Few Questions, Who Knows the Answers?

[stebo0728]

1. Americas government system could be best described as:

a. Democracy
b. Monarchy
c. Totalitarian State
d. Constitutional Republic

2. Define the following terms as best you can:

a. Racism
b. Greed
c. Socialism

3. Healthcare could be best described as:

a. A right
b. A responsibility
c. A priveledge

4. True or False. Everyone should have an equal amount of stuff.

5. The first person to recognize the need for a government sponsored education system was:

a. Hillary Clinton
b. Benjamin Franklin
c. Karl Marxx
d. Thomas Jefferson

6. True or False. American citizens have always voted for both congressmen and senators in the general elections.

7. True or False. Who serves as president is decided upon who gets the most amount of votes from the election.

8. True or False. America has endured at least one civil war in its history.

9. True or False. The Democratic Party was established on the principles of abolishing slavery.

10. True or False. The Three-Fifths Clause stated that slaves were considered three-fifths human.

11. Would you be more comfortable stating:

a. America is great because of its government.
b. Americas government is great because of Americans.

12. True or False. Mexico has an open southern border, and anyone who desires access is happily welcomed without any papers.

13. True or False. The new law being considered in Arizona regarding illegal immigration, would allow police officers to randomly approach individuals and demand paperwork proving their legal status.

14. True or False. Americas founding fathers, escpecially George Washington, greatly admired the polical party system, and they knew that political parties were beneficial to society.

15. True or False. America has always used an income based taxation system, and taxes have always been deducted from paychecks on a regular basis.



Ok just a quick quiz to see what you folks know, or how you think regarding our political climate as of now. Some of these questions are factual questions, and some are more opinion based. After a few days I will post my own answers, and see how folks did. The answers will most likely spawn some nice discussion.

[AZhitman]

Nice try.

We're not doing your homework assignment for you, n00b.

(Just kidding... good stuff, I'll dig in when I get back to my office).

[stebo0728]

Lol, com'on, I gotta get an A in this class man!

[ScrapMetal]

I'll play!

(warning: If you go by my answers to this you will most definitely fail your test )

1: C
2: A- Hating people for the way they look.
B- Wanting more than what you need.
C- Everybody sharing the "pie" equally
3: A
4: False
5: C
7: True
8: True
9: False
10: True
11: B
12: True
13: True
14: False
15: False

I didn't use Google, yes I know most if not all of these are wrong...maybe

[stebo0728]

Thanks for your reply, lemme give it a few more days to see if anyone else bites, then ill post my answers, and we can start the discussion.....im chompin at the bit lol

[mattblancarte]

Cool idea for a post.

1: D
2: A- Discriminating people(s) for their race, and not for their actions.
B- A strong desire to attain as much power as one can achieve.
C- "Robin-Hood" government.
3: C
4: False
5: D
6: True (Senators are congressmen...)
7. False
8: True
9: False
10: True
11: B
12: False
13: False
14: False
15: False

[stebo0728]

Ok so I realized that its a b*tch scrolling up and down matching answers with questions so I decided to quote out each question then show my answer. I will explain each answer as best I can and perhaps we can spark some debate.

1. Americas government system could be best described as:

a. Democracy
b. Monarchy
c. Totalitarian State
d. Constitutional Republic

Answer: D

Although the word democracy is thrown around in everyday discussion regarding our country, we in fact are not a democracy, we are a Constitutional Republic. We are not ruled by the majority, we are ruled by law. The Constitution. Our founding fathers saw the dangers of democracy, and took great measures to assure that democracy never became common place in our nation. (Many of these measures we are today undermining, which is one of the scariest things about our day and age). In fact history shows that in most cases, democracy de-evolves into a Totalitarian State government. The difference between a democracy and a republic, is that we do not, as individual citizens, establish law. We elect officials to do this for us, to speak for us, and the representative body is set up to give every region of people an equal say, that way, say California and all its population, or Texas with all its population, does not out weight Rhode Island, or Maine, and thus a more equal means of law establishment is achieved.

