quote:

Originally posted by Blik the thing hat bothers me the most is that the one with the biggest amount of money wins the elections, that is just stupid...

Actually that's only the case about 75% of the time, and that number is inflated because interest groups tend to give more money to incumbents, who are already more likely to win than their challenger. It's a good point, though, and I do think we need campaign finance reform, but the problem isn't that extreme.

quote:

Originally posted by CortexBomb American elections *are* heavily based on advertising and such. I'm willing to bet that less than 50% of the sub 50% of the voting age population that actually bothers to head to the polls has never actually set down with even a newspaper article on each of the candidates, proposals, and what-not, thought it through, and *then* went out to vote. And, IMHO, an uninformed democracy is hardly a democracy at all.

uh, its still a democracy... if the people are uninformed, its b/c they choose to be uninformed - nobody withholds the politician's stance on issues from anyone, but you have to read and look it up - but not everyone chooses to do so, and just vote instead along party lines... doesn't mean its not a democracy. I'd like to know how you came to that conclusion. Also why you think advertising is bad for politics? i agree the mud-slinging commercials are bad, but the flying to different areas to meet people, flyers, posters - its all part of the awareness process...

quote:

I live in a conservative district in SW Michigan, and as such, I was horrified to read the stances of both our House of Representative candidates, one a Democrat, and other a Republican, and found that both were ardently pro-life, and both were against further taxation for programs. Similarities continued in their stances on education financing, war, and a whole host of other things.

its unfortunate that both parties had the same stance on all issues, but i can assure you thats FAR from the case in most states. Don't generalize, CortexBomb, it makes your otherwise intelligent arguements unfounded...

quote:

An uninformed voter probably would have just gone party lines, I did the right thing for my views, and declined to vote for either of the rat bastards. Too many people just blindly assume that each party has certain views as "givens", and that there's no need to actually look at the individual candidates.

again, this happens in every democratic country in the world - what makes the US the victim of your criticisms? A lot of people just flat out don't like politics, so they either don't vote or vote just along their parents party lines. This is universal, not US-specific.

quote:

That or add the "None of the Above" line to every race, as Michael Moore (or was it Jello Biafra?) has suggested, and bar people from running for that office again in the re-vote if they lose to it

comical, but would be a funny outcome, thats for sure. You know a bunch of asses would vote "none of the above" just to see what happens though.... curiosity always wins - look at the governor's seat in Minnesota.

quote:

Additionally, I think we'd do well to enact some sort of rules against mud slinging in campaigns, like they have in many, many other democracies, many of them fledgling in comparison to the States. I think it's ridiculous, and base, that candidates can be elected on making a scandal out of God knows what that happened x number of years ago. It reflects poorly on the country IMHO.

here i agree with you, but its a fact of politics. Oftentimes the best way to convince a voter is to NOT show your positive qualities, but to show the negative ones about the other - remember a lot of people just don't really care, b/c lets face it, the changing of command in the house and senate (and governor for that matter) doesn't really affect the life of your average joe... the changes are so minute that it doesn't really matter. System of checks and balances makes it this way. Again, mudslinging is bad, but thats all the public will respond too. We created that mess, not the government.

quote:

I think criticism on the States elections are well-founded, because, unlike a screwed up system in a small sub-saharan Afrikan country, the results of elections in the States usually have global implications. Other people don't have a right to vote in our elections, but I definitely think they have a right to comment, criticise, and consider what we're doing wrong.

uh, gray area there.... kinda sorta material. Yes, true US happenings affect a lot of people, but i dont feel enough to the fact where they can criticize. Remember, most democracies out there today are modeled after OUR government - one of the first. and in most cases we did not force them to do that.

There are thousands of democratic countries that each have their own problems, scandals, mud-slinging, etc.... why single-out the USA? Thats right, just to cause trouble.

Honestly, cortexbomb, with all due respect to yourself i am embarrassed to have you as a fellow american. I am not attempting to flame, just saying how disappointed i am in your arguements in some of these threads.

It makes me want to ask what did the US government do to you? How did they wrong you or make your life worse? There must be some reason that you have so much animosity towards the US. Maybe its a phase you go through, where its "cool" to bash your own government, i dont know. But i'll bet you that your life would be better here than 95% of the rest of the world, based on opportunity and freedoms alone. That enough should be reason enough to be patriotic towards one's own country.

