We're number 37!! We're number 37!!
 

Something surprisingly interesting from a local weekly paper. Now, before the more simplistic of you brand me an america hater i just want to point out that i'm not the problem here.


High/lowlights:
Something to think about. Cuba scores better in infant mortality. We're 37th in terms of overall health performance. Hooray. How does this happen?

I notice that many of the facts are culled from a book entitle "The European Dream". I admit that i know nothing about the book or its author.

It seems that many americans just assume that america is the worldwide leader in everything worthwhile. I'm pretty sure that at one point we were a world leader in many things worthwhile. This list just seems to hit home the idea that our country is in a state of decline.

Well, you leave the important stuff out like number of troops stationed in foreign countries, per capita spent on weapons stockpiling, and lowest percentage of taxes paid by the top 30% of the taxpaying populace.

I believe we lead in all those categories.

And yet, people are still dying (literally and figurativley) to come here.

Go figure

Americans in general think that knowing who won the latest "reality" show is more important than science, math or literacy, that is if we consider time spent as an indicator. The reason for our failing is that we lead the world only in leisure. As a society we are lazy. We spend millions of dollars a year looking for the easiest way to pass the time, television, movies etc. We have the ultimate "microwave mentality", if it takes longer than 45 seconds to achieve a goal it's just too much trouble. We will never be the top of anything worthwhile while sitting in a recliner with a remote in our hand.

I'm sorry, but I have a hard time believing many of those numbers. Now I realize that Cuba may very well have better educational system (for gradeschool), but how easy would it be to scew the numbers of infant deaths to make him look better?

Because... not one actually GOES to those countries to investigate...

You haven't noticed the new trend?? The rich in this country are sending their children (and selves) to access Cuba's world class education system and healthcare facilitites. Afterall, they do have universal healthcare which is far superior than our private HC system.

come on filtherton... you can't be serious.

Go team marketing America!

eye of the beholder.

and here we run into one of the most surreal aspects of the right patriotic marketing campaign--that conservatives cannot face even the slightest amount of data that might puncture their assumption that the united states is the most fabulous of all possible nation-states, that cowboy capitalism is the most humane possible system and so forth.

most of the problems outlined above with the reality of the american system are not new--some of them even require attention--but the only certainty in the world i know of is that the right will never be able to address any of it because they cant bring themselves to be self-critical.

for example--the import/export imbalances are at once a direct result of globalizing capitalism and are irrelevant at the same time--because the dynamics of globalizing capitalism runs against the continued importance of nation-states. the entire conservative movement is geared toward trying to preserve this antiquated notion of the nation-state because--and only because--without it their ideology collapses. to do this, they need to never look at the reality of the economic system that the rest of their politics leaves them no choice but to defend as an unqualified good.

the american health care system is a disaster--best to deal with it by either refusing to look or qualifying all possible alternatives as communist.

the american educational system is among the most brutal in terms of reproducing the class structure at its most naked and unjustifiable--the problem seems to be the insistence on tying educational funding to local property taxes, which has the effect of rendering spatial segregation on class lines nearly invisible and assuring that the children of the poor are routed one way and those of the affluent another. of course because the right cannot imagine any alternative that would involve equalizing funding levels across localities--because it would involve the state (which is the inverse of markets for them) they cannot propose a coherent alternative--so you get this absurd, self-defeating emphasis on obviously futile programs like vouchers...

it goes on and on.

better to trade looking at reality for being able to wave a flag and "feel good about america"

I'm not marketing anything, nor am I trashing the original post and it's stats. I'm just stating the obvious that despite all this, people are killing themselves to get here. That's all.

Well, when you live in country number 126, country 37 doesn't seem like a particularly bad deal.

The article doesn't say that America is a shithole, but it does give cause for concern given the decline in standards and that most Americans (and many people in developing countries) probably regard America as being the most developed, advanced and prosperous country on the planet.

Well someone needs to inform the Cubans about their society as a whole, because last I've heard, their still trying to float into this country with innertubes and canoes.

but the article *does* indicate problems and trends that shoudl be taken seriously.
what i was saying is that i find it beyond bizarre that addressing concrete problems gets shoved aside by idiotic flagwaving.

NCB, you've already highlighted the part of my post that I would use to respond to you.

The article listed 35 points - Cuba ranked above the US in one of them. You can either look at the bigger picture or make snide comments about minute details - your choice.

Unless you genuinely believe that those Cubans trying to get into America are doing so solely under the misperception that the US has lower infant mortality rates than Cuba, in which case, carry on.

I apologize for the sarcasm. Being a child of immigrant parents from third world countries (one being from Cuba who floated over in one of those rickety old makeshift rafts BTW), seeing shit like this makes me want to shout at people who take this country for granted. People's lack of gratitude for all they have and all they can have in this country (not just materially, but spiritually and personally) drives me insane.

Does that mean we're peferct? Of course not, but overall this is still the greatest nation on Earth that people are dying to get into. And that fact, is nowhere to be seen in the article

We don't take this country for granted. We just have high standards. We want to see American be the best country that we can make it and rankings like this don't help matters.
Some of us see this nation waste money on way too much defense, unnecessary wars, and unfesable weapons alongside lopsided tax cuts that make the top 10% of americans pay a smaller percentage of their income than everyone else and then we look at the rankings like this... knowing we could make this place better if we just got our prorities straight as a society.