2. Define the following terms as best you can:

a. Racism
b. Greed
c. Socialism

a. Racism - racism is the belief in genetic superiority of one race of people over another. For example, Hitler, was a racist. He believed that Arian white people were genetically superior, not only to people of Hebrew descent, but any other race as well. Instead what we see today is more bigotry. Bigotry is not hostility toward persons of a differnt race, ethnicity, sexual-orientation, or something else likewise different.
b. Greed - actually I have a very hard time defining greed. Many people say its trying to get more than you need, but whos to say how much I need? Is it their right to mandate how much I need? Its strange how most people complaining about greed are the ones who arent willing to go out on a limb and work toward their own fortune. Instead they sit around and complain about all the other "greedy" people. One of the most misdirected uses of the word greed is occuring today, with the health care industry. Politicians left and right state how greedy the insurace institutions are, yet what do they know. Nothing because financially record show that on the average, Insurace agencies pull about a 2-3% profit margin. Go in to work tomorrow and ask your boss if he would like to operate on a 2-3% profit margin. He would most likely either burst into riotous laughter, or will ask that you be escorted out of the building. The company I work for starts squirming if the profit margin drops below 15%. And on that same note, how about the "Big Oil" companies, and their "gross" gross profit? Here was the mistake there. People were so concerned about the gross profit amount, which truely was high, in the billions, but you cant do that, you have to look at the profit margin. The average "Big Oil" company brings in about 5% margin. Again, that is wayyy low in business standards. The thing is, oil companies sell so much oil that their gross amount does get very hight, but the more they sell, the more people they have to employ, the more electricity they use for their establishments, the more taxes they pay, and all that takes right out of the pile in the same proportion as what heaps into the pile. Its all about margins.
c. Socialism - socialism is best defined as a style of governing where the government both owns and controls all resources. It is most commonly associated with the phrase "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need". While this sounds amazing rolling off the toungue, there is one problem. This type of government is incompatible with human nature. As humans we naturally desire to achieve over and beyoned others, to seek and maintain power. The ones trusting enough always end up subjected to the ones deceitful enough. I saw an article showing some protest signs today, and it defined socialism as "your tax dollars at work for those who dont". The problem with socialism, and im quoting, is that eventually you run out of other peoples money. Europe is just now starting to recover from a 2 decade love affair with socialism. They have proved, it doesnt pay off, and do we want to drag our nation through the same mud hole?

3. Healthcare could be best described as:

a. A right
b. A responsibility
c. A priveledge

Ok this one is admittedly largely opinion based, but I will explain my reasoning for my answer.
Answer: B
I say responsibilty above priveledge, and below right for 2 main reasons. If I were to say that there were a "right" involving healthcare, it would be that everyone has the right "to acquire" healthcare. Not simply a right to just "have" healthcare. And this is why I say responsibility. Most people cant afford to sit on an operating table, get some work done, then pull out a fat wad when their done to pay. Healthcare is more expensive that most peoples budget can support. Here is where insurance comes in. As to not be a drain on society when you come in need of emergency health care that you cant pay outright for, you have a responsibilty to carry coverage that will aid in payment for the services rendered. Ah, services rendered, this is why I DONOT consider heathcare a right. How do you receive healthcare? Services are rendered to you, hence someone performs a service for you, hence someone learned a trade, went to college, busted their hump, to learn how to render those services to you. And in rendering those services, they are extending both a portion of their expertise acquired, and a portion of their time, to you to aid you. Do you mean to tell me that everyone has a right to someone elses blood sweat and tears? If we progress to that, we will see doctors dropping left and right, no longer interested in being forced to render services for any price less that what they feel is fair compensation for their time, and for their expertise. Would we dare say we have a right to take our car to a mechanic and have it fixed, regardless of whether we can pay or not? Well although a doctor performs more mission critical functions, that does not put their services rendered into a different special category. I saw healthcare is not a priveledge because anyone should be able to obtain it. The government has policies in place now that make this difficult for some people. Why should a company be able to write off portions of their health plan, and an individual cant? But their are still discriminations to be made regarding health care. One is pre-existing conditions. If you are transferring health care, and the plan before covered the condition you currently have, then the new plan should as well. But, if you are new to insurance, they need not cover a condition you had before signing up. What if you decided not to carry house insurance. Then that huge oak tree in the front yard decided to split your house in 2. Could you then seek house insurance, and expect it to pay for the damage which was pre-existing?

4. True or False. Everyone should have an equal amount of stuff.

Again largely opinion based. But I say false, because great things in this world have only been achieved when someone stuck their neck out to accomplish something, and why did they stick their neck out, on the promise of a big pay out if they succeeded, thats why. If someone takes on risk, builds a business, puts their house up to start the business, therefore risking losing the home, once their business takes off, are they not entitled to reap the reward of their hard work and risk taking? Say no, officially, and watch entrepreneurship levels drop like a rock in this nation. And why should the meth head, who anytime he runs into a little extra money, is off for the next fix, why should he have an equal amount of stuff as the guy who is actually contributing to society? What we are today is a product of the choices we have made through our life. Make poor choices, and you hit hard times. Make wise choices, and it pays off in the end. If you are entitled to an equal amount of stuff no matter what you do, why work? Why contribute? Then if no one contributes, what kind of "pie" is left to split?

