"Where Is Our Radical Youth?" Washington Post Op Ed

[Diamicles]

Quit taking statistics so literally. You know just as well as I do that unless you have a proven study they don't mean anything, and are only used to reinforce a point.

I'm pretty sure with my wife being a teacher, I have a better insight than a lot of other people into what other teachers really think of that program... and yes, a lot of students can't even perform simple math due to that program.

And don't give me that BS of using technology to cheat, graphing calculators have been used to cheat since their inception. Nothing different than using cell phones.

[Seraph]

"No child left behind" really means "Everyone else slow down". I know several teachers, and they all complain how each successive class seems to become less able to learn the necessary material. Now, you can speculate that is is from ADHD, bad parenting, too much television, poor teaching, or just legitimately dumber kids. I personally think it's a pinch of all of the above, combined with a lack of motivation to be successful.

[GeneJackit]

My ONLY point was that things have been in serious decline since way before NCLB and its silly to point to that as a major turning point in american education

hell yeah graphing calculators have been around a long time...i used to own "snake" hard core

[Diamicles]

haha it seems that I have effectively derailed this thread again....my apologies!!

[Plow]

This is perhaps the third or second time this happens, but... i've looked through all my posts in this thread and found nothing of the sort of thing you seem to be saying i believe. I don't really understand what you're doing.

Reacted massively to what? Voting for Obama? Obama has the same strategy that Bush had for Afghanistan; what are you talking about?

to which you replied that that was what voting for Democrats and Obama is for, to which i further replied that they can't do anything serious about that

Electing a democratic Congress was supposed to end the military industrial complex? No lol.

Simple enough, voting for a new president and Congress isn't enough,

I have no interest in arguing things I agree on-- you want to blow off the things we don't agree on, and try to troll me into writing disagreeing posts on things I don't disagree on.

See:

No i don't agree with you, but let's leave it at that.

in response to:

You know as well as i do that the entire country has united to try to change the things you're arguing here, and that's the point of the conversation.

i.e. what the thread is about


vs.

page full of spam about the MIC and America's history of supporting terrorism, which are MASSIVE FUCKING REASONS why we were able to do what just happened, which nobody is arguing in the least


nice try, you got me a few times

[Kuya]

The reason why Obama was elected had nothing to do with eliminating the MIC nor even reforming it, Obama was elected on issues like Iraq, which is not only related to the MIC but also keynesian military economics, which are in part also related to the MIC, but the reasons that were used to reject the Iraq war was that the Bush administration lied in order to get into that was and hence it made it the "bad" one. It had nothing, and i emphasize, to do with the MIC, this was never an issue nor in the campaign nor in his platform.

Therefore the things i'm arguing about, ARE NOT, the reasons why the American people, and that is to say approximately 25% of them, voted for Obama. Stop being disingenuous.

You said that i said that protests, demonstrations and mobilization was not part of electing Obama, aside from the voting, i never said that, protests and demonstrations are always part of the voting process in order to draw attention tot he candidates, protests being the least common. HOWEVER, that has NOTHING to do with the MIC, get this through your head and stop arguing things you seem to know very little about. I said that voting for Obama had nothing to do with the MIC, not that protests or demonstrations had nothing to do with voting for Obama, and i am right. Obama will also not do anything about it if he's not pushed to do so by enough public demand, and simple enough, not enough people know about it to do anything, nor are they motivated. Please stop arguing, you either do this on purpose or you do not know how to debate.

edit: to make sure you got it:

Obama Was Not Elected To End The Current Military Industrial Complex.

[GeneJackit]

I can hear the collective yawn of the American people when it comes to the MIC...no one cares about it, 90% have no clue what it is, and there are a lot more pressing issues than it...

But I dont think that is a bad thing.

It is because of these niche issues (MIC, Gay Marriage, legalisation of drugs) that people dont get involved...honestly, how the hell are you supposed to make this a cause to rally against?