We're not perfect, but those in control aren't even trying to move us towards the ideal.

I wonder what that $200 billion going to Iraq would have done to try and shift just one of the statistics above. Could we be in the top 15 with literacy by investing $200 billion wisely into the school system? Could we take back those 1.3 million jobs from China? Could we see more advancement in the area of science with an extra $200 billion?

Nope. The money is either out of the country, or in the pockets of some of the richest people in the US.

NCB, why do you think that the US is the greatest nation on earth? It's not a theory that I would subscribe to, but I would be interested to hear why you do.

...and I was making a comment that regardless of the stats people still want to come to America and this is thanks, in part, to the way that America markets itself to the rest of the world.

That's an interesting, if arrogant, assumption. Because... I am a conservative and you conveniently leave out mine, and many others who dont fit that. Now I could post stuff about how liberals close their eyes, clasp their hands over their ears whenever good news of international relations or positive outcomes in the war.... but I dont. Painting with a broad brush like that is a bitch aint it?

seaver: read through the thread.
sadly for your position, i have done far too much research on conservative media, conservative ideology--what i say is not an unreasonable assessment of the situation your politics tend to put you into. that said, please keep in mind that i write almost entirely about the logic of the position in general--none of it accounts for teh complexity of indivudal relations to that ideology.

that said, there is a difference between the position i outline and taking potshots as you do. but whatever, it is of no real consequence.

I'm not sure why that point is somehow meaningful to you.

There are two aspects which would have to be considered to understand your point:

1- Marketing. America is marketed as the greatest place on Earth. Tide is marketed as the best laundry detergent. Marketing does not make it so.

2- If no one at all was trying to get into the U.S., no one would believe that America is better than where they currently live. Is the whole world trying to get into the U.S.? Obviously not. So it then goes to show that America is not better than the whole world. That, oh I don't know, a few hundred thousand people or a few million people are actively trying to get into the U.S. is an exceptionally small piece of the pie.

Couple this small pie portion of people attempting to move here with the marketing (based primarily on turn of the 20th century immigration policies) and your point dissolves into nothingness.

The point you could make about the list is that, although the U.S. might be lower in one category in comparison to Cuba, that does not mean Cuba is not lower in a dozen others. But even that would be a weak point as the list is not suggesting that Cuba is, overall, a better place than the U.S. But it is likely that other countries are, overall, better places than the U.S. by virtue of overall higher marks on more of the items on the list.

As an aside, if the U.K. or Sweden or France or even Russia were in close proximity to Cuba, I bet we'd see a rather proportionate flow of Cubans to those countries as with the U.S. The raft trip across the Atlantic is dangerous, I hear.

And it's a long walk from Central America as well.

I know it's naive, but wouldn't it be more interesting to discuss the individual items and possible solutions? We seem to fall into the polarized horse race too easily.

For myself, the first half page hit home. One family member questions the moon missions, another worries that microwaves will leave her food radioactive, and she graduated in the top 10% of her university class. (granted, 20yrs ago) A niece fell into a group of friends who call any attempts to learn "sad", and in so doing she went from a stunningly smart 10yr old with a wall of books to a 15 yr old who barely passes classes, lives for her next "distraction" (movies, CD's, TV show), has had numerous bouts of VD, and says it's "no different from TV" to manipulate her parents against each other to get what she wants.

Discouraging stuff. Anyone else have red flags in their family?

Someone from amazon read the book:
Is your local paper the Austin Chronicle? Because that is where this article is from. This guy is a commie. No one I know in Austin reads that rag. It compares the EU and the US. It should compare NAFTA and the US.

Yep, I "played" with quite a few of them.

You outta see their faces when they find out we are taking them back to Cuba.

Not happy campers, let me tell you.

retsuki03 you can complain about the author's commie conclusions all you want... it doesn't change the fact that the statistics are valid.

That said, I can't believe you actually play that old saw... Just brand him a commie... that's all you need to discredit anyone. What, are you living in 1955?

It is a proven fact that countries with extensive social programs have much better educated,healthier and productive citizens (Canada, Sweden, Denmark, Iceland, etc.). Yes, the taxes are higher but it is frequently seen as a good thing by those who live there.

Seems to work for liberals. "You can't trust Fox News!" "That scientific study was sponsored by an evil corporation!"

I don't care about the majority of the statistics. Our GDP growth rate is still better than those countries, but I wonder how Sweden's social systems would do if they had the immigrant influx of the US thrown in every year..

Not sure what the stats are in the US but in Sweden about 12% of the population were born abroad and about one fifth of the population are immigrants or children of immigrants...

GDP is a lousy way of measuring economic wealth... For example, dropping bombs is a plus for traditional GDP whereas health and wellness of nation are expenses. All depends on how you look at things.

I expect more than this from you, KMA-628.

The point is,what are you working for, and what are you living for?
The U.S. is now competing with an economic union that, on occasion, exploits
the benefits of U.S. military power, while it delivers an average six weeks annual vacation to it's population, along with subsidized health care and rising wages when compared to compensation in the U.S.

The EU accomplishes these attractive results while it impedes the concentration of wealth accumulation, and still attracts the to it's domecile, the top corporations of the world.