5. The first person to recognize the need for a government sponsored education system was:

a. Hillary Clinton
b. Benjamin Franklin
c. Karl Marxx
d. Thomas Jefferson

Answer: C
Karl Marxx, the father of communism, auther of the Comminust Manifesto, was the first to cite the need for a government sponsored educational system. This is necessary to educate the next generation in a way that they become increasingly dependent on the government. Religion and education are inserperable. Catholic school teaches catholicism, Christian schools teach christianity, and believe it or not government schools also teach a form of religion. Only in government school, the government is the deity. PUBLIC education is needed, but government sponsored, government controlled education is NOT. In America we have instituted a policy wherein the child has to follow the money. Instead we should be instituting policies wherein the money is allowed to follow the child. You as the parent make an informed decision as to where your child will attend. Then said school recieved the tuition check. If the check is not enough to cover the tuition, you as a parent make the shortfall. But I guarantee you if a system like this was set up, a large number of private schools would re-adjust their tuition schedules to match the government provided amount.

6. True or False. American citizens have always voted for both congressmen and senators in the general elections.

False
American citizens have always voted for congressmen, members of the House of Congress. However, it was not until the 17th Amendment that citizens began voting for senators, members of the Senate. No congressmen and senators are not the same. And they do not hold the same intended roles in our government. Congressmen were designed to represent the American people, that is why the number of congressmen for each state is determined by that states population. Senators, however, are not supposed to be subject to the will of the people. Their role is to represent their state's government. This is why each state is equally given 2 senators, and senators are not distributed based on population. The 17th Amendment was a knee-jerk reaction to some corruption that was occuring at the time regarding what senators where being appointed, and why. (Sorta like people being offered jobs to get out of election races) However now state governments have no voice in Washington, because the senators now act as though their constituency is in fact the American people. I do, and will continue to support the repeal of the 17th Amendment. It is time we start making our government more local, and less centralized.

7. True or False. Who serves as president is decided upon who gets the most amount of votes from the election.

False
This is another example of why we are a republic and not a democracy. We have whats knows as the Electoral College, a group filled with delegates from each state, delegates proportioned with population. These delegates then vote on the president, and the winner of that vote actually determines the winner of the election. Now most of the time, the delegates vote along with the results of the popular vote in their area, but not always, as was witnessed in 2000. All this "Gore won, but Bush served" is a bunch of crap. Yes Gore won the popular vote (which is still debated) but Bush won the vote of the electoral college, there by making him the legitimate winner. Its my belief that the popular vote confuses the issue. In fact the popular vote has not always been around either. We should stick strictly with the Electoral College vote, and do away with this confusing popular vote stuff.

8. True or False. America has endured at least one civil war in its history.

False
This is one of my favorite topics. Yes we had a war in the last half of the 19th century. However, this was NOT as civil war. A civil war is defined as a war between two factions of a nation, wherein complete control of the nation is the object of the battle. This was not true in our war. Our war could be better described as the War for Southern Independence. The South was not fighting the North to control the entire nation, the simply wanted to annex and become their own seperate nation. Now I believe this was absolutely the worst thing the South could ever want to do, and am glad the North prevailed, but lets call it what it was. It was a war to keep this nation intact. It was not a civil war, and furthermore it was not a war over slavery. Slavery was just one of the chess pieces on the board, it was definitely NOT the central issue.

9. True or False. The Democratic Party was established on the principles of abolishing slavery.

False
The Republican was established by abolishionists, with the main goal to abolish slavery in America.

10. True or False. The Three-Fifths Clause stated that slaves were considered three-fifths human.

False
This one is another of my favorites. I remember actually being taught that this was true in school, which is scary. This was actually a very good clause, and here is why. It in NO WAY sought to regard slaves as three fifths human. Southerners began to get wise to political matters, and began demanding that their slaves counted as votes. Well because of the sheer numbers of slaves in the south, this would have given a quite unfair voting advantage to the south. This clause simply stated that if you voted based on your slaves, you only get 3 votes for every 5 slaves. Again we are a republic, there are always proportioning guidelines needed, and this was no different.

