Justice as fairness: we can do better than we are

[betenoire]

Originally Posted by guihong

1. The minute you set up the neediest classes to benefit the most from inequalities, you no longer have a fair society. In fact, the upper classes (if you will) are being discriminated against. You will never have "fair". You can have "equal opportunity".

Just....no.

It seems to me that a system like Aj described above would eventually make the need for such a system obsolete. As I'm sure you're aware poverty is usually generational, as is education / access to higher education. By helping Lynn out you're creating an environment for her where her children will require less of a leg-up than she did, her grandchildren even less, until eventually the playing-ground is level in terms of access. It's controlling the things that -can- be controlled.

4. Again, if I were the queen of education, the only way to gain equality of education and resources would be to abolish federal government involvement in education altogether. All schools are private businesses with x dollars per student-no exeptions. Those that fail to deliver a quality product (i.e. literate adults able to attend college or get a job), fail. Thanks to the teachers union, it is will nigh impossible to weed out bad ones, so that's (the union) gone under my plan. It's been shown to work in some of the worst neighborhoods in this country.

This would be WORSE for low-income neighborhoods than it already is. You're aware of how poorly the "healthcare for profit" debacle has gone in your country, I presume?

How do you expect low-income families to pay to run the schools that their children will go to?

Interestingly enough, Finland has free education for everybody. This includes post-secondary education. It is, as I'm sure you would have deduced, run by the government. And guess what else? Finland is tied for the number one spot on the Education Index portion of the Human Development Index that the UN does every year. Looks like government involvement in Education has gone -very- well for Finland.

[Gráinne]

Originally Posted by betenoire

Just....no.

It seems to me that a system like Aj described above would eventually make the need for such a system obsolete. As I'm sure you're aware poverty is usually generational, as is education / access to higher education. By helping Lynn out you're creating an environment for her where her children will require less of a leg-up than she did, her grandchildren even less, until eventually the playing-ground is level in terms of access. It's controlling the things that -can- be controlled.



This would be WORSE for low-income neighborhoods than it already is. You're aware of how poorly the "healthcare for profit" debacle has gone in your country, I presume?

How do you expect low-income families to pay to run the schools that their children will go to?

Interestingly enough, Finland has free education for everybody. This includes post-secondary education. It is, as I'm sure you would have deduced, run by the government. And guess what else? Finland is tied for the number one spot on the Education Index portion of the Human Development Index that the UN does every year. Looks like government involvement in Education has gone -very- well for Finland.

First, we've had affirmative action and the leg-ups for several generations, and we still have generational poverty, maybe more entrenched now than before. Schools are not making the mark. How long do we keep up such an experiment before we say "Enough. Here are the standards; do it or not".

As for my school idea, I had in mind something like the Finland model. It's still far less expensive than all the fads that America wants to try.

[Apocalipstic]

Originally Posted by guihong

First, we've had affirmative action and the leg-ups for several generations, and we still have generational poverty, maybe more entrenched now than before. Schools are not making the mark. How long do we keep up such an experiment before we say "Enough. Here are the standards; do it or not".

As for my school idea, I had in mind something like the Finland model. It's still far less expensive than all the fads that America wants to try.

Maybe the unification of the Americas is the answer!

[Apocalipstic]

Wait, did not we get into this mess by cutting regulations for banks and financial institutions?

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by Apocalipstic

Wait, did not we get into this mess by cutting regulations for banks and financial institutions?

Yes. We did. The repeal of Glass-Steagal is going to go down in American history as one of the most singularly stupid things EVER done by Congress. We actually had regulatory firewalls in place so pretty much *precisely* the kind of thing that happened couldn't happen. If you were a commercial bank, you couldn’t be an insurance company. If you were an insurance company, you couldn't be an investment bank. Then we tore down that firewall and banks snatched up insurance companies and then investment firms turned around and snatched those up and on and on. The meme that is out there is that these poor banks were just trying to make an honest buck and then along came the government and forced them to give loans to undeserving (read brown skinned) people. The fact that they bundled these arcane financial instruments called credit default swaps (which were a bet on people *failing* to pay their mortgages) is conveniently swept under the rug and into the memory hole because it doesn't fit the dominant meme that poor people are losers who deserve their hardships while rich people are winners who are being put upon by all of those loser poor people who, for instance, may have not had sufficient foresight to pick rich parents at birth.

Cheers
Aj

[SoNotHer]

The movement toward deregulation is long in coming and started before Glass-Steagal. The contention is that the regulation limits market growth and stifles personal and corporate wealth. Canada and any other country like it that has greater regulations bad has also had greater social and economic stability and in fact growth. Charting the American-Canadian dollar exchange over the past ten years is an interesting if sad (for citizens of the US) revelation.

I appreciate designers and theorist like Rawls very much, AJ. I like visionaries, and I find the design elements and principles of permaculture, for example, to be a source of hope. I would like to believe there will be a myriad of acts that will tilt the United States toward something more like the simulacrum of democracy. Some of these will involve quiet conversations that reaffirm the best ideas of a democracy. Others will involve legislative and corporate changes. And still others will involve more dramatic and salient acts of civil disobedience.

Every generation has its time and its cause. And while I am sure my parents and older siblings did not understand the fervor with which I protested for Queer rights in the 80s and 90s and protested for a greater awareness of and compassion for AIDS that transcended homophobia and stereotyping, I hoped that they appreciate that my passion and involvement was for good reason. This generation may well be the first generation in some time to not only not have a financially secure future, but there is a good chance they will not live as long as their parents, reversing a standing trend. Do they have a right to be angry? Are they justified in having an emotional response to a parlous future of financial and environmental debt

Beyond the concerns of a generation and its cause, I wonder how quickly can a vision be morphed into reality? And as thousands gather in Oakland tonight and shut down the port, and thousands more gather across the country and world, and while a controlling faction becomes more entrenched in its position, is there time for visions? Is there yet time and momentum to put in play a peaceful shift?