Are you better off living in a country with no personal health care protection,
a huge annual defense expenditure that is aggravated by an aggressive foreign policy, an average two weeks of vacation, and a political influence on your tax system that encourages the concentration of wealth to the top wealth holders, as a matter of national tax policy, even as the proportion of children and women of child bearing age living in poverty continues to rise, and federal government deficit growth explodes ?

Why won't those who post one or two dismissive lines to this thread, discuss the core issues, and the measures of the trend towards a 2nd class quality of life for too many American workers that coincides with tax freedom legislated for the wealthy and the decline of union membership for American workers?

DJ, you're breaking my heart, man! Why do you "love" this country the way you do?

Like my sig says, I hope liberals don't love their children the way they love their country

I would wager that many of the things that the above article points out as lacking in America (at least dealing with education and science) were never things that America was top, or near the top in. Remember, there was a large period of time where approximately 15% of the national population was barred from decent schooling. Even as time progressed education was not shown to be a priority for minorities. And on top of that, currently we have a large, mainly uneducated immigrant population. Much of the EU has very strict immigration policies, and don't deal with the same problems as the US.

America's "greatness" has never come from it's masses. America has been, and continues to be, great because it excels in most (if not all) areas. Even though the average American might have less scientific knowledge than the average European, America still leads in scientific development. Even if the average state of health is lower, America still has the best medical facilities. And America's GDP is still tops in the world.

I think it comes down to what metric you want to use to measure greatness. If you think greatness is measured by the state that the majority of the population is in, then America will lag behind the EU. But if you think that greatness is measured by having access to the best the world has to offer, then the EU would be behind. It's all a matter of what you define as great.

How do you address the quality of life comparisons of the average EU worker, compared to the average US worker. It's well and good to compare the top achievers, but to dismiss the "masses" where most of us live, ignores or minimizes the diference between having six weeks vacation and guaranteed medical care, vs. getting two weeks off per year and living one paycheck away from a layoff that could end one's healthcare coverage, or a sudden illness that could bankrupt any one of us. Where is the comparison?

So in order to love something, in your mind, you must turn it into a fantasy?

I have no "love" for my country. I don't believe anyone should have something as irrational as an emotional commitment to the place they live.

I believe one should have a rational understanding of your relationship to your nation and a the people with whom you share a social contract.

This is becoming less and less true on a daily basis. Partially due to the higher average scientific knowledge of Europeans and partially due to the preference for non-science of the administration and its supporters.
How does that work ??? If the average state of health is lower, America can't have the best medical facilities. It might have the single best hospital in the world, but if that hospital is only available to a handful of people in America, it can't be said that America has the best medical facilities.
That sounds like a pretty damn good measurement stick, right there. Most people in America lag behind most people in Europe. Which certainly allows for a small, small group of Americans to have a significantly better life than most Europeans. But that doesn't actually mean anything, now does it? Bill Gates is technically the most successful man on the planet - if he lived in Australia that wouldn't make Australia the most successful country on the planet. The average is the measurement - not the extremely good, but rare.
Access is the issue. All Americans do not have access to the excellent and rare aspects of America. Far more Europeans have access to the far more common and not quite as excellent aspects of Europe.
Certainly is. And if we define inaccessible things as great, and accessible things as poor, we've pretty much just painted ourselves into a box of miserableness.

Thanks for the background check. It's good to know that jeremy rifkin is most likely a partisan hack. Hackery aside, i don't see any reason to doubt his stats.


My local paper is the City Pages, which is where i got this article is from. Sorry, but calling someone a commie as a means of attacking his credibility is a little bush league, dontcha think? Why not attack his credibility with something credible?


I don't really care if you agree with them or not. From what it looks like, most can't even get past the idea that america isn't the best ever at everything.

A review of the Book (and two others about the same topic):
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17726

well if you move to america, the chance at having your country bombed and dying as a civilian casualty is virtually nil

a commie?
what decade is this?

Origin: http://www.austinchronicle.com/issue...s_ventura.html

Calling him a commie was not meant as an attack. It is a characterization of his views. Perhaps I should have said socialist or "progressive."

Like I said before, most of the statistics cited don't bother me. Like the literacy statistic. With the sheer number of immigrants we have in America who don't even speak English, I am actually surprised we manage a 97% literacy rate. Wow, France with virtually no immigration is at 99%, sound the alarm.

Well, perhaps if you didn't use it as an attack... There are differences between commies, socialists, and progressives.

How do you feel about the fact that we spend the most on healthcare, yet our overall quality rating is 37th? That puts us no doubt well behind many other countries with universal health care.

It's becoming less true, but the profit motive will ensure that America always is near the top of innovation. Where else can companies make as much on their developments?

That makes no sense whatsoever. It's like saying you can't make the best cars if everyone can't afford them. People from countries worldwide fly to America to take advantage of the immense benefits of American medical facilities.

Quality of facilities has nothing to do with the state of health of a country. State of health has to do with access to facilities. For those who can afford it, America has the best medical treatment available.

That's your mesurement. But from a historical perspective, that might not be the best way to measure a country's greatness. Might Europe be a better place to live for average people? Almost undoubtedly.