11. Would you be more comfortable stating:

a. America is great because of its government.
b. Americas government is great because of Americans.

Ok more opinion based questions
Answer B
This is a tricky question, its like asking whether your Z won the race because it was awesome, or if it was awesome because it won the race. But I believe this nation is built upon the backs of great men and women. Our founding fathers set up something amazing, but it is amazing because of their political tenacity. America is not great because it has a great governmnet, it has a great government, well a great government potential, because of the american people.

12. True or False. Mexico has an open southern border, and anyone who desires access is happily welcomed without any papers.

False
I dont understand why we catch such hell from Mexico about wanting to secure our borders, when they have one of the tightest borders around at their southern border. Furthermore their internal immigration policies are atrocious at best. You actually have to carry paperwork there, or you can be arrested even citizens arrested.

13. True or False. The new law being considered in Arizona regarding illegal immigration, would allow police officers to randomly approach individuals and demand paperwork proving their legal status.

False
This law in fact prohibits law enforcement from profiling, and randomly approaching people. They can only inquire about their legal status if they are already in contact with them regarding another law enforcement issue.

14. True or False. Americas founding fathers, escpecially George Washington, greatly admired the polical party system, and they knew that political parties were beneficial to society.

George Washington Farewell Address
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp

In contemplating the causes which may disturb our Union, it occurs as matter of serious concern that any ground should have been furnished for characterizing parties by geographical discriminations, Northern and Southern, Atlantic and Western; whence designing men may endeavor to excite a belief that there is a real difference of local interests and views. One of the expedients of party to acquire influence within particular districts is to misrepresent the opinions and aims of other districts. You cannot shield yourselves too much against the jealousies and heartburnings which spring from these misrepresentations; they tend to render alien to each other those who ought to be bound together by fraternal affection. The inhabitants of our Western country have lately had a useful lesson on this head; they have seen, in the negotiation by the Executive, and in the unanimous ratification by the Senate, of the treaty with Spain, and in the universal satisfaction at that event, throughout the United States, a decisive proof how unfounded were the suspicions propagated among them of a policy in the General Government and in the Atlantic States unfriendly to their interests in regard to the Mississippi; they have been witnesses to the formation of two treaties, that with Great Britain, and that with Spain, which secure to them everything they could desire, in respect to our foreign relations, towards confirming their prosperity. Will it not be their wisdom to rely for the preservation of these advantages on the Union by which they were procured ? Will they not henceforth be deaf to those advisers, if such there are, who would sever them from their brethren and connect them with aliens?

15. True or False. America has always used an income based taxation system, and taxes have always been deducted from paychecks on a regular basis.

False
Originally America invoked a consumption/excise tax based system. Then an income tax was established. Then sometime after that, the withholding began. Ive written so much already, but I am a huge proponent of the Fair Tax, and perhaps I will post a topic regarding that system soon, to explain it to everyone who doesnt already know about it.
http://www.fairtax.org

Ok so there we go, lets start the debate!

[mattblancarte]

Jefferson wanted public education back in the 1780's... before Marx was even born.

[stebo0728]

Matt, you are correct, here is the difference, Jefferson was in favor of public education, but not government sponsored public education.

[IBCoupe]

1 - D
2a - The belief that any one racial ethnicity is superior to another.
2b - The desire to own or control more than necessary.
2c - Public control of industry.
3 - None of the above.
4 - False.
5 - I'd guess C 'cause I think he's the oldest... But looking at the next few responses, I'm wrong.
6 - False. Senators were originally to be appointed.
7 - A little of both - electoral votes, which is a rough estimation of population mixed in with some equal representation of states, sort of resemble the popular vote, but not really.
8 - True (this feels like a trick)
9 - False. The Democrats supported slavery at the time.
10 - False. It dictated how many times a slaveowner could vote for his slaves.
11 - Neither, but closer to A. America is great because of the system of government (and incorporated checks and balances) that were established by a relative minority a couple hundred years ago. The American People today have very little to do with that.
12 - False, but this isn't America-related, now is it?
13 - False.
14 - False. If memory serves, most of the founders hated political parties.
15 - False.

[IBCoupe]

Matt, you are correct, here is the difference, Jefferson was in favor of public education, but not government sponsored public education.

What's the basis for the distinction?

[stebo0728]

The basis of distinction is that the government should not be the one in control of the educational system. Nothing wrong with public, tax FUNDED education, but control should remain out of the hands of the government.