King may be right that the "arc of the moral universe...bends toward justice.' But what of the intersecting arc of human compassion and patience? Do we have it in us to pursue and unflinchingly make manifest visions of harmony, equality and justice? Are we more paradise or purgatory? Can we design ourselves out of our nature? Is the gift of design and vision the nexus and the portal to a greater evolutionary event? Can we be or become our visions?

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

Yes. We did. The repeal of Glass-Steagal is going to go down in American history as one of the most singularly stupid things EVER done by Congress. We actually had regulatory firewalls in place so pretty much *precisely* the kind of thing that happened couldn't happen. If you were a commercial bank, you couldn’t be an insurance company. If you were an insurance company, you couldn't be an investment bank. Then we tore down that firewall and banks snatched up insurance companies and then investment firms turned around and snatched those up and on and on. The meme that is out there is that these poor banks were just trying to make an honest buck and then along came the government and forced them to give loans to undeserving (read brown skinned) people. The fact that they bundled these arcane financial instruments called credit default swaps (which were a bet on people *failing* to pay their mortgages) is conveniently swept under the rug and into the memory hole because it doesn't fit the dominant meme that poor people are losers who deserve their hardships while rich people are winners who are being put upon by all of those loser poor people who, for instance, may have not had sufficient foresight to pick rich parents at birth.

Cheers
Aj

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by SoNotHer

The movement toward deregulation is long in coming and started before Glass-Steagal. The contention is that the regulation limits market growth and stifles personal and corporate wealth. Canada and any other country like it that has greater regulations bad has also had greater social and economic stability and in fact growth. Charting the American-Canadian dollar exchange over the past ten years is an interesting if sad (for citizens of the US) revelation.

I appreciate designers and theorist like Rawls very much, AJ. I like visionaries, and I find the design elements and principles of permaculture, for example, to be a source of hope. I would like to believe there will be a myriad of acts that will tilt the United States toward something more like the simulacrum of democracy. Some of these will involve quiet conversations that reaffirm the best ideas of a democracy. Others will involve legislative and corporate changes. And still others will involve more dramatic and salient acts of civil disobedience.

Every generation has its time and its cause. And while I am sure my parents and older siblings did not understand the fervor with which I protested for Queer rights in the 80s and 90s and protested for a greater awareness of and compassion for AIDS that transcended homophobia and stereotyping, I hoped that they appreciate that my passion and involvement was for good reason. This generation may well be the first generation in some time to not only not have a financially secure future, but there is a good chance they will not live as long as their parents, reversing a standing trend. Do they have a right to be angry? Are they justified in having an emotional response to a parlous future of financial and environmental debt

Beyond the concerns of a generation and its cause, I wonder how quickly can a vision be morphed into reality? And as thousands gather in Oakland tonight and shut down the port, and thousands more gather across the country and world, and while a controlling faction becomes more entrenched in its position, is there time for visions? Is there yet time and momentum to put in play a peaceful shift?

King may be right that the "arc of the moral universe...bends toward justice.' But what of the intersecting arc of human compassion and patience? Do we have it in us to pursue and unflinchingly make manifest visions of harmony, equality and justice? Are we more paradise or purgatory? Can we design ourselves out of our nature? Is the gift of design and vision the nexus and the portal to a greater evolutionary event? Can we be or become our visions?

Now that my brain is functioning again, I can address the things above.

I'm about three hours from finishing up Stephen Pinker's latest book The Better Angels of Our Nature. The core of the book is that as time has passed humans *have* become more compassionate and less violent. Yes, LESS, violent. Consider the following:

1) It is vanishingly improbable that anyone reading this knows someone who was burnt at the stake as a witch. I'm not saying someone in your lineage, I mean someone you've met.

2) No one here has ever been to a live bear-baiting.

3) It is vanishingly improbable that anyone here has ever had to fear being stabbed at the dinner table by someone wielding a steak knife.

4) No great power has shot at any other great power since the end of WW II. I'm not saying that there's been no wars, but no *great power* wars. China and Japan fought multiple wars in the past but haven't fought one in 65 years. France and Germany, England and France, Germany and Russia *all* had periodic bouts of warfare through the 17th, 18th, 19th and the first half of the 20th century. In fact, Europe is now experiencing the longest contiguous peace since, get this, the height of the Roman Empire! WW III never happened, sometimes despite all efforts to make it happen.

5) The number of crimes that could earn one the death penalty in western nations has gone from a whole raft of items to a very few (murder, possibly treason, possibly child rape). And in most European nations you simply can't *get* the death penalty no matter how heinous the crime. A century or two ago, you could get the death penalty for insulting the crown!

6) In the west, marital rape has gone from 'just the way things are' to a criminal offense. Spousal abuse has gone from a punchline on 'The Honeymooners' to something no sit-com would *ever* put in because it is socially unacceptable (again, that doesn't mean it never happens just that when it does, the abuser is not going to find a sympathetic ear when he claims that 'she had it coming').

7) Spanking, in the west, has gone from 'this is how you raise children' to child abuse. If half of what I endured as a child happened to a kid today, that kid would be removed from the home.

8) War has gone from something noble and 'the aspiration of every man and nation' to something repellant to large numbers of people.

So yes, I think that human societies can become more compassionate and peaceful, up to a point. I do not think we can nor do I think we should try, to have any kind of utopia. We *know* what happens when people try to create utopias and we should not trust anyone who suggests we should do so. I do think humans are moving to a stage in our cultural development(s) that violence is increasingly being constrained. The circle of moral concern has expanded to include more and more groups of people.

As far as your paradise or purgatory question, I think neither. But I do think that now is a better time to be alive, for larger numbers of humanity, ever. Even in poor nations the average life expectancy has crossed over the 40 year mark and in rich nations it is pushing up toward 90. At the end of the 18th century the average lifespan was ~37 years. At the end of the 19th it was about 45. At the end of the twentieth it was about 75. We have almost *doubled* the number of years people live on average in about a century and almost trebled it in about two centuries. Literacy, is spreading so fast that we notice illiteracy but not literacy. Two hundred years ago we would take illiteracy for granted and notice literacy. Beyond three hundred years, literacy becomes extremely rare outside of the noble classes. Beyond four hundred years, literacy becomes rare even amongst the nobles. Pick a statistic reflective of human well-being and I'll show you something that, graphed out over a few centuries, is moving in the direction we would want to. Health, equality and well-being are on an upward sloping curve, violence and war are on downward sloping curves. I think that's insanely great, as Steve Jobs would've said.