Europe seems to have tied their fate to the "average" person. They ensure that most people will have some minimum standards, standards that are higher than America's. The tradeoff is that they will have fewer that are at the high end. And less people who are at the high end will seek Europe, because they will be pulled back to the pack. America takes a much more cutthroat approach which allows for higher levels of success.

And another problem with America adopting European standards is the immigrant burden that is faced by America. Europe restricts immigration far more than does America, hence they can offer more to their citizens without risking financial ruin. America's more open door policy (and the illegals that are largely ignored) would even further hurt the economy if they were to implement much of Europe's social programs.

I keep hearing the terms "burden of immigration", etc. Immigration is what America and Canada are about. Without immigration our collective populations would be in decline.

It isn't a burden. It's something to celebrate.

Of course it makes sense. It makes so much sense, your second paragraph there just reiterated it.

You might make the most bestest fantastic car in the world. And one person might have it. That doesn't make the automotive industry of your country better than the automotive industry of some other country.
What historical perspective would show that to evaluate the quality of life for the average person within a country it is best to measure the quality of life of the atypical of a country?
There ya go, then.
You say average like it's a bad thing. Almost everyone is average. The aggregate of a society where almost everyone that you know or will ever know has a high quality life is simply better than the aggregate of a society where almost everyone you know or will ever know has a low quality life. The benefit of living in a country that has slightly more atypical people is next to nothing in comparison to the benefit of living in a country that has a higher quality of life for your own self.

Of course, everything I just said is nonsense if you believe you will someday achieve the "American Dream" and find yourself at the top of America, and by virtue, the top of the world. Because if you did get to that point, you'd be better off living in America - you'd be able to afford access to the highly exclusive supreme healthcare, you'd be able to afford access to the highly exclusive supreme education for your children, etc. etc. etc.

But there's a reason that phrase has the word Dream in it. Because it's a mythical achievement. You won't have access to the benefits you attribute to America. So you will find that your life is lower quality than it would have been had you lived in Europe.

Exactly.

True commis never really exisited, progressives are socialists who are afraid to be called such, and socialists are....socialists

Well, since the bottom 50% pay no income taxes, and in fact, often receive EIC funds, it's going to be difficult to verify your statement that "the top 10% of americans pay a smaller percentage of their income than everyone else."

But I'd like to see you try.

You left out the former Soviet Union and Mexico. Oh, that's right.

Personally, I think it's a great deal more multifactorial than how extensive the social programs of a country are.

It can't be proven with payroll taxes. This is a made-up argument based on made-up information.

However, the "everyone else" is so vague, that it could be shown to be true depending on how you play with the numbers and depending on which taxes you account for.

Our tax system was never meant to be proportional--that is not the basis of our system. If you want some type of redistributionist system, look somewhere else, ours isn't designed that way - it was designed to financially support the gov't, nothing more.

People making around $30,000 a year or less don't pay squat in payroll taxes.

People making $600,000 a year pay six-figures in payroll taxes (then you add in all their other taxes--not the stuff you and I pay on a daily basis, but stuff like capital gains, etc.)

Simple math tells me that a good proportion (no clue how many) pay a smaller percentage of their payroll taxes than the lucky 10%.

Are you trying deliberately not to add anything of substance? Or is it accidental?

Makes me want to immigrate. Really.

It was a serious question. I didn't ask why you love your country - most people have serious and unquantifiable national pride concerning their home countries. I asked why you think it's the greatest.

I come from South Africa. While I love it to bits, I'm certainly not under the illusion that it's the greatest nation on earth. Having traveled a fair bit around the world, I have to say that I regard Australia and the UK as being among the greatest.

So why do you (or anyone) think the US is the greatest?

Our freedom, our generosity, and the fact that people from such diverse backgrounds can come together and consider themselves proud Americans

On a related note. Cuba now tops in giving away pressure cookers to women. BTW, the irony in this story is that he made the announcement on the eve on Interntl Women's Rights Day. :lol:

Castro to Distribute Pressure Cookers

29 minutes ago World - AP Latin America


By ANITA SNOW, Associated Press Writer

HAVANA - Pressure cookers and rice steamers, essential tools of the Cuban kitchen, are the new weapons in Fidel Castro (news - web sites)'s latest battle to reassert control over the nation's economy.



During a 5 1/2-hour speech broadcast on state TV, Castro said 100,000 pressure cookers would be made available each month — an announcement that underscored the communist country's continued retreat toward greater political and economic centralism.


The move "will do away with the rustic kitchen," Castro told the Federation of Cuban Women on Tuesday night, saying the new cookers would use half the energy of the homemade ones they will replace.


The program could wipe out what has become a popular, and in most cases legal, private business that uses molds to make pressure cookers from cheap aluminum. Although imported cookers are sold in stores for about $25 — more than the average Cuban earns in a month — homemade ones cost about $5.50.


At subsidized prices, the government-distributed cookers will cost about the same as the homemade ones. And the government's cookers can be paid for in monthly installments.

That is the pure marketing line.

Tide's marketing line is that they're the best laundry detergent. But I don't use Tide because I've found it can sometimes leave oil spots on my clothes. Cheer also says they're the best, and it just so happens that I use Cheer - so they must be right.

Hey, I admitted in the post above you that we are clearly not the best. We don't give away rice cookerrs to our people. The humanity!!