Could it just possibly be that we really dont have something "awesome" to fight against and that people are just grasping at straws? There are so many people DYING to relive the 60s...you know what? FUCK THE 60s!

Once Obama's economic policies fail horribly you will see some torrent of uprising, but even then (unless it turns into a Mad Max lvl of post-apocalyptic failure) it will just have the end result being the election of a Conservative as our next president a la Jimmy Carter > Ronald Reagan

[Plow]

The reason why Obama was elected had nothing to do with eliminating the MIC nor even reforming it, Obama was elected on issues like Iraq, which is not only related to the MIC but also keynesian military economics, which are in part also related to the MIC, but the reasons that were used to reject the Iraq war was that the Bush administration lied in order to get into that was and hence it made it the "bad" one. It had nothing, and i emphasize, to do with the MIC, this was never an issue nor in the campaign nor in his platform.

Therefore the things i'm arguing about, ARE NOT, the reasons why the American people, and that is to say approximately 25% of them, voted for Obama. Stop being disingenuous.

You said that i said that protests, demonstrations and mobilization was not part of electing Obama, aside from the voting, i never said that, protests and demonstrations are always part of the voting process in order to draw attention tot he candidates, protests being the least common. HOWEVER, that has NOTHING to do with the MIC, get this through your head and stop arguing things you seem to know very little about. I said that voting for Obama had nothing to do with the MIC, not that protests or demonstrations had nothing to do with voting for Obama, and i am right. Obama will also not do anything about it if he's not pushed to do so by enough public demand, and simple enough, not enough people know about it to do anything, nor are they motivated. Please stop arguing, you either do this on purpose or you do not know how to debate.

edit: to make sure you got it:

Obama Was Not Elected To End The Current Military Industrial Complex.

So you're the only person that voted for Obama that cared about the massive level of fraud, and the fact that the entire Iraq war was started as a way to abuse the MIC?

And Cheney was never even considered for the Republican nomination because... he was a grumpy old man. Right?


Sure, when you disregard the military, the government, and the industry involved in war, and how they relate, it has nothing to do with the MIC!

[Kuya]

It is because of these niche issues (MIC, Gay Marriage, legalisation of drugs) that people dont get involved...honestly, how the hell are you supposed to make this a cause to rally against?

?

[Kuya]

So you're the only person that voted for Obama that cared about the massive level of fraud, and the fact that the entire Iraq war was started as a way to abuse the MIC?

And Cheney was never even considered for the Republican nomination because... he was a grumpy old man. Right?


Sure, when you disregard the military, the government, and the industry involved in war, and how they relate, it has nothing to do with the MIC!

This is going to require all the patience i can muster, but i think i can do it.

Let's go over this again. Obama, was elected, among other things, to end the Iraq war. He does not have a mandate however, but it was part of his platform. The general public, specifically those who voted for Obama, thought the Iraq war was a quagmire, notice that, out of all the reasons that were mentioned as to why the Iraq war was bad (lying about weapons of mass destruction, civilian deaths, no link to Al Quaeda, war for oil) the reason that was least, as far as i'm concerned, mentioned was not that Iraq was part of a symptom of the MIC, by that i mean, a war energized by the desire to stimulate the economy, even though it failed miserably, and a war created to tie up loose ends that have their roots in the US playing around in the Middle East, by that i mean using Saddam to attack Iran. The links between the US's foreign policy in the ME for the last 50 years, was rarely mentioned in the mainstream media, and by that i mean tv news. With this we conclude one thing, that the vast majority of Americans who voted for Obama did not do so, among many of their desires, to end the MIC complex, a feat that would no doubt be incredibly difficult and has been noted as nearly impossible for any president to actually get rid of as there are too many interested parties involved. Furthermore, most Americans do not even know about most what the US does or has done outside of the US, it has often been commented that the average American's knowledge of anything outside of the US is abysmal.