-ABT-

___________________
Peace.

quote:

Originally posted by CortexBomb ... An example from my life for instance, and a refutation to people who'd say that ignorance is all right, because you can pretty much tell what people think based on their party affiliation: I live in a conservative district in SW Michigan, and as such, I was horrified to read the stances of both our House of Representative candidates, one a Democrat, and other a Republican, and found that both were ardently pro-life, and both were against further taxation for programs. Similarities continued in their stances on education financing, war, and a whole host of other things. An uninformed voter probably would have just gone party lines, I did the right thing for my views, and declined to vote for either of the rat bastards. ...

yah i remember hearing about that. it was pissing a LOT of people off on the radio - but not for that reason. many were pissed cause they thot it was rediculous to have a candidate choose pro-choice at all, thats conservative|

___________________
'That's like telling a Kodiak bear to stop fcking older men.'

quote:

Originally posted by CortexBomb Additionally, I think we'd do well to enact some sort of rules against mud slinging in campaigns, like they have in many, many other democracies, many of them fledgling in comparison to the States. I think it's ridiculous, and base, that candidates can be elected on making a scandal out of God knows what that happened x number of years ago.

First off, I agree with a lot of the points you made CortexBomb, but not this one.

Besides the obvious free speech issues that come with trying to restict mud slinging in campaigns, I find it is often the negative ads that give the most important information. Look at any campaign ad that isn't negative, and you get almost exactly the same thing, no matter who the candidate is or what they really stand for, i.e.:

"[catchy intro slogan]...Candidate X has a strong record of protecting the environment, fighting to get criminals off our streets, and working hard to improve education across the country ... if you want to make your voice heard, vote for Candidate X."

They almost never contain anything of substance, like hard facts, actual references to past accomplishments, etc. At least the negative ads directly refer you to relevant data you might want to consider when deciding who to vote for.

Now, if a decent proportion of the voting population actually went out and gathered their information properly, this wouldn't be such a big deal. But when TV advertisements provide the majority of the exposure that candidates get, they ought to tell the whole story - the good AND the bad - not just the good.

quote:

Originally posted by CortexBomb I have to disagree with posters who think that a criticism of the American Democracy is only an implied bash on the country, or that a debate on it somehow isn't a worthy subject. American elections *are* heavily based on advertising and such. I'm willing to bet that less than 50% of the sub 50% of the voting age population that actually bothers to head to the polls has never actually set down with even a newspaper article on each of the candidates, proposals, and what-not, thought it through, and *then* went out to vote. And, IMHO, an uninformed democracy is hardly a democracy at all.

this has nothing to do with American democracy but a problem with democracy in general. i dont see why America is to blame for these problems.

having an un-informed populace is definitley not all that benifical to a democratic society. if you want we can open a thread and see ways in which to improve the current democratic model. could be interesting... one solution may be to have voters take a test that they would have to pass before voting... but then agian who would be in control of making such an exam, and also every one should have a right to vote (or is that statement wrong to begin with - since people in jail cant vote).

___________________
If God is the answer, it must have been a very stupid question.

First, I had a long friggin' reply *done* when my CPU crashed, so forgive me if I shorten this up, but I don't have the patience to retype the whole thing...

quote:

Originally posted by ABTsportsline uh, its still a democracy... if the people are uninformed, its b/c they choose to be uninformed

My basic point remains the same, uninformed voters probably shouldn't be voting, and that uninformed voting is a death knell for true democracy. When you have 50% of the people voting for representatives for 100% of the country you've got issues IMHO.

I know that probably sounds harsh, but I'd like to think people have actually *thought things through* before they go and exercise their right to vote, since they are affecting mine, and everyone elses lives indirectly...

quote:

again, this happens in every democratic country in the world - what makes the US the victim of your criticisms?

In short, because that's what this thread is about, and this is an issue that I'm versed on.

I don't know enough about Australian politics to condemn them, I know a lot about American politics, and thus, I'm generally more than happy to chime in.

quote:

its unfortunate that both parties had the same stance on all issues, but i can assure you thats FAR from the case in most states. Don't generalize, CortexBomb, it makes your otherwise intelligent arguements unfounded...

The only generalisation I was making was that the parties (unlike parties in a parliamentary system) can have members with views that differ radically from the main party line.

I'm reading my statement, and I don't see where it says "This happens in every race, in every state, all the time", I was just saying that it can, and *does* happen, and that's why voters should be informed beyond the party that they like.

My point was simply, again, that if you're going to vote, know who or what you're voting for.

quote:

uh, gray area there.... kinda sorta material. Yes, true US happenings affect a lot of people, but i dont feel enough to the fact where they can criticize. Remember, most democracies out there today are modeled after OUR government - one of the first. and in most cases we did not force them to do that.