;)

My father was a foreman and worked on the Tide towers at P&G. He told us that Tide and Cheer were the same except for some blue dye. This was probably 20 years ago, they may be different now. :)

Ha!

I may also be a fool for succumbing to basic brand differentiation.

Aren't we all... after all... we're soaking in it.

You can slap that little jingo on quite a few countries around the world.

I've lived in a third world country for quite a few years and the one thing that was constant was, despite the shortcomings of their country, they thought it was great and they loved it. To them, it was the greatest country in the world.
Just because you think your country is best in the world, doesn't make it so.

On that note....Yay Canada!, the greatest nation on Earth!! :thumbsup:

Hmmm, not sure you can say that most 3rd world countires are generous and tolerant of their diversity (If they have any, of course). My experience in third world countries is limited to deployments in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and they fall in neither category.


On that note....yay Canada!! The second greatest country on Earth ;)
As a sort of confession, if I had the opp to live in BC, I'd jump at it in a sec. But don't tell anyone

Unless, of course, you're gay, of middle eastern descent, not white(in many places), not christian(in many places), not conservative/liberal(in many places)...

or if you fall on the wrong side of the brutal class divisions which are increasingly characteristic of the realilty of american social life--and particularly of its systems of social reproduction. for example. and the horatio alger response does not fly: class divisions in the states are basic structural features of how the american system works. conservatives tend to see them as evidence of some kind of moral divide--in which they are simply delusional--but it does have an appeal: it is always easier of you can blame the victims of a brutal system for the problems that system creates. that way you can pretend the system itself is perfect and explain away the divisions. that and it does not require a whole lot of thought.

stick to your particular brand of marxism RB. you have absolutely no idea how conservatives think.

i suppose not, irate:
maybe you are right: maybe reading the right press, researching conservative websites, reading conservative ideological tracts, listening to right radio and from time to time sitting through faux news broadcasts etc. and wasting my time in debates with conservativees gives me no access to how conservative ideology spins particular issues.
this is obviously an exclusive club, the american right.
sustained research is obviously not enough.

maybe it is a secret society, open only to initiates.
do you get a decoder ring when you join irate?
or is that a secret too?

on another note:
what makes you think i am a marxist?
because i mention class and do not immediately shift to blaming the poor for their poverty?
or is it because i mention class at all?

tsk tsk, bringing up such an ugly and pervasive fact of american life when all that some folk really want here is a moment to retreat into patriotic fantasy.

i never said the "club" was exclusive... just that you aren't a part of it. i realize that can sound like a personal attack without benefit of verbal or facial expression. please do not take it so.

as to the marxism comment: your language takes the shape of a marxist, even though you seem to believe that it (marxism) is dead for all intents and purposes. my perception that you subscribe to a type of marxism is both a personal observation and taken from your own words found here

and here

irate: on the personal attack part--no problem. apologies for having take it as such.

on the other: it is an analytic position that is often kinda helpful in particular, highly controlled ways. nothing more. it provides no coherent way of thinking about how capitalism has reorganized itself since 1860, so as a whole operates more as a model for a particular type of theory than anything else. so your point--which seemed to me a bit of redbaiting--is moot.

sorry if you dont like the language--i suspect that what you really dont like is talking about the fact of class divisions in the states and the ways in whcih those divisions are reproduced--by sacrficing the potential of millions of children whose parents happen to live in poorer areas of the country. the point about differential access to resources has been made earlier here as well: manx was talking about it during a particular crescendo of flagwaving...you probably didnt like that either.
social reality is much harder to look at than some prefabircated red white and blue shangri-la.
but if one looks at social realities, it does not follow that they hate america. they just see it for what it is.
you would think that would be understood as a useful thing.

Bravo.......

you're welcome to your own position RB. but again, i would hesitate (were i in your position) to think you can speak for the conservative side of the coin. you may propose that the result of conservative doctrine would be this or that, but your analysis of conservative philosophy and motivation are simply false.

conservatives, by and large, do not ascribe a moral failure to those in poverty. however, they do describe any sense of entitlement from poor and rich as immoral.

in a free society driven by a free market some would say that the poor are exploited by the rich. many conservatives would counter that they, instead, are sustained by them.

to say that conservatives consider the system perfect is preposterous. there are class divisions... but why do you think that class divisions are evidence of a failure in the system? as long as some men work harder than others, as long as some men are smarter than others there will always be class divisions. a moral and just society will have class divisions, but these divisions will be based along lines of personal achievement not entitlement and privilege. our society is not up to that ideal yet.

a great way to give impoverished kids a chance in life would be for their family's tax dollars to be redirected (at their parent's request) to a private school instead of their local public warzone school. of course, we all know who proposed that and who shot it down.

With your conservative views, you'd be going nuts if you lived here.;)... But then again, living here might just change your stance on many issues...come on up and enjoy.:thumbsup:

I'm not egotistical enough to say that we're the absolute best, but we're partying on the top floor with the big guys.