[IBCoupe]

The basis of distinction is that the government should not be the one in control of the educational system. Nothing wrong with public, tax FUNDED education, but control should remain out of the hands of the government.

It's a good thing I asked, because we appear to be operating under different definitions of "sponsored." Just so I'm clear: it's your position that Jefferson supported publicly-funded schools, in contrast with Marx who supported publicly-funded and -directed schools?

[stebo0728]

Well since you asked, I decided to research a bit more, and I am finding information conflicting with what I first posted, for instance:

http://www.vcu.edu/engweb/transcendenta ... story.html

This details Jeffersons ideas on education, and it does indeed indicate an advocation toward government control. So it appears my understanding was a bit flawed, hey thats what debate is for right? But it appears Jefferson did struggle with whether controls should remain local, or become more centralized, and whether religion should be a part of the curriculum. The above is a good read on the topic, and I would ammend my answer to the quetion to be - D: Thomas Jefferson
Now to clearify where Karl Marxx comes in. Karl Marxx realized that in order for government to succeed in establishing complete control over the people, a system of government sponsored education was necessary, and more directly, a government control of curriculum was necessary. Marxx had a more direct intention to use the school system as a means of population control. The school system was to educate a person only the the point that they became a stable member of the working class. Educating people to become memebers of the elite class was counter productive to the communist cause. At least Jefferson still advocated education to a point that gave the person "upward mobility".

[mattblancarte]

I'm glad you guys researched that because I'm way too lazy.

Would you call me crazy if I were to say that your definition of Civil War is incomplete? Never read one legitimate history piece that calls the American Civil War the "American Civil Conflict..." I invite your research on that subject as well, as you carry the "unpopular" view.

I'll concede that I just skipped over #6 and didn't really soak in the "have always" part. Well played lol.

I could argue that #10 is semantics at play... but meh. In effect, saying that the population of slaves is only worth 3/5 their white human counterparts pretty much means 3/5 human to me (maybe it's the math brain at work). Either way, it was ridiculously sick and misguided.

[stebo0728]

Well I am in no position to call anyone lazy, because i too am quite lazy lol, but lets look at civil wars we have witnessed in our day, in other countries. These conflicts have always been centered around a battle for complete control of the nation in question. Perhaps this is a case of semantics, tomato-tomahto so to speak, but its one of my favorite points to debate on. As long as people understand that the South was not aimed at overtaking the nation, merely to create a seperate one of their own. Again let me stress that I disagree with this notion, and believe it was the worst thing the South could ever do.

[mattblancarte]

I agree, it's important to realize that the south wanted their own nation. They also wanted slavery. Kinda cancels out the "nobility" in secession for them.

Still counts as civil war, though.

[IBCoupe]

This details Jeffersons ideas on education, and it does indeed indicate an advocation toward government control. So it appears my understanding was a bit flawed, hey thats what debate is for right? But it appears Jefferson did struggle with whether controls should remain local, or become more centralized, and whether religion should be a part of the curriculum.

I don't recall where I heard or read it, but I do believe that Jefferson qualified his statements at one point, by pointing out that they may be subject to change as America trends away from an agrarian society.

Which is sort of what we tend to see in the US, and I can't help but wonder if Jefferson was onto something there, too. An agrarian society necessarily has fewer people per square mile, and thus, if we say that we need a school system to have at least 100 students (an arbitrary number to which I've given no thought) in order to justify its autonomy, at some point we're going to have, if only for geographical reasons, smaller schools that are farther apart, with each school finding it impractical to answer to a central authority.

In that kind of situation, opposition to a centralized education system makes sense, because each school system will have distinct needs. But if we contrast that with, say, the inner city, where that 100 students per school means that we'd be stacking schools on top of each other to fit them all in, we start to find that independent school systems become unmanageable and burdensome. In those situations, a centralized education system makes the most sense because it is the most efficient.

As the means of transportation and communication continue to become more advanced, I think we'll see a greater drive towards centralization, even in the rural Midwest, as a means of cutting costs.

And regarding The American Civil Something®:
Couldn't it be said that it was at least half a civil war? Right, so the South didn't want to control the North, but from a certain perspective, couldn't it be seen as the North wanting control over the South?