Cheers
Aj

[betenoire]

Originally Posted by Apocalipstic

Maybe the unification of the Americas is the answer!

I'm not sure what that means?

[Apocalipstic]

Originally Posted by betenoire

I'm not sure what that means?

I was referring to 2 things.

One, I think when we call the United State of America, "America", it discounts all of the other Americans living in North and South America and sounds very privileged and dismissive.

Two, I think North and South America should be more united, possibly as a single entity. Especially since many (if not most) of the problems of many of the other Nations on our continent (s) are the direct result of US policy over the years.

Thank you for asking!

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by Apocalipstic

I was referring to 2 things.

One, I think when we call the United State of America, "America", it discounts all of the other Americans living in North and South America and sounds very privileged and dismissive.

Two, I think North and South America should be more united, possibly as a single entity. Especially since many (if not most) of the problems of many of the other Nations on our continent (s) are the direct result of US policy over the years.

Thank you for asking!

It's not really a derail. It does relate. I do have a couple of follow-up questions. Why do you think that it is dismissive? No one is saying that Canada isn't on the North American continent and no one is saying that Brazil isn't on the South American continent. Brazil is, well, Brazil. Canada is Canada. I can't recall ever reading a Brazilian or Chilean saying "we too are Americans". Rather, when I've heard them make pronouncements of national pride they have expressed pride in being Chileans or Brazilians not in being Americans.

Secondly, what would it look like to have nations as disparate as Canada, the United States, Brazil, Peru, Mexico, Chile, et. al. as one national unit? We may be headed that way although I think that it would make the troubles of creating the EU an absolute nightmare. Are you saying that Canada and the United States should impose their legal and value systems on everything south US border with Mexico because that is precisely what would happen. What's more, I think that on balance, it's what we would *want* to happen. Consider that in Nicaragua abortion (just to take one example) is *perfectly* illegal. By that I mean that if a woman gets an abortion she is going to the big house for a very long time. Are you saying that we should impose Canadian laws on abortion and birth control on, say, very, very, very Catholic Mexico or Nicaragua which might have some definite feelings about it? OR are you saying that we should impose Nicaraguan values about abortion and birth control on the United States and Canada?

The EU is a great idea on paper and it may yet work out, but my reading of what is happening with the EU is that the member nations are realizing that it is not nearly as easy to blend such disparate nations as France, Germany and Spain into one political and economic entity and I would argue that those three nations have much more in common with one another than either Canada or the United States has with any South American nation you care to mention. So we're talking about blending political, social-cultural and economic systems into one political and economic entity going form the Arctic to Antarctica. That's a pretty tall order.

Consider that the United States, which is relatively culturally homogenous, has trouble holding itself together between the northern and western coastal states and the southern states.

Lastly, this would be the dream of multinationals or it would be an utter nightmare for the people living south of the US-Mexico border. Consider that either the multinationals will pull out of the US and Canada and move, en masse, south of the US border causing the job market here to completely collapse because there's simply no way that Americans and Canadians can compete with salary levels in, say, El Salvador OR the cost of living in the poorer South American nations will leap, overnight, to the levels of the US and Canada. Chances are, we'd get the worst of both worlds. Jobs would be sucked out of the two rich North American nations and put in the poorer South American nations. This would force the cost of labor, making it even *more* of an employers market than it already is. At the same time, goods and services that are affordable in the United States would be prohibitively expensive in Nicaragua. Lastly, even jobs that are place dependent would be subject to the downward pressure on wages. What sane construction company is going to hire American or Canadian workers at, say, $15 an hour when they could just as easily ship the same number of workers up from, say, Brazil at a fraction of the cost because they'll be paid at $2 an hour. Raise the wages all the way down the strip? Congrats, you've now created a seven-fold increase in prices overnight.

I understand what you are saying but I think that the consequences of such a merger would be absolutely disastrous and I cannot think of any benefit

Lastly, and please take this question in the spirit it was given, how much time has to elapse before white people in the northern nations will grant brown people in the southern nations the compliment of assuming that they are, in fact, capable of running their own affairs for good or ill? I'm not saying that the United States has not intervened nor am I arguing that the interventions have had anything to do with helping the people on the ground in those nations. I *am* saying that eventually--whether that is today or a century down the road--whites in the northern countries are going to have to admit that sometimes, the autocratic dictator who plunders the country and hands out largesse to his cronies is a home-grown phenomena. If the United States puts the dictator in place, we did that. But if the dictator came to power by revolution or homegrown movement, at some point don't you think it's actually the responsibility of the people of that nation? To me, there's a strange kind of reverse racism in the sentiment that most if not all of the problems of nations south of the equator populated largely by brown people cannot *really* be held responsible for the conditions of their own nations. I've never heard someone blame Nazi Germany or the USSR on, say, the United States or Belgium. I've never heard anyone put the onus of Fascist Italy or Franco's Spain on England or Sweden. It is only *ever* nations populated by brown people who, apparently, do not choose their governments or make horrible, historic mistakes in allowing precisely the wrong people to grab hold of the reins of power. No, it's always--each and every time--the fault of this or that Western nation. I'm not saying it *never* is, I'm saying that sometimes Brazilians or Iranians or Congolese or Chileans do what the French, Germans, and British *all* did at some point in their history and realize that their national leadership is inept, corrupt, or evil. Let nations of brown people be, well, nations. Sometimes nations make national errors and wind up with dictatorships or kleptocracies. If the next government of, say, France would we blame the United States or would we blame the French?


Cheers
Aj

[Apocalipstic]

Loving this discussion!

Actually people in much of South America (and I grew up there) HATE it that people in the US run around referring to ourselves as American. They are American too.

I agree that there would be problems, many you mention I had not thought of and do get your point.

Some random observations....

Not everyone South of the USA is Brown. Not everyone in the US and Canada is White. I don't see Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Venezuela etc as weak countries which need the great White people to the North to save them...I was thinking more of natural resources and having all we need to get us away from depending on China and OPEC. So did not mean to give that impression.