Some of my big plusses
-I'm free to practice any religion (or in my case, lack thereof) without the government telling me I can't.
-I'm free to criticize the government in pretty much any non-threatening way I want, and they cannot legally stop me unless I'm violating the rights of others (although there is a frightening trend of declining freedom of speech, we do not have laws in place forbidding our media from criticizing the Royal Family, nor do we have a Royal Family. I see this as a good thing.)
-I'm free to arm myself for the purposes of defending myself against any threat from any source, as long as I am able to pass basic competency tests. This is more than can be said for much of the world.
-If I work hard, I can get an education, begin a sucessful career, and live comfortably with the wealth I have earned.


I know there are downsides, and I'm not the type to be blinded by flag-waving and chants of "We're number one!" so I'll list a few major negatives
-We have begun to display an alarming trend of sliding back into the puritanical pit from which we emerged. We are far behind Europe in social openness and tolerance
-We still allow the views of traditionalist religious groups to take precedence over our guarantees of equality, and deny full legal protection to some who are looked down on by these traditionalists.
-Our public education system is in serious need of a complete overhaul in order to bring us up to speed with the rest of the developed world. When only 27% of the country believes in evolution and over 60% think that creationism should be taught in schools, there's a problem. There's also the estimated 30%+ illeteracy rate.
-We still allow human rights abuses in our own country, and we do not take human rights into consideration when choosing foreign trading partners.
-Contrary to what the two sides of the political spectrum tell you, our monopolized media is dominated mainly by a self-interested bias, and does not provide us with an accurate representation of what is really happening.
-Until we make drastic changes, we are stuck with a national two-party political system, with third parties rarely appearing on anything above the local scale. Like the media, these parties are solely self-interested and do not represent the people.


As for the original article, it reeks of pro-EU bias, and I understand, although I don't quite completely agree with, the poster who called the author a Communist (I think that Socialist would be more appropriate, and that's still an ideology that I disagree with.)

I think every developed nation considers itself #1. I'm sure if you go to Britain, or France, or Japan, people from each country will say that they're the best country.


Actually, Americans work a lot more compared to Western European countries, for better or worse. It often seems like corporations own their employees. In European countries, people have a lot more leisure time, holidays, etc. that are mandated by the government.

irate, as you write those great sounding phrases, our conservative congress is voting to change the chapter 7 bankruptcy filing rules, which will have the effect of selling out their own debtor class constituents. These politicians largely come from the states with the highest per capita chapter 7 filings. They are voting against the near term economic security of their local economies, trading $40 million in contributions from financial corporations, for yes votes on this bill. This is corporate welfare, and a sellout of the majority of their constituents.

The working class and the poor have no influence or political representation from their conservative politicians. They serve business interests and high net worth individuals.

I wonder, if, taken by themselves.... (and removing the federal money surplus they get [i.e. no TVA]) Would some of our poorer states be considered "developing nations"

Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee....
They are, I believe, something that pull many of our rankings on filtherton's list down so far.

Using that logic, you can also make a case that some third world countries (using only a properous area/city) are more developed than some states like MI, NY, and MN.

This is one of the most reasoned responses on this thread... There is a lot to be proud of in the US (not to say that other nations don't have similar freedoms and laws).

Ultimately what this whole discussion comes down to is again (and I've said this in other threads) the EQUALTIY vs. FREEDOM debate.

The redistribution of wealth that occurs through taxation is seen by many in the world as a good thing. It allows the greater majority of a nation up to a higher standard of living. It brings services to the poorer elements of society.

The great American experiment of personal liberty above everything has been embrased by many. The myth that anyone can be President, wealthy, famous, whatever, if they just work hard is the great American dream. The reverse of this is that many people will never achieve that dream no matter how hard they try.

It is just a matter of how you look at it... some feel that "socialist reform" and the slide towards a more equality will lead to the proverbial "lead weights on dancers feet" (i.e. no one can be better than anyone else). I don't think anyone is advocating that sort of extreme here.

It is just a matter of what system you think works best.

The free market types would leave all of this up to the market to decide. In an ideal world that might work but there is that nasty human condition of greed and avarice that always steps in ruins it for everyone else. This is where responsible government has a place. For example: without seat belt laws would cars be safer today? Probably. But would that change have happened as fast as it did? Probably not. This analogy can be extended to all sort of reforms that the free market would never consider because of what it would do to the bottom line in the short term.

There's the rub. Short term. The free market rarely thinks into the future unless it is forced to do so? It is cheaper to dump toxic waste in the river than it is to treat it properly.

It all depends on how you look at things and where your personal priorities lay.

/end rant because I'm not sure I'm making sense.

I brought this up because you (i believe) singled out some EU nations.

Our states are meant to be semi-autonomous. It's apples to oranges to go another step and separate out urban to rural in another nation.

I also bring this up to show that there are some seriously bad places to live in this country. Places that, if they weren't propped up by other states aid would be no better.

I'm not understanding why there is so much hatred toward the country you live in!! No, we aren't perfect, but why base your negativity on statistics? I recently heard that America has more people in prison than nearly all other countries in the world. This is because other countries kill people for much lesser offenses!!! Just one of the quirks you can be hateful for. Anyone ever been caught shoplifting? Be thankful you aren't caught in the middle east the next time you use both hands. I hate that. Remember the American kid that got lashed/whipped in the Phillipines when he got caught for vandalism? Betcha he hated that.

Thus endeth my rant. God bless America.

