Page: 1

uncledad

Profile Information

Member since: Tue May 13, 2014, 06:50 PM
Number of posts: 5,555

Journal Archives

I'm thinking in a broader context.

I see the structure of the American version of slavery modeling the caste system of Indo-Asia societies. Not that the very lowest caste weren't slaves in a sense, rather the view of how institutionally and culturally their plight remained unaddressed well into the modern era.
It wasn't a group of Europeans that defined that system or set it in motion. Though, they are the same group of Europeans who imported the varying degrees of slave labor into the Americas. My take is, having had used that system, there was a preexisting influence made to order or adapted to fit the circumstances.
It in no way lessens the effects to look at a possible overview of that history given what we know. It certainly does not remove the culpability of those responsible.
As far as emancipation is concerned, I personally don't think that was in any way intended to bring equality. Whereas, the abolition movement was a "holy war to end slavery" if my reading of John Brown is correct. They are complimentary as hand in glove, yet different still.

Why is the Ottoman Empire excluded when slavery is the subject matter?

That's a rhetorical question, in so far as it did not influence what happen in the New World for the most part.

What it does bring is the notion slavery ended earlier then we are led to believe.

The Coolie trade?

Human trafficking currently?

The western powers as well as those of the east were/are more likely to cast a blind eye when the need for throw away labor suites them.

America is not unique in its history in this regard.

And here we are today parsing the what's worse for who and why so?

Degrees of suffering are tragically commonplace.

I agree and disagree with you.

That isn't that confusing.

If we were to leave the power in the hands of congress, it would really not matter how many persons were among its membership. Here is where we part company. I don't want to leave the power to govern with congress. What I want is a congress that proposes laws that are then place on a referendum.

You get to log in and vote on the bill up or down. Direct democracy. If we can put a man on the moon, we can work out the logistics. Besides we need a new net that's secure. No more expensive than one carrier fleet. This is the 21st century, why be bound by the conservative conventionalism of the 18th century?

In the past we needed enough members of congress to represent the population due to constraints in communication, time and distance. U tube. Face book. Twitter. Cable. Internet. Cell pones. I think we are past due for an overhaul of the basic processes of governance.

Rearranging deck chairs is not worth the effort. That's my view.

Money can still buy access. The people, the nation's voters could not. Take 2A. 25% want it changed, 60% do not, the other 15 don't care. if some rep wants to run that past their fellow members an manages to get a bill out, we still get to vote. That would take a fair amount of the wedge issues out of the twosomes' hands. Let's settle it.

I think most Americans would not have voted to bail out the crooks who caused the great recession. How about funding higher education on line? I'd vote for that. How about funding fifty new medical schools. One in each state.
Training, teaching, providing medical care, advanced research. Some thing that we need. We might get the votes for that. Of course some would opt out just because.

So we do see things that need correcting. Just being in that position is a positive. We just have different views on where and how to do it.

Corruption is status quo.

Corruption can be addressed separately. May be we should start there?

Pick a number lower than 434. Say 382. It's just a number. It's not etched in stone.

Would I prefer 382 members gain seeking by office holding or 3300? I'll choose the smaller number.

Call it what you like. Streamlining. Enforced efficiency. Downsizing. The entry into 21st century politics. Change.

Cutting the two party's into four parts with minor additions simply relabels the status quo. That's not good enough.

What's so important in preserving R r vs D d structure?

To those of us who see neither main stream party as appealing and still wishes for a system of governance as a straight forward process based on the will of the common people, why should we subject ourselves to the current swamp residing in Washington? Or the local state house?

Independents may also choose who they like as opposed to the choices of the R D divide if a third party was funded. The R and D's have no trouble finding funding. Funding finds them.

Which is why I want none of the above on the ballot. If we have a congress that simply votes to negate a president's agenda, we may at some point actually get a decent one, what better response than denying the entrenched interests with a taste of their own medicine.

Or a congress that foists a trade bill endorsed by a political party coalition, president included, sending jobs and capital overseas at the expense of the American people. For that matter a war incited by a president for reasons beyond the defense of the Nation supported by a collation of the party's deserve the none of the above vote also.