[stebo0728]

I think what I am out to prove is not so much whether we need a centralized control system for education, but rather, who should hold that control. Its my opinion that the federal government fails with just about everything it tries to manage, and generally its success rate runs parallel with what has been mandated by the Constitution. The Constitution specifies what areas the Federal government is supposed to act, and all others are to be reserved for State and local governments. Ever since the American Civil Something as you say, this nation has switched from being a loose collection of stated governments, to a complete, one government nation. This is perhaps one of the saddest outcomes of this war. It seems any time the federal government tries to regulate and control something that is not specifically designated by the Constitution, they are set up for failure, education, retirement, Mail, and soon healthcare. Perhaps we do need a centralized controls system for education, but we need to move away from dependence on the federal government to run the most important aspects of our life. Now, the military is spelled out specifically by the Constitution as a responsibility of federal government, and I do believe they do this job quite well, despite what despot politicians may say.

[AZhitman]

Two quick thoughts, before you turn that in for a grade:

1) Define, not defend, preach, convert, opine or blather. I'd give an F for not following directions.

2) Please, please... have someone proofread that.

If that "quiz" was just to stimulate discussion, then disregard my above comments... In that case, it would have been cool to have each point be a separate thread.

EDIT: Your last post was solid. Good stuff.

[AZhitman]

And regarding The American Civil Something®:
Couldn't it be said that it was at least half a civil war? Right, so the South didn't want to control the North, but from a certain perspective, couldn't it be seen as the North wanting control over the South?

Absolutely correct. And thre were FAR bigger issues at stake than slavery (which history has conveniently elevated to the forefront).

[mattblancarte]

I'm actually interested to hear where you (Stebo) found your Civil War definition. If this quiz is for a history class, I would obviously stick to the book's (or your professor's) definition.

I spent a few minutes researching just a bit ago and can't find anything to back it up. I did find many definitions that backed the idea that the American Civil Something was, in fact, the American Civil War.

Can link if need be.

[AZhitman]

He's actually pretty close to spot-on. It's a semantics thing.

[stebo0728]

Ok well let me clarify, this was not a quiz for grading purposes lol, just to stimulate some discussion

Good 'ol wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_war

This site though does show the definition to be somewhat vague and ambiguous. One quote from it

James Fearon, a scholar of civil wars at Stanford University, defines a civil war as "a violent conflict within a country fought by organized groups that aim to take power at the center or in a region, or to change government policies

would somewhat support my position. But then there are other indictations that support the opposite as well such as

The Geneva Conventions do not specifically define the term "civil war". They do, however, describe the criteria for acts qualifying as "armed conflict not of an international character", which includes civil wars. Among the conditions listed are four requirements:
-The party in revolt must be in possession of a part of the national territory.
-The insurgent civil authority must exercise de facto authority over the population within the determinate portion of the national territory.
-The insurgents must have some amount of recognition as a belligerent.
-The legal Government is "obliged to have recourse to the regular military forces against insurgents organized as military."

I must admit my postion is not born from any particular book, rather a position forged as I have come to realize just how much that conflict is mis-characterized today. Every war is different, and you really cant place any war into a cookie cutter with any other war, they each created their own definition. And we are a society in which definitions are constantly changing anyway. Its interesting to note, I have a friend from the heavily Frenchized area of Canada, and he remembers learning and referring to our war as The War for Southern Independence. This same wiki above does make reference to this concept as falling under the Civil War category, so again, pretty ambiguous and vague. Regardless of what we decide here, this war will forever be known as The Civil War. Just thought it would be interesting for some debate and discussion.

[mattblancarte]

James Fearon, a scholar of civil wars at Stanford University, defines a civil war as "a violent conflict within a country fought by organized groups that aim to take power at the center or in a region, or to change government policies

The key words in that specific definition were "in a region." The secession was never recognized legally, so technically the south was a region of the USA.

It's definitely a stretch to re-define the American Civil War, but I'm all for re-shaping and re-thinking everything. Tis' the nature of an independent thinker.

[IBCoupe]

I think what I am out to prove is not so much whether we need a centralized control system for education, but rather, who should hold that control. Its my opinion that the federal government fails with just about everything it tries to manage, and generally its success rate runs parallel with what has been mandated by the Constitution. The Constitution specifies what areas the Federal government is supposed to act, and all others are to be reserved for State and local governments. Ever since the American Civil Something as you say, this nation has switched from being a loose collection of stated governments, to a complete, one government nation. This is perhaps one of the saddest outcomes of this war. It seems any time the federal government tries to regulate and control something that is not specifically designated by the Constitution, they are set up for failure, education, retirement, Mail, and soon healthcare. Perhaps we do need a centralized controls system for education, but we need to move away from dependence on the federal government to run the most important aspects of our life. Now, the military is spelled out specifically by the Constitution as a responsibility of federal government, and I do believe they do this job quite well, despite what despot politicians may say.