Have you ever been to a third world nation and seen what they live in? I'm not talking about the rest room in Senor Frogs in Cancun or Paradise Isle in the Bahamas either.

Those folks live in some serious squaler and to think that if it wern't for the federal govt and their money, some states would be no different is insane.

I think you are missing the point. Hatred... hardly. These people seem to love America. They *want* America to be number one and can't understand why it isn't. They feel that the current system prevents it from being number one. They look at how other nations achieve greatness and think... Why can't we have that too?

It is one thing to go about saying America is great. It is another to try and make it great.

I live in Canada and think we have it much better than most Americans. We pay higher taxes but the trade off seems worth it. As a result, Canada is near the top of many lists of the best place to live in the world.

Not talking Cambodia or North Korea or Somalia

Talking Mexico, Costa Rica, Argentina and Romania.

I wish you were correct. However, their actions and rhetoric suggests otherwise. Does that mean all of them? No, of course not. Like I've said before, I hope they don't love their children like they love their country.

I disagree. They don't want America to be #1, they want America to become part of a global community where social justice (communism) and tolerance (liberalism) prevail. They have no desire for America to stand on its own on top of the world.

what on earth does this "be number 1" thing mean?
i have no idea what you are talking about, ncb....

It's interesting how two terms, "social justice" (of which the inverse would seemingly be "social injustice") and "tolerance" (of which the inverse is "intolerance") can be masked by two other terms (communism and liberalism) in order to present them in a negative light.

If having America stand at the top of the world produces social injustice and intolerance throughout the world - America needs to be prevented from standing at the top of the world.

And more to the point: I couldn't care less where America stands. Vastly more important than rank is the fight against social injustice and intolerance.

Marx and Lenin couldn't have said it better.

So do you subscribe to their versions of social justice and tolerance?

I have no idea what your perceptions of their versions of social justice and tolerance are, so that's simply not a question I could answer.

If you find that Marx and Lenin's versions of those terms are invalid, you should reconsider your decision to use their versions of those terms when you use those terms. Otherwise you are demonstrating your support for social injustice and intolerance.

Is that what you truly intend?

You're ducking the question, ManX. What's your vision of social justice and tolerance?

This just backs up what Manx was saying:

Are you advocating the negative? Can you seriously state that you would support Social Injustice and Intolerance? I don't think so.

That said, pulling Marx and Lenin into this is besides the point. Would it make you feel better if we all started pulling Hitler and Mussolini into this? It lessens the discussion to pointlessness...

No one here has suggested a Dictaorship of the Proletariat or any such nonsense. I would think those on the left of this discussion would argue that the reforms they seek can all be found within the Captialist Democracy we live in.

When it really comes down to it the two etremes here are not all that far off. It is a matter of degrees. One sees raising the quality of life for all as a good thing... The other side would say quality of life is *only* the inidividual's responsibility and let the chips fall where they may.

There are positives and negatives to both position and the answer is to be found somewhere in the middle.

I've said it before... I think a little socialism is a good thing for all. There is a happy medium between the respective nightmares of Lassiez-Fair Free Market system and a Communist Dictatorship.

i would agree with charalatan and manx for the most part.

and i too am perplexed by anyone actually opposing the notion of social or economic fairness in principle.

historically speaking, more democratic socialist type initiatives have made adjustments in the brutality of markets, their constant generation of social instability. without some kind of counterforce, capitalism would destory any trace of freedom. these initiaves have not been undertaken out of any great kindness on the part of the holders of capital and/or power: they have been forced to take them because the survival of the system was at stake in adapting to the social consequences of capitalism. there really is no argument against this. not in historical terms.


the way in which you invoked marx and lenin, ncb, makes it pretty clear that you have no idea what you are talking about.
try again.
maybe stick with texts you have actually read.

Charltan, noody here (especillay me) is advocating in justice and intolerance. It just seems hypocritical to me that the same people who claim to be advacning tolerance are the most intolerant people when it comes to religion (Judeo-Christian religion that is).

My point is that Lenin and Marx used the same rhetoric to advance their agenda. And look what happened. 100 million people were killed.

Most of the intollerance towards religious types is a direct reaction to particular types of intolerance coming out of certain religious types. The belief that a secular society should not be dictated to by a religious group is going to create friction... It should be noted that these same people would likely fight tooth and nail for the freedom of others to practice their religion (just not to prothelityze it).

As for Lenin and Marx resulting in 100 million killed... the same can be said of Capitalism... In the early days of the Industrial revolution to today there have been millions of people (globally speaking) that have been exploited and/or killed due to lack of regulations... It doesn't have to happen at the end of a gun or in gulag to make it count.

Again, the answer to this lies somewhere in the middle ground between the two extremes.

Stalin intentionally starved between 20-30 million Ukranians on his own. A sweatshop owner does not intentionally kill anyone.