The EU mess is making me stop and think though that maybe I am being far too idealistic...especially financially.

Had not thought about all the division of church and state ramifications...agree it would likely be problematic to completely unite, but would like to see more Pan American synergy.

annnnd

Heck ya, blame the French for everything!

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

It's not really a derail. It does relate. I do have a couple of follow-up questions. Why do you think that it is dismissive? No one is saying that Canada isn't on the North American continent and no one is saying that Brazil isn't on the South American continent. Brazil is, well, Brazil. Canada is Canada. I can't recall ever reading a Brazilian or Chilean saying "we too are Americans". Rather, when I've heard them make pronouncements of national pride they have expressed pride in being Chileans or Brazilians not in being Americans.

Secondly, what would it look like to have nations as disparate as Canada, the United States, Brazil, Peru, Mexico, Chile, et. al. as one national unit? We may be headed that way although I think that it would make the troubles of creating the EU an absolute nightmare. Are you saying that Canada and the United States should impose their legal and value systems on everything south US border with Mexico because that is precisely what would happen. What's more, I think that on balance, it's what we would *want* to happen. Consider that in Nicaragua abortion (just to take one example) is *perfectly* illegal. By that I mean that if a woman gets an abortion she is going to the big house for a very long time. Are you saying that we should impose Canadian laws on abortion and birth control on, say, very, very, very Catholic Mexico or Nicaragua which might have some definite feelings about it? OR are you saying that we should impose Nicaraguan values about abortion and birth control on the United States and Canada?

The EU is a great idea on paper and it may yet work out, but my reading of what is happening with the EU is that the member nations are realizing that it is not nearly as easy to blend such disparate nations as France, Germany and Spain into one political and economic entity and I would argue that those three nations have much more in common with one another than either Canada or the United States has with any South American nation you care to mention. So we're talking about blending political, social-cultural and economic systems into one political and economic entity going form the Arctic to Antarctica. That's a pretty tall order.

Consider that the United States, which is relatively culturally homogenous, has trouble holding itself together between the northern and western coastal states and the southern states.

Lastly, this would be the dream of multinationals or it would be an utter nightmare for the people living south of the US-Mexico border. Consider that either the multinationals will pull out of the US and Canada and move, en masse, south of the US border causing the job market here to completely collapse because there's simply no way that Americans and Canadians can compete with salary levels in, say, El Salvador OR the cost of living in the poorer South American nations will leap, overnight, to the levels of the US and Canada. Chances are, we'd get the worst of both worlds. Jobs would be sucked out of the two rich North American nations and put in the poorer South American nations. This would force the cost of labor, making it even *more* of an employers market than it already is. At the same time, goods and services that are affordable in the United States would be prohibitively expensive in Nicaragua. Lastly, even jobs that are place dependent would be subject to the downward pressure on wages. What sane construction company is going to hire American or Canadian workers at, say, $15 an hour when they could just as easily ship the same number of workers up from, say, Brazil at a fraction of the cost because they'll be paid at $2 an hour. Raise the wages all the way down the strip? Congrats, you've now created a seven-fold increase in prices overnight.

I understand what you are saying but I think that the consequences of such a merger would be absolutely disastrous and I cannot think of any benefit

Lastly, and please take this question in the spirit it was given, how much time has to elapse before white people in the northern nations will grant brown people in the southern nations the compliment of assuming that they are, in fact, capable of running their own affairs for good or ill? I'm not saying that the United States has not intervened nor am I arguing that the interventions have had anything to do with helping the people on the ground in those nations. I *am* saying that eventually--whether that is today or a century down the road--whites in the northern countries are going to have to admit that sometimes, the autocratic dictator who plunders the country and hands out largesse to his cronies is a home-grown phenomena. If the United States puts the dictator in place, we did that. But if the dictator came to power by revolution or homegrown movement, at some point don't you think it's actually the responsibility of the people of that nation? To me, there's a strange kind of reverse racism in the sentiment that most if not all of the problems of nations south of the equator populated largely by brown people cannot *really* be held responsible for the conditions of their own nations. I've never heard someone blame Nazi Germany or the USSR on, say, the United States or Belgium. I've never heard anyone put the onus of Fascist Italy or Franco's Spain on England or Sweden. It is only *ever* nations populated by brown people who, apparently, do not choose their governments or make horrible, historic mistakes in allowing precisely the wrong people to grab hold of the reins of power. No, it's always--each and every time--the fault of this or that Western nation. I'm not saying it *never* is, I'm saying that sometimes Brazilians or Iranians or Congolese or Chileans do what the French, Germans, and British *all* did at some point in their history and realize that their national leadership is inept, corrupt, or evil. Let nations of brown people be, well, nations. Sometimes nations make national errors and wind up with dictatorships or kleptocracies. If the next government of, say, France would we blame the United States or would we blame the French?


Cheers
Aj

[Apocalipstic]

Originally Posted by Miss Tick

You’ve got to be kidding. Government regulations caused the economic disaster we are facing now.

Just consider the horror that privatizing prisons have caused. And in case prisoners are not worthy of concern how about private group home providers for children in foster care. South Dakota has become a powerhouse for private group home providers. NPR investigated them because of the inconsistencies in removing Native American children as well as complete disregard for the Indian Child Welfare Act. Native American children make up 15% of the child population, yet they make up more than half of the children in foster care.

Like any instance where Corporate America is involved the object is to maximize profits while providing minimum service. There is certainly no incentive to surpass the service provided by government. Corporate America will always do less while making obscene profits. I mean seriously look at the mess they made with the economy. They are cheerfully destroying financial stability around the world. And because they’ve done such a good job with the economy you want to put them in charge of education.

But then it was regulations the government passed that caused the problems.

I guess there really is no hope.

I give up.

Don't give up. Just because some don't agree. keep on saying what you believe over and over...the positive thought is out there now, in our collective mind cloud!

[loremar]

Get rid of capitalism and Democracy. I guess Anarchism would be better?