I think you can't get away from it. If there is common funding to be distributed among multiple schools, what determines the distribution? Do we divvy it up evenly by school? By student? Do we send more money to the successful schools in order to encourage success? Do we send more money to the unsuccessful schools in the hope to turn them successful? These are all questions that are found at a local level, and remain to be asked at a local level even with a federally-centralized system.

But when federal funds are applied, doesn't the public, via the Federal Government it elects and indirectly appoints, get the opportunity to ask those same questions? How should the public funds be distributed? Evenly by state? By population? By the under-18 population? By the number of students enrolled in a state? Should we base it on a State's own testing systems? That last one is a dig against No Child Left Behind - NCLB was passed in the summer between my sophomore and junior years in high school in Massachusetts. An oft-quoted factoid that was used to criticize the method of NCLB (whose distribution was based on the results of a State's own standardized test scores) was: A student that produced a "proficient" score on his or her test in Missouri would get a "failing" score in Massachusetts. Part of the problem with NCLB, then, is that it gives too much local control to the distribution of federal funds.

I think that the United States in the 1860s was very different from the United States today. You can probably count the number of functional farms within a 20-mile radius of Boston on one hand, now. In the 1860s, you probably couldn't. The federal government has grown because we, the People, have required it to. Each individual State's governmental autonomy is lessened because each individual State's actual autonomy is lessened. The U.S. Supreme Court didn't really start to deal with interstate corporations until International Shoe v. Washington (1945) because beforehand, there were none to deal with. I've read a lot of criticism of the government (and of the Supreme Court specifically) about the overuse of the "interstate commerce" clause, but invariably these criticisms fail to encompass the reality that interstate commerce has increased exponentially since even the beginning of the 20th century (let alone the end of the 18th century, when it was written). With the advent of the internet, I don't see that changing.

Sorry to ramble, but my point is this: The United States of America is rapidly moving away from Jefferson's agrarian society, and as Jefferson himself would admit, the ideologies that come with such a society are likely to be left behind. Centralization is the name of the game, at every level. When a town is the largest detectable arrangement of people, those people centralize control in the town's local government. When they increase interaction with other towns, centralized control moves to the county level. County moves to State, and eventually, as the lines between a Nebraskan and a Kansan get blurrier, State control moves to Federal Control. The advent of new transportation and communication technologies is ultimately what drives this.

It's not bad; it's just different, and it's how the world works.

[stebo0728]

Well I have your answer for funds distribution. Each legal citizen child should be entitled to a market value tuition amount, that they would recieve as a voucher for each year, that childs parents or guardian would then choose the best facility to administer the childs education. As I have said before, we rely on a system where the child has to follow the money. This is senseless behavior for a free market society, it should be reversed. The money should follow the child. Right now there is no incentive for teachers and administrators to improve their school because there is no risk of losing the children, the "business" so to speak, it is guaranteed as long as they at least keep an acceptable portion of kids "passing". The private sector is nearly always the choice of a logical person whenever a choice is presented. Take parcels, when UPS and Fedex began operating, people flocked to them in droves, there was now a private sector option for shipping parcels. Yes people still use USPS, but there is the choice available. Whenever the government attempts to compete in the free market, we have to be careful as to not let the government insert its power to give itself an unfair advantage in the market. I dont have any problem with people sending their children to a government school, I do right now because I have no choice in the matter, and if I did have a choice, if the government school presented the best option I would still use it. There has to be competition in any area if you want to see improvement in goods and services. Education is no different. Yes we may be stuck with the notion of government school, but they are not the only option, and if people are paying their taxes, they should have the opportunity for those taxes to work the best for them as they possibly can. Introduce competition into education, and the kids WILL NOT suffer, they will only be bettered because any school serious about wanting to keep their doors open, will stive to provide the best education possible. The only drawback to this system that I can see, and it is not an unavoidable one, is that once a school decides to accept said vouchers, this may subject them to regulations imposed by the governing body, that they are not currently subjected to. Such regulations as what kids are allowed to attend, what curriculum is allowed and not allowed, and others im not thinking of im sure. This control would most assuredly be imposed, but if we chose we could see to it that it wasnt, let the free market remain in control of these matters. Next thing that would go a long was in improving eductaion would be to disband teachers unions. The only oposition to the voucher system is the teachers unions, and this is only because they fear it will lead to teachers losing their jobs, teachers who are too lazy to actually educate, and I say these teachers deserve to lose their jobs, and the unions should be ashamed for trying to protect their jobs. By protecting these unacceptable teachers, the unions are helping to increase the negative PR regarding the rest of the teachers that are worth their salt. Lets give the free market a free reign on the education system, and see what happens, I guarantee it would only be vast improvement.