Now as for Obama, nowhere, specifically in his platform nor in his speeches, did he ever mention changing the MIC, by changing it i mean ending the use of agents to bribe foreign leaders, incite riots, and sell weapons to proxy forces, which is also often equated to US foreign policy. This has never been mentioned as a specific issue the Democrats were for either, and that would also be doubtful as the Democratic party has quite a lot of hawks. What can we conclude here? That not only did Obama not receive a mandate, he also did not receive any popular demand by the people to dismantle the MIC, and he did not have it planned or make explicit anywhere that he intended to end the MIC, because as i've stated before the MIC along with several other things the US does as i've mentioned before, leads to the deaths of millions who are merely perceived as collateral, and it leads to reprisals known as "blowback" against American civilians.

Now, to synthesize, the Iraq war is related to the MIC and odious US foreign policy, but the reasons for pulling out were not related to the MIC or a change of US foreign policy (not counting the things that Bush did specifically, such as lie to the public about weapons of mass destruction, and extreme rendition). Furthermore, ending the Iraq war (and btw i hope no one thinks that the US won't maintain a heavy presence there) would not change the way the MIC works because, evidently, it's just a symptom of a bigger cause, not the cause itself. I hope i've cleared your doubts.

[Elvis]

I don't think the MIC is a niche issue.

The MIC is an abstraction. It's the collusion of interests between a government/army and the arms manufacturing industry when it comes to policy.

So, where is the MIC? Can we go protest 'it'? Think of another abstraction - a lobby. Where do we go to protest a lobby?

There is no central place. "The MIC" is just a label. To describe a collective of entities working 'together' with a common interest - more or less.

So there are several groups part of this abstraction.

The MIC, then, is the foundation of many problems we have had in the past/present and will in the future.

It is the source. And, it's not something you can just 'combat' or get rid of easily. It's by definition - institutionalized and intertwined with our government. So you'd need a revolution to really change the way things work. And that won't happen.

So the MIC exists in the foundation. All these other problems can be related to it in a way. Why? Because they are derivative (correct word?) of the MIC.

I mean, people don't even buy into the possible fact that we don't need oil in the ME. That it has more to do with 'control' of the oil - not usage per se. If we 'control' the oil we have economic/political leverage over Russia/China/other big players.

So I don't put much stock into "they/them/they people" voting for Obama to stop 'the MIC'.

If there is an opinion poll somewhere that indicates otherwise, then blah.

[Plow]

I still simply refuse to believe you're this oblivious.

Let's go over this again. Obama, was elected, among other things, to end the Iraq war. He does not have a mandate however, but it was part of his platform. The general public, specifically those who voted for Obama, thought the Iraq war was a quagmire, notice that, out of all the reasons that were mentioned as to why the Iraq war was bad (lying about weapons of mass destruction, civilian deaths, no link to Al Quaeda, war for oil)

All of the bold were excuses for the underlined.

The underlined is EXACTLY what you're complaining about in the MIC. What the hell do you think Haliburton does, build churches?

the reason that was least, as far as i'm concerned, mentioned was not that Iraq was part of a symptom of the MIC, by that i mean, a war energized by the desire to stimulate the economy, even though it failed miserably, and a war created to tie up loose ends that have their roots in the US playing around in the Middle East, by that i mean using Saddam to attack Iran.

What the hell are you even trying to say? Did you just brainstorm some ideas about Iraq and Iran and vomit them onto the page?

Are you honestly trying to say the war in Iraq was started to try to attack Iran, and that the general public believes that, rather than believing it's all one giant abuse of the MIC?

The links between the US's foreign policy in the ME for the last 50 years, was rarely mentioned in the mainstream media, and by that i mean tv news.

Do you ever watch this mainstream news you like to bring up so much? That's a rhetorical question btw, as anyone that's watched the news in the last 6 years or so could tell you that's just a ridiculous statement to make.