I know a person who made a good thought about anarchism and he thinks that it would work if everyone can just participate on direct democracy. No one is brought into office just representatives who will execute what everyone has decided upon.

Does anyone think it would work?

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by guihong

First, we've had affirmative action and the leg-ups for several generations, and we still have generational poverty, maybe more entrenched now than before. Schools are not making the mark. How long do we keep up such an experiment before we say "Enough. Here are the standards; do it or not".

As for my school idea, I had in mind something like the Finland model. It's still far less expensive than all the fads that America wants to try.

I actually have to put in a couple of things. We've had affirmative action for *at best* two generations. Consider: so before 1965 (my sister was 2, I was 2 years from being born) there was no affirmative action. In fact, there was no equal employment opportunity what-so-ever! Both my parents were very intelligent and accomplished people and there were large numbers of universities that would not have hired either of my parents, even if my mother had been the second coming of Jacques Barzun or my father the reincarnation of John Dewey they couldn't have taught at, just to take one, Ol Miss.

So, the United States does not have legally enforced equal employment opportunity until 1965. We did not have what is considered affirmative action until Nixon and that was, if memory serves, in 1972. So at its very best we are talking two generations and a bit of change assuming a 20 year generational turnover. Secondly, as far as generational poverty being, if anything, more entrenched than before I don't think that is true. I probably will not have time or energy to hunt down and work the numbers until this weekend but I suspect what I'll find is that, certainly within black communities, there is less generational poverty. In fact, I know that to be the case because the black middle-class is larger now than it has *ever* been.

Anecdotally, here's the educational attainment between my grandmother, born at the beginning of the 20th century, and my generations (I'm not including my son at this point because he is still serving in the Army). My grandmother got to about the fourth grade. My father, her youngest, attained two Masters and a PhD. On my mother's side, her father had no schooling to speak of and I'm unsure if he could read and write his own name, my grandmother had maybe a sixth grade education. My mother attained a Master's and a PhD. My half-sister has a PhD and M.D. My eldest sister has a J.D. I am the slacker having not yet attained a M.S. (but I'm working my way there). That is three generations. My father's brother did not serve in WW II and so did not have the G.I. Bill. Because he didn't have the G.I. Bill he didn't go to college. Out of his kids (four to my parent's two and a half) only one of them went to college.

So saying that we've run this experiment for several generations doesn't really work. We can, for all practical purposes, write off the first half of the 20th century as far as equal opportunity in America. There was none. This is not to say that there was not a black middle class, there was but it was much smaller. What there wasn't was any pretensions that anyone could grow up and run, say, GM or become President. No black person in 1950 was going to have a corner office at the GM headquarters. I would be shocked to find out that GM had *any* black or female executives in 1950. We cannot even begin talking about it until 1948 when Truman desegregated the military.

As far as poverty alleviation programs, we can now write off the first quarter of the 20th century. Social Security, recall, doesn't come into existence until 1935. The Great Society programs all came into existence in the middle part of the 60s. By 2000 they were all, with the exception of Head Start, functionally non-existent by the term of the century. So we can't even really say we've had poverty alleviation programs for very long.

I don't have the data before me right now, but I can say that both observationally and anecdotally, the most generous thing I can say about poverty alleviation programs in the United States is that we made something that, if one were feeling particularly generous, could be called an effort. In fact, probably the two best poverty alleviation programs I can think of are the public school system (or it used to be) and the G.I. Bill.

I am deeply unconvinced that government is as inefficient and the private sector is as efficient as set out to be. Now, I haven't worked in the governmental sector in a quarter century after I took off my uniform for the last time. I have worked in the private sector most of the last 20 years and I've seen a lot of things, very few of them I would call something resembling efficiency. At any rate, I think that like the roads I think that education is altogether too socially critical to leave up to the vagaries of the private market. Corporations have one mandate and only one mandate and that is to make the largest profit possible. If corporations are left to run educational systems, they will squeeze every dollar out they can. On paper it may look more efficient but keep in mind that Edu Corp Inc. has to make a profit. No one in the boardroom and none of the stockholders will mind if, on the way to ever greater profits some kids are educated, but they will require the CEO and executive team to keep their eye on the ball and that ball has a big dollar sign. If the question comes down to another few points on the stock market or art programs, well, we don't want to turn out a bunch of artists anyway. This can all be true even IF every single teacher in the system is well paid and dedicated to being an educator. By mandate, a corporation must maximize its profits for the shareholders. Delivering a product is just a happy byproduct of that maximization. I think that education, along with public safety, defense, physical infrastructure are too vital to our society to be left up to the profit motive. They are intrinsic public goods.

Also, one other thing on the inefficiency of corporations. I give you Microsoft. I have worked with Microsoft products since 1991. They are, whether they deserve to be or not, the gold standard for office productivity applications. They are the default operating system but no one who works in the industry or intimately with computers as part of their day-to-day work (I mean working IT or software development within some other context) thinks that Windows is a great product. DOS was good. Hard to use but good. Windows 3.1 was, well, it was okay. Pretty much a direct lift from Xerox PARC but decent enough (Apple lifted from Xerox PARC too). Windows 95/98 were fairly decent operating systems but insecure as all hell. Windows ME was a travesty. Windows NT 4 was good as a enterprise/business operating system but buggy as all hell and, like 95/98 very insecure. Windows 2000 and Windows XP were the high water marks until recently but they were both bloated, buggy and, sing it with me, really damn insecure. Windows Vista was Windows ME with a nicer interface, 'nuff said. Windows 7, which I've had at work for about 3 or 4 months now, is actually a decent operating system. I'm rather impressed. However, until Windows 7 was put on our desktops I was bringing in my personal laptop (a Macbook Pro) and using that for my day-to-day work except where I had to use those tools we have that *only* run on Windows and even then I would run a remote session to my Windows box. My email, IM, browser, text editor, presentation and word processing, were *all* done on my Mac. I'm not the only one who did something like that.

Yet, Microsoft *still* owns the desktop and everyone in the industry knows they don't deserve it. It's just that they made themselves indispensable and the overhead to change from a Windows to a Mac or Linux environment is prohibitively expensive. So by sheer inertia they maintain their market position. Is Windows the number one operating system in use today? Yes. Is it the best operating system in use today? Not by a long shot. Yet, they *own* the home and end-user operating system business.