Listen, as long as the US is the "leader of the free world" it's going to be taking heat.

Our country has it's paws in the cookie jar on a global scale. Elections that happen here *do* affect other countries, and I think most people can see that.

It's thrilling that the US has one of the first modern democracies, but it's not as though that means we're the best, or that we deserve to be immune to criticism because of it.

I just don't follow where you're going here...especially given the US criticism to the point of armed hostility towards governments that *we* don't approve of (i.e.: Chile, North Korea, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc, etc, etc.)

I don't know about you, but I'd rather have some people taking verbal jabs, than have an army landing in my capital city any day...

quote:

Honestly, cortexbomb, with all due respect to yourself i am embarrassed to have you as a fellow american. I am not attempting to flame, just saying how disappointed i am in your arguements in some of these threads.

And let me tell you, I'm staying up late thinking about how I've disappointed so many loyal Americans...

Listen, I'm sorry if it disappoints you that I've come to different conclusions than you have, but that's life. I listen, think, and evaluate things myself. A lot of times that puts me at odds with the status quo in the States, but such is life.

Frankly, I don't understand why my having unorthodox views should be disappointing in any way, shape, or form. America is supposed to be about having your own take on things you know...

quote:

It makes me want to ask what did the US government do to you? How did they wrong you or make your life worse? There must be some reason that you have so much animosity towards the US. Maybe its a phase you go through, where its "cool" to bash your own government, i dont know. But i'll bet you that your life would be better here than 95% of the rest of the world, based on opportunity and freedoms alone. That enough should be reason enough to be patriotic towards one's own country.

If it's a phase it's showing no signs of ending yet, and I've been this way since I was 16 (aka: 1996...)

I don't have animosity towards normal people, I just dislike the government and economic system in general. I think our nearly unfettered capitalism (as in no socialised *anything*) has caused more than it's fair share of problems throughout the years, I think the dominant religious views are crap, I dislike the US disdain for poor people, and I think our government is in need of a serious overhaul.

I have these freedoms you speak of, but they've come at the expense of people living in "third world countries." It's come at the cost of rain forest deforestation, and countless environmental damage. I don't think the prosperity of this country is anything to be proud of, because it's based on the misery of many.

I have empathy for people who are being trod on by the US giant, and I share the concerns of the world about our foreign policy.

I'm concerned primarily with the global community, and bringing about change that positively affects the greatest mass of people.

Sorry if that's not patriotic enough for you, but trust me, it's not as though I'm living here of my own free will. I was supposed to be in university in Waterloo, ON this semester, but alas, I'm a poor bastard and have to stay in MI for a few more years to get a degree or two first.

Once I leave you can feel free to say that my opinion is unqualified because I'm not living in the country, until then you're just going to have to put up with me

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter They almost never contain anything of substance, like hard facts, actual references to past accomplishments, etc. At least the negative ads directly refer you to relevant data you might want to consider when deciding who to vote for. Now, if a decent proportion of the voting population actually went out and gathered their information properly, this wouldn't be such a big deal. But when TV advertisements provide the majority of the exposure that candidates get, they ought to tell the whole story - the good AND the bad - not just the good.

I can understand where you're coming from on this, I just think ads in general need to be more about information, and less about mudslinging.

I'm with you on the general complete lack of info that positive ads can contain, but I'd simply like to see ones that are based more on stances.

What's so difficult about doing a positive ad campaign where you have about 8 different spots from the candidate talking briefly about how they feel about the hot issues of the day?

At least then the voters who go to the polls without reading up more will have a better idea of what they're getting, you know?

quote:

Originally posted by Izzy i dont see why America is to blame for these problems.

Again, I'll apologise for stating things the way I did, but this thread *is* about America, and it *is* the country that I'm most familar with, so naturally I'm going to be inclined to state things from that perspective.

I agree that uninformed voting is a problem of democracy in general...

quote:

having an un-informed populace is definitley not all that benifical to a democratic society. if you want we can open a thread and see ways in which to improve the current democratic model. could be interesting... one solution may be to have voters take a test that they would have to pass before voting... but then agian who would be in control of making such an exam, and also every one should have a right to vote (or is that statement wrong to begin with - since people in jail cant vote).

I think the test thing is destined to be a failure, at least legally speaking, since it was the method used to keep African-Americans from voting during the Jim Crowe years, and could be easily slanted toward a certain view, demographic, ethnicity or what-not if they were instated again.