With this we conclude one thing, that the vast majority of Americans who voted for Obama did not do so, among many of their desires, to end the MIC complex, a feat that would no doubt be incredibly difficult and has been noted as nearly impossible for any president to actually get rid of as there are too many interested parties involved. Furthermore, most Americans do not even know about most what the US does or has done outside of the US, it has often been commented that the average American's knowledge of anything outside of the US is abysmal.

First off, "end the MIC complex" is just a flat out stupid thing to say-- it's Guartzian attempted "philosophy" of someone trying to be deep or some shit saying idiotic things about a concept they cannot grasp.

There is no "end the MIC" unless you end government, end industry, and end the military. As long as the 3 exist, there will be an MIC. FFS didn't you link the wiki MIC article earlier in the thread? Did it ever occur to you that maybe you should read it?

Guess what... the average American is an oblivious idiot. It's been that way since there have been Americans, and it was that way as long as there have been people existing, not just Americans.

The average American in the 60's/70's knew there was a war going on that didn't seem right for us to be involved in... and that's about it. We live in the "information age" now, rather people want to be or not, let alone try to be, they're more informed than they've ever been.

Now as for Obama, nowhere, specifically in his platform nor in his speeches, did he ever mention changing the MIC, by changing it i mean ending the use of agents to bribe foreign leaders, incite riots, and sell weapons to proxy forces, which is also often equated to US foreign policy. This has never been mentioned as a specific issue the Democrats were for either, and that would also be doubtful as the Democratic party has quite a lot of hawks.

Are you fucking kidding me? Did you forget all about that Joe Biden fellow? Did you miss the entirety of recent American history, when every media outlet, be it news, humor, talk shows, anything you can possibly think of has been absolutely full of complaints about exactly what you're fucking talking about?

What can we conclude here?

That you're exponentially more oblivious than all those you're complaining about.

That not only did Obama not receive a mandate, he also did not receive any popular demand by the people to dismantle the MIC, and he did not have it planned or make explicit anywhere that he intended to end the MIC, because as i've stated before the MIC along with several other things the US does as i've mentioned before, leads to the deaths of millions who are merely perceived as collateral, and it leads to reprisals known as "blowback" against American civilians.

Because "end the MIC" is a stupid damn thing to say.

Now, to synthesize, the Iraq war is related to the MIC and odious US foreign policy, but the reasons for pulling out were not related to the MIC or a change of US foreign policy (not counting the things that Bush did specifically, such as lie to the public about weapons of mass destruction, and extreme rendition). Furthermore, ending the Iraq war (and btw i hope no one thinks that the US won't maintain a heavy presence there) would not change the way the MIC works because, evidently, it's just a symptom of a bigger cause, not the cause itself. I hope i've cleared your doubts.

Bullshit. Ending ABUSES of the MIC, repairing America's foreign policy, and delivering honesty to the citizens of the U.S. are EXACTLY what the fuck he, and the democratic congress were elected to do.

[Elvis]

One thing you aren't taking into account, Plow, is the issue awareness polls conducted during the previous 2 Presidential elections.

They are mostly embarrassing - however, one caveat is that they were more embarrassing for the Bush constituency.

I mean, we're talking about a lot of people. So I think any generalized statement is going to be contentious by definition.

EDIT:

Misread what you said: "is an oblivious idiot"/rather than "isn't." D:

[Plow]

I should point out that my strong language isn't in anger, but in astonishment.

[Kuya]

All of the bold were excuses for the underlined.

The underlined is EXACTLY what you're complaining about in the MIC. What the hell do you think Haliburton does, build churches?

Most people do not make a connection between the oil in Iraq and a structural system that functions to deliver these resources to financial interests via wars.

What the hell are you even trying to say? Did you just brainstorm some ideas about Iraq and Iran and vomit them onto the page?

Are you honestly trying to say the war in Iraq was started to try to attack Iran, and that the general public believes that, rather than believing it's all one giant abuse of the MIC?

You misread, tie up loose ends specifically refers to the previous use of Saddam to attack Iran, and that is a loose end that needed to be eliminated.