I'm not saying corporations can do nothing right. I am saying that government *can* do things correct. I don't think governments are good at, for instance, making consumer electronics and I think it is beyond its core competencies. Likewise, I don't think that private sector corporations are good at running things like educational system, it's beyond their core competencies. Education in America is broken but it as not always this broken. We *can* fix it but I don't think turning it over to the tender mercies of the market is the way to do it.

Cheers
Aj

[Greyson]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

I actually have to put in a couple of things. We've had affirmative action for *at best* two generations. Consider: so before 1965 (my sister was 2, I was 2 years from being born) there was no affirmative action. In fact, there was no equal employment opportunity what-so-ever! Both my parents were very intelligent and accomplished people and there were large numbers of universities that would not have hired either of my parents, even if my mother had been the second coming of Jacques Barzun or my father the reincarnation of John Dewey they couldn't have taught at, just to take one, Ol Miss.

So, the United States does not have legally enforced equal employment opportunity until 1965. We did not have what is considered affirmative action until Nixon and that was, if memory serves, in 1972. So at its very best we are talking two generations and a bit of change assuming a 20 year generational turnover. Secondly, as far as generational poverty being, if anything, more entrenched than before I don't think that is true. I probably will not have time or energy to hunt down and work the numbers until this weekend but I suspect what I'll find is that, certainly within black communities, there is less generational poverty. In fact, I know that to be the case because the black middle-class is larger now than it has *ever* been.

Anecdotally, here's the educational attainment between my grandmother, born at the beginning of the 20th century, and my generations (I'm not including my son at this point because he is still serving in the Army). My grandmother got to about the fourth grade. My father, her youngest, attained two Masters and a PhD. On my mother's side, her father had no schooling to speak of and I'm unsure if he could read and write his own name, my grandmother had maybe a sixth grade education. My mother attained a Master's and a PhD. My half-sister has a PhD and M.D. My eldest sister has a J.D. I am the slacker having not yet attained a M.S. (but I'm working my way there). That is three generations. My father's brother did not serve in WW II and so did not have the G.I. Bill. Because he didn't have the G.I. Bill he didn't go to college. Out of his kids (four to my parent's two and a half) only one of them went to college.

So saying that we've run this experiment for several generations doesn't really work. We can, for all practical purposes, write off the first half of the 20th century as far as equal opportunity in America. There was none. This is not to say that there was not a black middle class, there was but it was much smaller. What there wasn't was any pretensions that anyone could grow up and run, say, GM or become President. No black person in 1950 was going to have a corner office at the GM headquarters. I would be shocked to find out that GM had *any* black or female executives in 1950. We cannot even begin talking about it until 1948 when Truman desegregated the military.

As far as poverty alleviation programs, we can now write off the first quarter of the 20th century. Social Security, recall, doesn't come into existence until 1935. The Great Society programs all came into existence in the middle part of the 60s. By 2000 they were all, with the exception of Head Start, functionally non-existent by the term of the century. So we can't even really say we've had poverty alleviation programs for very long.

I don't have the data before me right now, but I can say that both observationally and anecdotally, the most generous thing I can say about poverty alleviation programs in the United States is that we made something that, if one were feeling particularly generous, could be called an effort. In fact, probably the two best poverty alleviation programs I can think of are the public school system (or it used to be) and the G.I. Bill.

I am deeply unconvinced that government is as inefficient and the private sector is as efficient as set out to be. Now, I haven't worked in the governmental sector in a quarter century after I took off my uniform for the last time. I have worked in the private sector most of the last 20 years and I've seen a lot of things, very few of them I would call something resembling efficiency. At any rate, I think that like the roads I think that education is altogether too socially critical to leave up to the vagaries of the private market. Corporations have one mandate and only one mandate and that is to make the largest profit possible. If corporations are left to run educational systems, they will squeeze every dollar out they can. On paper it may look more efficient but keep in mind that Edu Corp Inc. has to make a profit. No one in the boardroom and none of the stockholders will mind if, on the way to ever greater profits some kids are educated, but they will require the CEO and executive team to keep their eye on the ball and that ball has a big dollar sign. If the question comes down to another few points on the stock market or art programs, well, we don't want to turn out a bunch of artists anyway. This can all be true even IF every single teacher in the system is well paid and dedicated to being an educator. By mandate, a corporation must maximize its profits for the shareholders. Delivering a product is just a happy byproduct of that maximization. I think that education, along with public safety, defense, physical infrastructure are too vital to our society to be left up to the profit motive. They are intrinsic public goods.

Also, one other thing on the inefficiency of corporations. I give you Microsoft. I have worked with Microsoft products since 1991. They are, whether they deserve to be or not, the gold standard for office productivity applications. They are the default operating system but no one who works in the industry or intimately with computers as part of their day-to-day work (I mean working IT or software development within some other context) thinks that Windows is a great product. DOS was good. Hard to use but good. Windows 3.1 was, well, it was okay. Pretty much a direct lift from Xerox PARC but decent enough (Apple lifted from Xerox PARC too). Windows 95/98 were fairly decent operating systems but insecure as all hell. Windows ME was a travesty. Windows NT 4 was good as a enterprise/business operating system but buggy as all hell and, like 95/98 very insecure. Windows 2000 and Windows XP were the high water marks until recently but they were both bloated, buggy and, sing it with me, really damn insecure. Windows Vista was Windows ME with a nicer interface, 'nuff said. Windows 7, which I've had at work for about 3 or 4 months now, is actually a decent operating system. I'm rather impressed. However, until Windows 7 was put on our desktops I was bringing in my personal laptop (a Macbook Pro) and using that for my day-to-day work except where I had to use those tools we have that *only* run on Windows and even then I would run a remote session to my Windows box. My email, IM, browser, text editor, presentation and word processing, were *all* done on my Mac. I'm not the only one who did something like that.