I think the best way to improve things is to indoctrinate people into the virtues of informed and regular voting from an early age.

Have the government collect information on all of the candidates, and then mail out packets to all the registered voters so they don't even have to buy a newspaper or look things up on-line.

Form new parties, and press the two parties that exist today to get off the centre line, and actually debate things a little.

Even have work places mandated to give an hour off to people on election day *only* so that they can go vote, with a little stamped card or something being proof that you did so.

Right now the country seems to be in a state of critical apathy, and something clearly needs to be done, I'm just at a loss to what *that* is right now...

Last edited by CortexBomb on Nov-08-2002 at 04:31

i can understand your being unhappy with the system, but i think you are being just a little *too* critical, cortex...

again, we are not "leaders of the free world" as you said, but rather "protectors of the free world" as the saying goes.... which we earned after the revolutionary war.

i appreciate your intelligent arguements, but not the sarcastic comments. It just seems from your arguements that there is (forgive the lack of a better word) "tree-hugger" effects coming from your criticisms - raping of rain forests, freedom at the expense of 3rd world countries, etc... i don't see how you figure this and how it bothers you or effects this thread. If you wanted to really break it down, most modernized countries do these things and are guilty of said charges. I know its an "american" thread, but i never see any criticisms from you about any other country. Just to add a point about the deforestations, thats not US government, thats big business - and remember _someone_ is selling this land to the companies to do this. If this aspect really bothers you, you should definitely consider writing a letter to these companies. (and realtors in south america). But it would be naive to think that the human race is going to destroy earth. She's been here for billions of years, through a LOT worse than us....

It honestly hurts me deep down to see so many americans slandering their own country, and here's why. Remember i fight for my country's freedom, to protect your freedoms, etc. I have been to war and will probably go again soon. I might take a bullet next time i'm out just to help preserve what you have now, i never know. Can you honestly say that your life is that miserable? think of what *you* actually do to try to fix or help contribute... what are you doing about all these "wrongs" going on?

It feels like i'm doing everything all in vain when there is no gratification. I am not doing this for the pay, thats for sure (pay's a joke here).... i'm doing it to see smiles on americans faces, to see the reaching out of arms of the civilians in the 3rd world countries when they see us marching in, to see the relieved looks on faces in afghani villages when the locals have realized we kicked out the taliban forces..... and most importantly, for american citizens. Nothing is more satisfying than walking into Subway to get a sandwich (wearing my uniform), and having someone behind the counter just say "hey, thanks for doing this for us - for protecting us." Thats happened a couple of times and it makes it all worthwhile....

i know that sounds sappy, but its the truth. I don't ask that you praise your government or be content with it. Just to realize that nobody is perfect, and we never claimed to be. Our only job and efforts have been to make life safe and easy for you. And correct me if i'm wrong but we've been doing a pretty good job at that...

___________________
Peace.

quote:

Originally posted by Blik the thing hat bothers me the most is that the one with the biggest amount of money wins the elections, that is just stupid...

i saw bush making a speech on tv tonight for a sec... once again i wondered how the hell he got into office.... $$ cha-ching! how else could some one so incompassionate and ignorant become a world leader... incompassionate for the ruthless military and political actions he takes and his carelessness with words (e.g. axis of evil) and ignorant because he doesnt think before he speaks..

i thought to myself... if i were to meet this man, i wouldnt be antimidated at all, it would be like meeting anyone else... he is just not a good public figure. i still respect and love him as a human being, but i do not think that guy should have political power.

First, allow me to apologise if I get carried away in making sarcastic comments and such. You have to understand though, I have to defend my beliefs on stuff like this constantly. I can only hear "How can you think that, blah, blah, blah" so many times before I snap and start firing back asking people how *they* can think what they do, often in a snide way.

It's a weakness that I've largely toned down over the years, but it's still a weakness, so please don't take it too personally.

On with a response then:

quote:

Originally posted by ABTsportsline It just seems from your arguements that there is (forgive the lack of a better word) "tree-hugger" effects coming from your criticisms -

Well, that'd make sense, since I *have* been known to quite literally give trees a hug, so I naturally don't take offence to the term.

Frankly, I think environmental concerns are tossed aside a little too easily by too many people. You know that desert that Baghdad is sitting in? That used to be the most prosperous place in the world, the birthplace of civilisation, and look what it is now...a desert.

I don't propose that humans are going to irreversably damage the planet, but I think we can easily destroy all the life on it, and our own prospects for survival, which is pretty much the same end result in my book.