Do you ever watch this mainstream news you like to bring up so much? That's a rhetorical question btw, as anyone that's watched the news in the last 6 years or so could tell you that's just a ridiculous statement to make.

Yes actually, CNN and Fox News. After 9/11 and for a few years, there was hardly any voice in tv media that considered 9/11 to be a repercussion from US foreign involvement, and the most prominent example was Ron Paul in the Rep. convention, however that got shot down and labeled unAmerican quite fast. There was an attempt to erroneously connect Iraq to 9/11, that didn't last long, but it does not change the fact that most Americans (clearly more than half of the adult population) could not recognize the real significance of Iraq and Afghanistan, even though most people who did know already knew what we were there for, in both occasions.

First off, "end the MIC complex" is just a flat out stupid thing to say-- it's Guartzian attempted "philosophy" of someone trying to be deep or some shit saying idiotic things about a concept they cannot grasp.

End the MIC refers to ending manipulation of foreign nations, this is not philosophy, so please stop being flippant. If you want an example of the MIC, look no further than the US's unequivocal support for Israel.

Are you fucking kidding me? Did you forget all about that Joe Biden fellow? Did you miss the entirety of recent American history, when every media outlet, be it news, humor, talk shows, anything you can possibly think of has been absolutely full of complaints about exactly what you're fucking talking about?

I am surprised that you still insist that tv news media actually comments on these things, at least fairly. Anyone else would like to add their opinion here? Does anyone think that American TV news actually fairly covers the fact that the US ignores Israel's atrocities for ME supremacy? That current Iran was specifically lead to by US intervention, the same as Afghanistan? I have already posted sources saying that the media in the US is fairly biased towards the government, but Plow, with no sources, insists otherwise.

Bullshit. Ending ABUSES of the MIC, repairing America's foreign policy, and delivering honesty to the citizens of the U.S. are EXACTLY what the fuck he, and the democratic congress were elected to do.

The latter two are in fact aspects of what Obama said he would do, not the first. Please stop being disingenuous.

[Kuya]

To further repeat my point, in the face of Plow's dishonest debate skills that try to obscure the argument, let me recapitulize.

Today's youth do have something serious to fight for, and that is to put pressure on the government to change the systems within the MIC that allow the government to ignore atrocities from its allies because they are excellent clients and proxies for maintaining US interests. However, with popular media not revealing the full truth, it is difficult for a democratic population to really make decisions about its future. There is also the issue that the culture does, in my fair opinion, support superficiality and certainly not content, in so far as actual concern for one's society and what the government does outside the US. It is true, if what annoys Plow seems to be that i'm not sining Obama's praises, that Obama did raise a lot of movement, i believe one of the highest turn outs in many groups, and this is often accredited to a brilliant campaign strategy, however it is ingenious to believe that just electing government officials is enough to change an institution that has existed for well over 70 years now. Simple enough, electing politicians isn't enough if you don't consistently put popular pressure on them so they aren't swayed by the many financial interests that currently plague the White House.

[Elvis]

I don't think the MSM has ever had a meaningful dialogue on important foreign policy issues. I doubt they ever will. And that Ron Paul thing is a perfect example. People are so fucking sanctimonious. They think that history begins when we're attacked. And that even the attempt at understanding 'why' is "anti-American."

Anyways, fuck the MSM. Wolf Blitzer can suck it! Rabble Rabble!

[GeneJackit]

I don't think the MIC is a niche issue.

The MIC is an abstraction. It's the collusion of interests between a government/army and the arms manufacturing industry when it comes to policy.

So, where is the MIC? Can we go protest 'it'? Think of another abstraction - a lobby. Where do we go to protest a lobby?

There is no central place. "The MIC" is just a label. To describe a collective of entities working 'together' with a common interest - more or less.

So there are several groups part of this abstraction.

The MIC, then, is the foundation of many problems we have had in the past/present and will in the future.

It is the source. And, it's not something you can just 'combat' or get rid of easily. It's by definition - institutionalized and intertwined with our government. So you'd need a revolution to really change the way things work. And that won't happen.