Yet, Microsoft *still* owns the desktop and everyone in the industry knows they don't deserve it. It's just that they made themselves indispensable and the overhead to change from a Windows to a Mac or Linux environment is prohibitively expensive. So by sheer inertia they maintain their market position. Is Windows the number one operating system in use today? Yes. Is it the best operating system in use today? Not by a long shot. Yet, they *own* the home and end-user operating system business.

I'm not saying corporations can do nothing right. I am saying that government *can* do things correct. I don't think governments are good at, for instance, making consumer electronics and I think it is beyond its core competencies. Likewise, I don't think that private sector corporations are good at running things like educational system, it's beyond their core competencies. Education in America is broken but it as not always this broken. We *can* fix it but I don't think turning it over to the tender mercies of the market is the way to do it.

Cheers
Aj

Thank you. When I read "several generations" I was stunned to see that people really think the civil rights movement of the 60's was several generatons ago. Affirmative Action was not implemented until after the civil rights movement.

I too believe that we should not throw out democracy and capitalism in its entirity. And no, I have never voted Republican and I know what it is like to be really poor.

Some government regulation, intervention is needed. I don't believe if humans were entirely left without "rules" of any sort that we would choose to share and be civil with one another. I am for building up the village even if it means at times my individual wealth will be static. But not by destroying the entire village, infrastructure we have in place.

Similar to poverty, wealth can also be generational. This means some people are born with advantage. If we do not share some of the wealth, give people hope, do you really think the masses will say Okay forever more?

[ruffryder]

Need to read more in this thread, however here is some ideas to throw out there and ponder with this perfect society where we can have people agree on principles.

I wouldn't say Russia and Germany are experiencing the most peace since the height of the Roman Empire.. If anything it's under raps. Considering history repeats itself, Nazism is still ongoing and growing again.
All the support for Syria and all I have to say is Al Qaeda.
If all the latin countries united together, the citizens would all battle and kill each other.
Let's not forget the Indigenous Australians, the Aborigines. They are thinking of adding them as a whole new race. They are some of the first inhabitants according to some. Whether they are in the U.S. Or Australia or wherever, add them to the melting pot. What do you do with them now?

Violence is down in the U.S. Could it be because all the fighting is in other countries where our military is deployed? And what is considered violence? It could have different meanings to different people. If American spies are found or a U.S. Citizen kills someone in another country, more than likely they get death right then and there, no questions asked. If an immigrant or even an alien comes to the U.S., breaks the law or murders an American on American soil, they get thrown in prison or sent back to their country.

I think the social hierarchy has always existed in every country throughout the world.

The world and the U.S. still has slavery.

In my opinion there will never be fair justice. Something or someone will inevitably change. Change is constant and ongoing with people not being happy for one reason or another and feeling something isn't fair for someone. People agreeing on rules and laws, that will never happen. Hence, voting on amendments, petitions, additions to laws.

I won't even talk about religion. No one country or even within a country agrees with that one.

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by ruffryder

Need to read more in this thread, however here is some ideas to throw out there and ponder with this perfect society where we can have people agree on principles.

I wouldn't say Russia and Germany are experiencing the most peace since the height of the Roman Empire.. If anything it's under raps. Considering history repeats itself, Nazism is still ongoing and growing again.

Wait, are you saying that there has been a shooting war between Russia and Germany *after* WW II and no one has noticed? Because I didn't say that Russia or Germany were having the longest period of *internal* harmony I said that ALL of the European powers were at peace for the longest continuous period since the the Roman Empire. That doesn't say anything what-so-ever about internal strife. It's simply that after the Pax Romana passed European nations went to war with one another with startling regularity. The last convulsion of major European powers shooting at one another ended in 1945. Since then, no major European power (Germany, France, England, Russia, Spain, Portugal, Italy) has shot at any other major European power. This is the first time in 2000 years that the Europe has been this peaceful. That doesn't say anything about internal strife. So, what shooting war has taken place between any of 7 nations on that list since 1945? (The 1956 and 1968 Soviet invasions of Hungary and Czechoslovakia don't count because neither the Hungarians or the Czechs were major powers *and*, given the realities of the Warsaw Pact all of the nations east of the Russian borders could fairly be termed provinces or colonies of the USSR at the time so an argument could be made that these were internal strifes. Which is decidedly *not* what I'm talking about)

All the support for Syria and all I have to say is Al Qaeda.

I don't follow you here.

If all the latin countries united together, the citizens would all battle and kill each other.

Probably so.

Let's not forget the Indigenous Australians, the Aborigines. They are thinking of adding them as a whole new race. They are some of the first inhabitants according to some. Whether they are in the U.S. Or Australia or wherever, add them to the melting pot. What do you do with them now?

Umm, again, I'm not sure I follow you. The Aborigines may or may not be genetically unique enough to be considered their own racial group but there's no doubt that they were the first humans in Australia. As far what to do with them, you call them 'citizen', hand them a ballot, and let democracy take its course.

Violence is down in the U.S. Could it be because all the fighting is in other countries where our military is deployed?

No, absolutely not. There are far too *few* people in uniform such that even if every single member of all five armed forces were deployed constantly and never rotated back into the United States, that *still* couldn’t account for the dip in violent crime that started in the early 90s.

And what is considered violence?

Murder, armed robbery, rape, assault, lynchings, arson.

It could have different meanings to different people.

I am using violence in the way that sociologists and criminologists use violence.

If American spies are found or a U.S. Citizen kills someone in another country, more than likely they get death right then and there, no questions asked.

Actually no. Not even at the very height of the Cold War. The KGB, the CIA and MI-6, all had an informal agreement designed to keep their national governments from having a reason to start a shooting war. It was this: we will not kill your spies in our country and you don't kill our intelligence officers in your country. For the most part that agreement was held to for forty years.
There's only a handful of nations that still use the death penalty and I can think of three instances, within the last 24 months, of Americans caught in nations who were not subject to summary execution. That woman in Italy who just came home, those hikers in Iran and some journalists in North Korea.

If an immigrant or even an alien comes to the U.S., breaks the law or murders an American on American soil, they get thrown in prison or sent back to their country.