I think my regard for things like this is most obviously manifested in some of my Taoist and Aboriginal oriented beliefs that speak to finding our own place in nature, a balance as it were.

Western religion has always taken nature as a *gift from God to be used* while I disagree vehemently. The world is no more ours than it is anything elses, and as the "highest" creatures in existence here (that we know of at least) I think we have a little bit of an obligation to play the caretaker.

So yes, I'm a very green oriented person.

quote:

i don't see how you figure this and how it bothers you or effects this thread.

I answered the first part, and the only reason it really entered this thread was because you asked why I have so much animosity towards the US, and I answered.

Sorry if it's out of the context of this thread, but to be honest your initial question probably was as well if you want to get picky about it. I generally just let things flow where they will in this forums, and I don't think anyone in general takes offence to digression that springs off the main topic. :shrug:

quote:

If you wanted to really break it down, most modernized countries do these things and are guilty of said charges. I know its an "american" thread, but i never see any criticisms from you about any other country.

I dislike the things capitalism *in general* has done to the planet, but I'm most familar with US based actions, so again, I usually chime in, as I said earlier.

I agree that I probably touch on the US a little too much, but that's really just because I'm sick and tired of people in the country presenting this rosey picture instead of seeing things as they actually are. I don't deal with hypocrisy in the UK for instance, so I'm not as pissed off about it.

I like the TA forums because they're an international representation, and it's refreshing to hear other people who share my opinions from other parts of the world on US policy and so forth, so yes, I hit the US regularly and hard, but that isn't to say I don't dislike the things capitalism in general, religion in general, and so forth have done.

quote:

Just to add a point about the deforestations, thats not US government, thats big business - and remember _someone_ is selling this land to the companies to do this.

The US government has shown itself time and time again to be in full support of business practices and policies. The few rules we *do* have regarding things like monopolies are regularly ignored when the business in question is powerful enough (ie: Microsoft anyone?)

Capitalism is almost inseperable from the US government policy at this point, so it's hard for me to level criticism *only* on the business, because the government *could* regulate if they wanted to.

I'm certainly not saying the people selling the land down there to US interests are people of high moral code, but just because someone is willing to sell doesn't mean we should buy if ethics state otherwise.

IMHO environmental based ethics would certainly state that deforestation is a loss that isn't worth the gains.

quote:

If this aspect really bothers you, you should definitely consider writing a letter to these companies. (and realtors in south america). But it would be naive to think that the human race is going to destroy earth. She's been here for billions of years, through a LOT worse than us....

I already touched on some of this in other parts, but in short:

The human race might not be able to physically destroy earth (as in, reduce it to the cosmic dust it started as) but we can certainly make the planet uninhabitable for life, that's really not a very tall order at all.

Detroy some ecosystems, poison the water, cut down the trees, and eventually you'll get a nice large series of deserts with poisoned water surrounding them. That might not be total destruction, but it certainly isn't the kind of planet *I* would like to be born into.

Do you honestly believe that writing a few letters to some realtors (or to the corps in America buying) would actually have an affect?

That view just strikes me as naive...

Companies could care less about anything other than:

A) What they can get away with
B) Making money

Unless they think there's money to be *lost* in doing something it's unlikely they're going to do it. In an ideal world where people actually gave a shite, and signed a mass petition (thereby threatening a loss of income), yes, the companies involved might rethink things.

But this isn't that world.

quote:

It honestly hurts me deep down to see so many americans slandering their own country, and here's why. Remember i fight for my country's freedom, to protect your freedoms, etc. I have been to war and will probably go again soon. I might take a bullet next time i'm out just to help preserve what you have now, i never know. Can you honestly say that your life is that miserable? think of what *you* actually do to try to fix or help contribute... what are you doing about all these "wrongs" going on?

Good emotional plea here, but I'm a pacifist, remember? I'm not going to call you a devil for going off to fight for America (I've got a few friends in the military myself), but I'm not going to support you either. Trust me, there are plenty of people who will though, probably without giving a second thought to it.

And you're missing the point in my statement to a large extent. I'm upset with the state of affairs in the US for the long list I laid out. I'm not miserable, I'm simply unhappy with the popular opinions, policies, and perspectives in this country, enough so that I want to leave.

My primary issue, the absolute killer, is that Americans have a built-in disdain for the poor, and for socialised programs. Take that away, and I'd at least have hope, but the normal attitude towards these kinds of things is so far right field from me, that I can't even begin to understand where many people are coming from.