As far as government goes, and the regionality of it, yes government has become increasingly centralized in response to things you have noted, but I dont agree that that was a necessary response. There is a court system set up at every level to deal with any quarrel between to entities at that level. If two towns disagree and need arbitration, there is a system in place for that. Look at here in Georgia 2 years ago. We were experiencing a drought, and the Chattahoochee River intertwines our northern border with Tennessee. Someone did some research and came to the conclusion that when our border was surveyed it was surveyed incorrectly, and 7 miles (i think it was) of the river was supposed to be within our territory. (This was really just a desperate push to access more water) But it was handled by the court system. I dont remember the outcome, but still, it was handled. Here is part of the problem though. People know who the president is. They "might" know who their congressmen are, and they "might" know what senator they elected, and they probably know who their governor is, and perhaps their mayor, but they most likely dont know who their state congressmen and senators are, and they most likely have no clue who their county representatives are. People have made the change to centralization, they rely on the central government to solve things and disregard their local system. If people would change their mentality back to more localized, then it would work.

[stebo0728]

I could argue that #10 is semantics at play... but meh. In effect, saying that the population of slaves is only worth 3/5 their white human counterparts pretty much means 3/5 human to me (maybe it's the math brain at work). Either way, it was ridiculously sick and misguided.

I must beg to differ on this one, its not the same thing at all. The 3/5 Clause was not evil, it was a necessary function of a well thought out republic system of government. In a republic, vote proportioning must occur in order to avoid a situation of "mob rule". Thats what separates us from democracy. When the south got wise to the notion of giving themselves extra votes by proxy of their slaves, that extra voting power on a 1:1 scale would have allowed the south to vastly outvote the north on anything. The Clause only sought to tip that scale back to even ground. Its important to note that at this time, the slaves were not casting their own vote, the property owner was casting a vote in their name. Therefore those votes were going to be cast however the property owner wished, not how the slave wished. Once emancipation occured, and black people acquired the ability to cast their own vote, then their vote counted as a full vote. These proportioning measures are necessary and well within acceptable morality. It is the same principle as how congressmen are proportioned to states. The balance leaves no one region outweighing another. This same type of measure was instituted by the UN when it was established, with regards to the USSR. When the UN was established, and each sitting nation was given their votes, the USSR demanded a vote for each of its "states". Well this would have been ludicrous, it would have given the USSR an unfair advantage in UN voting. Instead they were given only 3 votes. Still I disagree with this decision, they really should have only been given 1 vote, but thats water under the bridge now. But still it was clear each of those votes would have been cast not in the favor of the "state" it was supposed to be for, but rather in the interest of Moscow alone. Now that the USSR is disbanded, each of the seperate states that now sit on the UN council has their own vote, and it is cast in their own favor, by their own government.

[AZhitman]

I must beg to differ on this one, its not the same thing at all. The 3/5 Clause was not evil, it was a necessary function of a well thought out republic system of government. In a republic, vote proportioning must occur in order to avoid a situation of "mob rule". Thats what separates us from democracy. When the south got wise to the notion of giving themselves extra votes by proxy of their slaves, that extra voting power on a 1:1 scale would have allowed the south to vastly outvote the north on anything. The Clause only sought to tip that scale back to even ground. Its important to note that at this time, the slaves were not casting their own vote, the property owner was casting a vote in their name. Therefore those votes were going to be cast however the property owner wished, not how the slave wished.

Correct and accurate.

However, the "politically-correct" and the race-baiters STILL point to this as an example of "less-than-human" treatment.

Then when you correct them on their failure to comprehend a historical FACT, you're a racist. Can't win.

[IBCoupe]

As much as I want to respond to everything in your post, Stebo... I just got home and I'm getting lost in the sea of text of your first paragraph.

In response to your second: Yes, there's localized control but (and I think your court example is a great one for this) it's based on centralized standards. The Chattahoochee County may have its own court, but they're still applying the same Georgian law from Atlanta and Savannah. And that Georgian law must reside within the limits of the Constitution, too.