Well, if the immigrant is a US citizen then they stay here. If that person is a resident alien they can be sent home. That is how it should be. If someone commits murder, don't you think they *should* be thrown in prison? I do.

I think the social hierarchy has always existed in every country throughout the world.

Yes, and it always will.

The world and the U.S. still has slavery.

Okay, here you have gone way too far, ruffryder. I am descended from *property*. PROPERTY ruffryder. Whoever they were, my ancestors came in against their will and were considered property. Like the chair you are sitting on. Like your car. Like a horse or any other piece of *livestock*. Point out to me anywhere in the United States, where people who have done no wrong or harm, are put in chains, put on *sale*, bought up like so much cattle, forced to work without pay, any children they have are considered the property of the owner of their parents, and the penalty for disobedience is physical violence and the penalty for attempting to run away is either mutilation or death. Find me ANYWHERE in the United States where this is happening and is backed up by the force of law. If your can't, then out of respect for the 30 million or so Americans whose ancestors were ALSO property please stop spitting on the lives and legacies of our ancestors for rhetorical purposes. I don't like it when people try to make, for instance, needing to have a job or pay taxes the same as being OWNED by another human being and knowing that your children will also be OWNED as will their children and their children after them. I take a very, very dim view when people piss all over the graves of black slaves because they want to ratchet up their 'America is singularly evil' rhetoric one more notch to show that they are truly on the side of the oppressed.

Slavery ended in the United States in 1865. It was made illegal by the 13th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution which are, last I checked, still in force. Maybe OTHER black people are sanguine about people pulling out slavery and saying it is still in force today but I'm not. I honor my ancestors and like a number of Jews I know who get completely pissed off when people compare this or that injustice to the Holocaust when there's no death camps, no masses of civilians being taken to gas chambers, no roving squads of soldiers rounding up random civilians and shooting them right then and there in the streets, I get pissed off when people mistake whatever injustice they are exercised about with legal slavery.

Btw. why is it that so few people can see improvement? Can someone explain to me why the fact that 10,000 murders < 15,000 murders doesn't register with people as improvement? I get the feeling--I may be wrong--that if the United States got down to one murder a year, people would STILL say "there's still murder, nothing at all has changed!" I don't understand it. Two people on this thread have all but said that and I don't get it. What part of a decrease in violent crimes, while still staying above zero isn't improvement?

In my opinion there will never be fair justice. Something or someone will inevitably change. Change is constant and ongoing with people not being happy for one reason or another and feeling something isn't fair for someone. People agreeing on rules and laws, that will never happen. Hence, voting on amendments, petitions, additions to laws.

There will never be *static* justice but that does not mean there will never be *justice*. My great-grandparents on both sides of my family were born slaves. My grandparents all lived under conditions of ruthless segregation. My parents lived about two-thirds of their lives under that same system. Segregation for me is a hazy memory. Segregation for my son was something he heard me and my parents talk about and was a subject covered in history class. Segregation for my granddaughter will be something she will only ever read about or see portrayed in movies. If that isn't progress, please explain to me what progress is.

I won't even talk about religion. No one country or even within a country agrees with that one.

Why do we have to agree on religion in order to live in peace and comity?

Cheers
Aj

[The_Lady_Snow]

cause all Latinos hate one another so if they get together as one they'd kill one another? Really!?

Oh brother..

I also think that the sex trade enslavement of children and women in this world exists

I think for us to have a Utopia you'd have to wipe a lot of shit from this world and start all over cause humans can't help themselves.

"all forms of slavery or practices similar to slavery, such as the sale and trafficking of children, debt bondage and serfdom and forced or compulsory labor, including forced or compulsory recruitment of children for use in armed conflict;"
"the use, procuring or offering of a child for prostitution, for the production of pornography or for pornographic performances;"
"the use, procuring or offering of a child for illicit activities, in particular for the production and trafficking of drugs as defined in the relevant international treaties;" and
"work which, by its nature or the circumstances in which it is carried out, is likely to harm the health, safety or morals of children."

[The_Lady_Snow]

an estimated 27 million people are enslaved globally, more than at any other time previously;
thousands annually trafficked in America in over 90 cities; around 17,000 by some estimates and up to 50,000 according to the CIA, either from abroad or affecting US citizens or residents as forced labor or sexual servitude;
the global market value is over $9.5 billion annually, according to Mark Taylor, senior coordinator for the State Department's Office to Monitor;
victims are often women and children;
the majority are in India and African countries;
slavery is illegal but happens "everywhere;"
slaves work in agriculture, homes, mines, restaurants, brothels, or wherever traffickers can employ them; they're cheap, plentiful, disposable, and replaceable;
"$90 is the average cost of a human slave around the world" compared to the 1850 $40,000 equivalent in today's dollars;
common terminology includes debt bondage, bonded labor, attached labor, restavec (or de facto bondage for Haitian children sent to households of strangers), forced labor, indentured servitude, and human trafficking;
explosive population growth, mostly to urban centers without safety net or job security protections, facilitates the practice; and
government corruption, lack of monitoring, and indifference does as well.

[Apocalipstic]

I have comments to make all around, I had quoted so many posts, this was endless, so here goes sans quotes.

I have a huge problem with us saying that if the nations to our South united they would kill each other. To me, that sounds pretty racist.

I also have a problem with us making fun of the fact that it bothers other Americans living in countries on the American continent that the US insists that only we as US citizens are American. Corkey, not talking about you, we agree on this. All of us are American. People live in South America, people who think we are ass hats for insisting we are the only Americans.

Bete, yes North and South America. However, like Eurasia, North and South America are connected. Some people separate them, some don't. I am fine with using the terms North Americans and South Americans.

I know our calling ourselves Americans will not change, especially when the most intelligent among us are not even willing to think about how it might feel to an average person living in South America to be told only US citizens are American...

Again, to say or agree that people in South America would kill each other of they united makes my head want to explode. Do y'all really think we are so superior??? Becasue that is what it sounds like.

Using the longitude is cute...but very sarcastically dismissive.

Love and respect you guys, but maybe I have not had enough coffee to find this amusing.

When you have been and spent time in South America, maybe you will see how small this seems.