply) entrenched in the national character is the power of wealthy elites. This country was founded by, and its government established by, wealthy (often slave-owning) white men who owned a lot of land (the corporate equity of the 18th century). Wealthy white Protestants are a social class that has historically contributed an overweening proportion of its legislators, judges, and Presidents. The guys (and I do mostly mean "guys") who provide our much-bragged-about checks and balances have pretty much been members of the same country clubs since the nation's founding. The government the founders established was meant to defend their capital interests, promote stability (protect the status quo), and make it very difficult to enact great governmental change. This is a country that has amended its governing charter 27 times in 220 years (ten of which were a package deal, a launch day patch, and another that repealed a previous amendment).

The American Revolution is a funny old name. Was the revolt against British rule a true effort driven by the masses? It seems to me that the Revolution was driven forward by the agitations of the colonial elites who wanted more self-rule from overseas government. "No taxation withot representation" -- rich guys bitching about taxes even then. They achieved popular support through propaganda and agit-prop incidents. The birth of this nation was a god damn Astroturf operation! And what was the nature of the government they established in the place of imperial rule? It's not like they threw over the King and instituted an anarcho-socialist collective. They restricted the vote to land-owning white males. The founders further insulated the government from even that limited pool of popular opinion from the get-go, as Senators, members of the more powerful, longer-serving chamber of Congress, were initially elected by state legislatures instead of popular vote. Sounds more like a coup d'etat than a revolution. But actually a revolution is a perfect name -- it went 360 degrees.

I'm in no way arguing that America is unique in its culture or government by being dominated by the capital class. It's true of probably every Western country in the last few hundred years, except for Communist states, (party elites), and theocracies (religious elites). But Americans seem to believe that they are, to use a much-loved phrase on this board, a unique and special snowflake in all of world history. Would anyone argue that all Americans are truly treated equally in the eyes of the law? I think most of us would agree that the wealthy mostly get treated better by law and society (except for the occasional wealthy or powerful person that gets publicly beaten down by the law to let everyone see that it happens from time to time), and that people born into wealth tend to stay wealthy. We do have a noble class, they just don't call themselves "sir" or "lord."

It seems like the rugged individualism and the lip service paid to the value of the individual makes people a little blind to the fact that they're still pretty much ruled by the wealthy. Like we're a nation that can be naive about its leaders and their motivations. Like being taught from grade school about the inherent virtue of the American political system, the sanctity and brilliance of the Founding Fathers (what a term!), and the idea that the Constitution protects us against the oppression suffered by other countries makes us unprepared to deal with the truly cynical manipulators who so often make their way into politics, and seem to continually triumph over the genuinely interested in public service. You know, I'd liken it almost to a religion -- the Founding Fathers are our gods, the Constitution our holy text, politicians our overprivileged and corrupt priests, who don't actually believe what they're peddling, but use it to take advantage of others' civic piety. Politicians and their adherents continuously invoke the Constitution and the founders' intent (more appropriately, their self-serving interpretations of the source material) to push for policies. True Believers in political ideology are just as tiresome and yet as dangerously determined as religious fanatics. The religious overtones of political rhetoric probably also dampen rationality when considering political questions.

And the virtue automatically assigned to the "common man" has devolved into a popular distrust for education and some twisted pride in ignorance. Americans are also just as susceptible to groupthink, propaganda, and manipulation through fear and greed as any other people. We're (most of us) a nation of people who are pretty conservative in actual practice, distrustful of change, firmly convinced of their own rightness, and easily pacified by getting to drop a ballot for one of the pair of rich or connected people the two parties decided to let them vote for. We're also mollified by the high standard of living provided first by the country's vast advantage in natural resources, and then by American dominance of the global economy. (Let's also not forget the military adventurism that seized all those natural resources for us, and which furthers capitalist interests even today.)

I guess I sound pretty down on the United States, and terribly cynical, but I'm really a disappointed idealist. I've seen a lot worse in other countries, and I love where I am and feel very lucky to be here. I have higher expectations for this country than other places. And I get really angry and worked up over our own corrupt priests, many of whom I have complained about profanely in the US Politics threads. I like what Hunter S. Thompson said in 1972 -- "What a fantastic monument to all the best instincts of the human race this country might have been, if we could have kept it out of the hands of greedy little hustlers like Richard Nixon."

I think the United States is built on some wonderful ideas that fall short in practice. More flawed than most Americans believe. The civic values of individual rights and equality before law are worthy ideals. I just don't think we're as good upholding them, and at resisting the sins of history, as most Americans think we are.

Oh yeah, and I can't abide the non-ironic "America! Fuck yeah!" sentiment. The fact that Obama is expected to pay lip service to the idea of "American exceptionalism" is appalling to me.

I've come up with all this mostly from observations of other countries (especially country in which I was born, whose political and socioeconomic character make an interesting contrast with the US...) and an amateur interest in history. I'm sure there's a lot I'm seeing simplistically or that I got wrong. Scholars of history, I am eager to hear your thoughts.

Probably the best post of the last six months. Pretty spot on.

The route of the problem, as i see it, now lies in this notion that the American dream exists. That you too can get super wealthy. The reality is that most people do not, and will not, earn the measures of success that many somehow figure are due to them. Another massive problem is that by stopping to address the problems in US society, people are branded un-American. Like that means anything anymore.

[Arthmail]

What makes you so sure that American unions are no different from Canadian unions? Issues of culture and historical factors can make unions in one country completely different from unions in other countries, and sometimes even within a country. German labor unions have a completely different approach than most U.S. ones, and that's sort of a genie that can't be put back in the bottle because it is cultural at this point. I've done union work in different parts of the U.S., and there are significant differences between dealing with unions in different places.

For example, in the U.S., governmental unions at the state level and below are not governed by federal labor law. Each state has its own set of laws and regulations for that, and as a result of that and historical factors, unions can be very different between states. And because teachers are not employed at the federal level, the differences between your teachers' unions in Calgary and in various U.S. locations may be stark.

I can see what you are saying, and perhaps i'm tired, but what exactly is the point? Sure, there are going to be differences between the unions. But the basic principles of what teachers provide, and what they do, mostly remains the same.

I need to preface this by saying i have not, obviously, ever attended an American school. I am an outsider looking in, so the intricacies of the framework within your school districts might very well be a toxic soup that needs to be expunged.

But my question for you is, if most other nations can work with it and it works well, what is the problem within the US system that prevents it?