So the MIC exists in the foundation. All these other problems can be related to it in a way. Why? Because they are derivative (correct word?) of the MIC.

I mean, people don't even buy into the possible fact that we don't need oil in the ME. That it has more to do with 'control' of the oil - not usage per se. If we 'control' the oil we have economic/political leverage over Russia/China/other big players.

So I don't put much stock into "they/them/they people" voting for Obama to stop 'the MIC'.

If there is an opinion poll somewhere that indicates otherwise, then blah.

Look, MIC is a complete niche issue, and you can go protest it...like when all those people protest about Haliburton and what not.

Agreed, no one voted for Obama to end the MIC

...but he did campaign on cleaning up washington (like every other candidate in the last million years) and you could argue that this statement would encompass the MIC*



*personally, I am not a big believer in the conspiritorial ideas about our gov't and the MIC...i think its human nature that there will always be wars and people hating us, and defense contractors supply a much needed service to our gov't (this is way simplified of course, and there are always exceptions)

[Elvis]

Look, MIC is a complete niche issue, and you can go protest it...like when all those people protest about Haliburton and what not.

I thought Halliburton was primarily an oil company? Nevertheless, they would fall under the MIC. And my point was that the MIC does not have a central office somewhere to serve as it's Earthly manifestation.

It's an idea. The collusion between blah blah and blah regarding blah.

Now, we can say this or that company 'represent' the MIC but that's still a collective rather than 1 entity. And that's the point.

When we mention the concept, we're not always talking about Halliburton, are we? We're talking about these groups that have this shared interest and work 'together' accordingly.

It's similar to when people refer to the 'Israel lobby'. Meaning a collective of people/institutions that share this common goal of advancing or maintaining the interests of the State of Israel.

Similarly, you could say that AIPAC is the embodiment of 'the Lobby' and thus, it not pervasive - it's not 'niche'. But then what about the World Zionist Organization? Or the firing of University professors who are critical of Israel? Or just recently, the withdrawal of Chas Freeman from the candidacy of the NIC? Those were all the work of 'the Lobby'.

Now I know this evokes imagery of a group of people sitting in a darkly lit room, smoking cigars and discussing how to rule the world. But, the reality is much worse.

That this form of political pressure is subtle and commonplace. It's institutionalized and not explicitly illegal (in some cases it is though).

I wouldn't degrade myself to evoke any such canards. It would be great if those conspiracy theories were true. Then it would prove that human nature was inherently good. That the Milligram experiment was complete bollocks. That people aren't complex and that we always say what we feel and blah blah.

Anyways, the same concept applies to the MIC. It works differently from the Israel lobby but just like how AIPAC is not the sole representation of the Lobby - Halliburton is not the sole representation of the MIC. Furthermore, it doesn't have to be a company. It can be an 'act'. It can be 'pressure' "as a result of" ________.

personally, I am not a big believer in the conspiritorial ideas about our gov't and the MIC...i think its human nature that there will always be wars and people hating us, and defense contractors supply a much needed service to our gov't (this is way simplified of course, and there are always exceptions)

Nor am I. My definition of the MIC is textbook. Not conspiratorial.

I think of the MIC to be the foundation from which these other problems spring forth. I mean, it's 'political economy'.

[Kuya]

Anyway, to do good on what i wanted to post about the American political system i'll post some parts of the book, Parties and Elections in Corporate America, the chapter called The Fallacy of Voting by Howard L. Reiter, who essentially argues that the American political process, and that by that i mean voting, is without much strength or even relevance. There is somewhat of a counter argument by Berelson, Lazarsfield, and McPhee in Democrac Practice and Democratic Theory, that there is a necessity to the democratic process that not many people be political involved or that they be political involved in other aspects, but they don't really refute the idea that voting isn't simply one aspect of the political process nor that it is the least relevant one.

http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/724...cyofvoting.jpg