To change direction will require we alter the existing structure. But that's just me.

About corruption, your thoughts.

and I do appreciate your thoughts and time



You would be hard put to remove state lines for election purposes.

I don't think that's a doable when it comes to house members. As dysfunctional as the house is, given the two party system that runs it, adding additional inmates may increase the proportionality, but, that in itself is no guarantee of better representation. My belief is that system itself is corrupted.

My starting point is to press where the pressure may do the most good. I see no reason to insure the continuance of the present system as it stands. If you want to firstly get their attention, down size the work force and let's see if their tune changes to one more accountable to the common citizen. They can double their staff and double their staffs pay if that's what it takes to get there.

Voting in and out members of the two party's only gets you more of one and less of the other. There needs to be a counter weight to the twosome. I would agree to fund a third party that was independent. How to define independent is a hurdle. Grass roots, populist, whatever. Let's see if we can get some representation willing to partake of the People's business.

Yes it will be disproportional until it is addressed by the nation's citizens. If they decide more is better than less, the majority rules. If they propose stricter enforcement of rules set up to curb corrupt practices even better. If they want to have half the number now seated and paid ten times the salary that's good too.

I just do not think for one moment the current political party combination is the answer. They have proven time and time again they will serve themselves and their vested interests first and foremost.

One addition to the ballot, "none of the above". Let's see if America comes out to vote a message we are fed up with the BS.

So you're content with the current state of governence?

If funding the current crop with tax dollars is your idea of reform, you are a true believer in big government. In which case, I would in your opinion be incorrect in wanting to reduce the size of government by starting with congress.

Direct democracy is possible, more so when the number of elected officials are accessible, There's this thing called the internet and its off shoots that allow people to communicate unimpeded by distance and time. Elected officials do have staff, you might want to calculate that into your cost formula. And why there are pitfalls, and some will game the system, the fewer their numbers the quicker their corruption comes to light. Expanding the numbers spreads the systemic corruption leaving few untouched which is the current state of the state.

More importantly, you may have access to your member of congress, they may be in the same room you're in. That might be your incentive to continue with the meme of accessibility. Where as the majority do not have that close a relationship with those who control the law making process. Your experience may be different.

Neither do they have the money necessary to buy influence. They care. They vote. Or they have given up on the idea that that government can be reformed to met their needs. Few have representation that will over the course of their life time amount to much more than the same old shit just a different day status quo that public funding of two intrenched parties would guarantee.

No where did I state a number of representatives I thought would be sufficient to the task.

Here's a clue.

If those you vote for lower taxes and do not reduce the size of government, they create a deficit. So shifting it around to reducing the size of government first, which politicians have no interest in actually doing, makes more sense.
If you were interested in reducing the size of government, a good place to start would be reducing the number of office holders. Do we need 435 members in the house and 100 in the senate? Same goes with state legislatures.
They do a great job of keeping themselves taken care of and perpetuating their hold on power. As far as producing something useful for those who elected them, not so much.

Not even close.

Slavery wasn't an issues for the North, until the expansion into the western part of the country. The 1828 tariffs insured the domestic economy of the country could develop without being under sold by cheaper imports. These imports coming from British owned companies. The War of 1812 was still fresh in the minds of most Americans in particular the Presidents of the new Republic. They had taken steps to counter the power of the British Empire in a piece meal fashion prior to the 1828 act.
Southern's who found this most expensive were poor non-slaving owning whites. Poverty was one reason for the movement west ward as poor whites couldn't compete with the plantation system. When the voting disparity of slave holder's was taking into account the Missouri Compromise was enacted. That alone shows the Federal government had no power beyond what was intended by the Constitution.
The rich in the North prospered as the rich in the South flourished, and the poor stayed poor, and slaves stayed slaves. Had the south not taken up arms and stayed in the Union, the Federal Government might have never grown into what it became after the civil war.
It was the self interest of rich southern slave owners that defeated the south. Once they seceded, all hell was let loose. Misguided idealism based on a romantic notion that the rights of the few trump the will of the many repeats itself time and time again. The south brought on themselves a war that decimated their economy.

Go to Page: 1