AI agree. However, putting communism and capitalism on the same moral plane is insulting.

that is idiotic.

most of marx's work starts from the problem of alienation--which is a central feature in capitalist modes of production. the political dimension derives from trying to imagine what the overcoming of alienation would look like. and he never really spelled out what exactly he envisioned. but it is clear if you actually read marx that it follows that socialism for him would probably look more like a direct democracy than anything you have in mind.

there is a second dimension to marx's work that is much more problematic--that capitalism unfolded across objective contradictions--from which followed lenin's later claim that the revolutionary vanguard knew better than anyone else what these were and what actions they required at any given time. there is alot more that could be said here, but i'll leave it for now.

the question of organization is noted in marx but somewhat underdeveloped. engels was more interested in it, in part as a function of his understanding of revolution as a variant of civil war. which entailed a military-type organization. top-down command structures. lenin simply extended this basic view into a strategy that worked in the context of russia 1917.

lenin's work was mostly concerned with tactical matters--apart from state and revolution and a few other texts--the conflict between leninist type organization and anything like a direct democratic type of system was made perfectly clear with the suppression of the krorstadt rebellion and the gutting of any meaningful content of the notion of the soviets. those who are more sympathetic to lenin aften argue that this represents a kind of turn in his position forced onto him by the civil war. i do not buy that--i think centralized, military-style hierarchies are built into the very center of lenin's organizational theory.

there are many many other problems with your take on these people.
the short version of them is that you simply do not know what you are talking about, ncb.
it would be better for you to change tack.

Out of the two of us, I'm not the one who used those terms to describe my impression of why some people posting in this thread hate America.

I'll say it again: if you are not advocating social injustice and intolerance, you should rethink your use of their inverse descriptors as negatives.

another straight historical point: there was a split in the international in the run-up to world war 1 between the revolutionary and reformist wings--that is between those who understood revolution as possible in the shorter run and those who understood it as a longer-term possibility--the latter became social democrats.

over the 20th century, these two positions grew further and further apart--this is all obvious if you actually look into the history of marxism and/or the workers movement.

the distinction had to do with whether it made sense to work within the existing order to make changes that benefited the primary victims of capitalist modes of activity--which were working people and the poor--but the focus was on those who worked for wages, who, in marx's terms sold their labor power.

among the results of social-democratic movements and the responses to them were institutions like collective bargaining, which was an important basis many many developments like the extension of consumer credit to working class people--which in turn forms the basis for the type of prosperity you saw in the period from world war 2 through the early 1970s. which in turn constitues a fundamental base for the type of society that you, ncb, seem to feel works along an entirely different basis.

Looks like some didn't read the first post...

I don't hate america. I hate the fact that many americans just assume that their country is the best gosh darn country in the whole wide world. I hate the fact that there are so many americans who throw a hissyfit at the notion of universal health care in a country where we pay the most yet end up 37th in overall health performance. I hate the fact that so many of my countrymen and women are so intellectually lazy that they are afraid to even entertain the notion that america isn't across the board the greatest nation ever in the entire universe.

In their pure forms (i.e. in theory) both systems have good and bad things about them... In practice both systems are pretty horrible. Granted Communism is right up there with any other dictatorship.

Captialism only succeeds as a system because it is flexible. It can absorb change and reform. It succeeds because of regulation. Unchecked Capitalism is just as souless as Stalin at his worst...

Child labour, indentured servitude, slavery are just samples of the glories of early Capitalism. The dark satanic mills of the industrial revolution are another... It is only with government interference (checks and balances) that Capitalism doesn't kill us all.

This is just sad.

These numbers should bring out our pride and want to make this country better and improve.

Instead, one side uses it to show how bad off we are and that there is no hope, the other side ignores the numbers or makes fun of them.

Goddamn people, this is my fucking country and the place my children will grow up in. maybe you don't fucking care about your children or what happens. Perhaps you are independantly wealthy and don't give a damn about anything but lower taxes. Perhaps, you feel the government is fucked up and you would rather see us fail then to find ways to be better.

I don't fucking care what it is. IT IS TIME TO FIX THE SYSTEM, BE PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN AND FUCKING GROW UP. PAY THE FUCKING TAXES AND STOP CRYING, WORK TO INCREASE PAYROLLS AND DEMAND THAT BENEFITS START BEING INCLUDED.

IT IS TIME TO TELL THE FUCKING HEALTHCARE COMPANIES TO FUCK OFF AND EITHER PROVIDE AFFORDABLE HEALTHCARE OR THE GOVERNMENT WILL STEP IN.

IT IS TIME TO REBUILD THE PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM AND SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT HOW BAD IT IS.

IT IS TIME TO FUCKING TIGHTEN OUR BELTS, AND AGREE THAT WE WANT A BETTER NATION AND WORK FOR ONE.

SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT THE PETTY DIFFERENCES AND THE FUCKING GREED AND JUST DO SOMETHING.

Me, I volunteer at the library and tutor adults to read, I work in Public service as an addictions counselor and I work my ass off to help people better themselves.

I may not get rich doing what I'm doing, but I don't give a damn. When my time comes I can look at myself in a mirror and say I helped my brothers and I tried to better people. I can face my God and say I did the best I could and affected people and my community positively.

I don't have to go to my God on my knees and say, I cried about taxes and I made millions while others starved and I gave money to charities that actually used 10% of it to help people. I don't have to go to my God and say I worshipped the dollar and I didn't give a damn about anyone else because I made mine. I don't have to face my God and tell him i didn't believe in fair healthcare for all, because I had it and those that didn't well..... they were too lazy to have it.

That's a fucked up way to live.

Mods,

I appologize for the use of language and tone but I truly am tired of both sides crying and neither side trying to do anything to better things.