I really equate this to an overall lack of empathy in America, and *that* is the largest issue here IMHO.

As such, the best thing I can do to change things is what I'm doing right here...talking to people, and offering them a new perspective. If more people had an understanding of what it's like to be poor, had an understanding of what the US led sanctions on Iraq are doing to ordinary people, and so forth I'd like to think that they'd be able to find a little bit of empathy somewhere in their cold, ego-centric lives.

I'm going to school in both History and Philosophy, and will likely wind up writing books and teaching at university level at some point in my life, again, trying to affect change by helping people to see other perspectives.

quote:

It feels like i'm doing everything all in vain when there is no gratification. I am not doing this for the pay, thats for sure (pay's a joke here).... i'm doing it to see smiles on americans faces, to see the reaching out of arms of the civilians in the 3rd world countries when they see us marching in, to see the relieved looks on faces in afghani villages when the locals have realized we kicked out the taliban forces..... and most importantly, for american citizens. Nothing is more satisfying than walking into Subway to get a sandwich (wearing my uniform), and having someone behind the counter just say "hey, thanks for doing this for us - for protecting us." Thats happened a couple of times and it makes it all worthwhile.... i know that sounds sappy, but its the truth. I don't ask that you praise your government or be content with it. Just to realize that nobody is perfect, and we never claimed to be. Our only job and efforts have been to make life safe and easy for you. And correct me if i'm wrong but we've been doing a pretty good job at that...

My life is safe (though most people seem to not think that it is, note locked doors, high gun sales, and so forth) and it's relatively easy, but that's due in large part to my luck of having parents who are at least working class. I don't think life is easy for people born into the inner city, the reservation, or any number of other unpleasant situations.

Again, I can appreciate your feeling about being a soldier, but I can't support it, as people can have their hearts in the right place, but still be doing the wrong thing.

As I said above, it's not as though my opinion is a majority one. Keep walking down the street, I'm sure you'll get pats on the back, and happy greetings. I'm sorry if it ruins your day to realise that some people have different views on what's right, important, and so forth, but that's what happens when you let people think for themselves *and* they actually do it.

Trust me, perfection is the furthest thing from my agenda. (well, my immediate agenda at least) One of my favourite sayings is "Screw up, and be a human" because we're a very imperfect species. And I like it that way, to live among perfection is to live among Gods, and that doesn't sound very appealing to me.

But lack of perfection isn't what I'm chiding the US government for, it's outright disregard for principals that matter to me.

For example, socialised health care.

Canada's system is far from perfect, and it's in a state of serious overhaul right now. I don't hold the chaos that exists currently against them though, because they've at least got their hearts in the right place, while the US opinion seems to be that health *isn't* an essential right, and that it's just fine for people to die due to inadequate treatment that's a direct result of their strata in society.

And so on, honestly at this point to say more is to beat a dead horse. I do have to make one final distinction though.

As far as general life philosophy goes, I'm not an unhappy person. I can take profound joy in things that normal people don't even realise they're doing, like drinking a tall glass of icy water or taking a casual stroll through the woods, or even just breathing in winter air deeply.

The one area that constantly drags me down is political matters, and as such, on a forum like this, you likely get a view of me as a pissy, mal-adjusted, and none too happy person, and nothing could really be further from the truth.

I just wish more people could stop worrying about accruing *stuff*, and instead work on personal betterment. I wish capitalism would go by the wayside so we could have a sytem set up where people work rarely, and have more time to actually *live*. I'm a Buddhist economist in that I think our prosperity, as in the prosperity of our *souls* should be measured not by how much we consume, but by how little we require. Once you stop craving mass produced crap to feel good the economy as we know it starts to tumble, and actual progress can be made.

As long as people are obsessed with buying the biggest SUV so people think they have big dicks, the world is going to be lacking something for people of my stripe, and that's really all there is to it.

Consumption on the level that it exists today in capitalism is simply put, folly. If people wanted less, there'd be fewer things being made. Which means there'd be fewer jobs. Which means people would need to work fewer total hours to produce everything that was needed. And that increased free time to *live* is what's needed for real change.

Again, sorry if this went horribly off topic, but I generally just let my thoughts flow as they will...

^^ good post. i laud you on your opening up of feelings here, helps us understand who you are a little better. I understand your position, and your interests are in different places than mine. I can accept that. I also think that in person we'd probably be friends.

I also think its great you want to be a university professor. I hope to do something similar one day as well. Good luck to you in everything you do.

-ABT-

___________________
Peace.