First we I think we need to eliminate corruption and take away all of big corporations influence in government. Also we should stay foreign affairs unless it directly affects us.

By making it an Oligarchic Meritocracy

Yes, the recent Supreme Court ruling on election finance was a complete joke. Business and government need to be close, but not that close. Eliminating corruption is harder said than done though.

My solution for corruption is making it a capital offense as well as forcing the offender's estate repay all damages to the nation plus interest. and to eliminate the chances of a corrupt judicial system letting it's friends go free someone accused of corruption should be indicted by a vote of the people and tried by a randomly selected jury and judge of citizens.

I am not American, so this might not be my department.

Thomas Jefferson (I THINK) said that Revolution was healthy, and didn't see the U.S government lasting more than 5 years after it's formation in 1783. He also said (I'm not even going to try to quote him) that revolution was necessary for the survival of a society. Seeing as all political radicals are branded "terrorists" or other slanders, the federal government has been able to expand it's power far beyond what it was intended to be.

So that's what I think needs to be done: Improve states rights, and a large-scale revolution. Perhaps there is a non-violent method to do this, but Jefferson Davis did not manage to achieve any sort of success other than assert in the states that the federal government was the law.

It's a one-government dictatorship.

I think we could benefit from some adoption of Thomas Jefferson's idea that there should be a Revolution every generation. Maybe re-draft the Constitution every hundred years or so.

@rayNimagi:

Well, what I'd have AMERICA do is different from what I'd have my ideal state do, America is an existent nation, it can't just be radically changed from one extreme to the other without a revolution...

And...well, Tyler Durden...

You say you want a Revolution?
But when you talk about death and destruction doncha know that you can count me out?
You say you to me it's evolution...well you know...
But if you go offering pictures of Chairman Mapleleaf...doncha know that you can count me out?
You say you'll change the Constitution...well...you know...we'd love to change your head.
You know it's GONNA BE....ALLLLLRIIIIIGHT...YOU KNOW IT'S GONNA BE....

ALRIGHT! :P

Anywho, so I'll jsut say what I'd do to change America and try to be realistic about it; if you want to hear my idea for an IDEAL State, let me know.

So...

1. EDUCATION MUST BE REFORMED AND MADE A PRIORITY!!!

It all starts with the kids, and right now the kids are getting the biggest shaft.

Our education system is HORRIBLE...and must be changed.

A change in the structure: Americans are taught in a 19th century manner in the 21st century--not only does that foster non-competitive children and a poorer crop of kids and students, but it simply retards the development of the nation.

I would merge Middle and High School into one, so K-through-6 and then 7-12.

HOWEVER, 7th and 8th grades are what would be called "Flex Years," namely, the years a child may change their academic path.

I do NOT believe in the philosophy that all chindren MUST know a certain lump of knowledge at the end of 12th grade. HA! Ask MOST folks how often they use Shakespeare or the Quadratic Equation or Newton's Third Law or what have you.

SPECIALIZATION IS THE WAY OF THE FUTURE.

And Kindergarten through 6th grade is precisely the time to figure out waht you want to do with your life, 7th and 8th grades to look into other career paths and be sure the paths you are on so far are the ones you ant to continue on and, for the most part, 9th-12th should be 4 YEARS OF THE HIGHEST QUALITY EDUCATION AMERICA CAN AFFORD IN THAT FIELD.

For those who don't know I amn, minus the facism and selective breeding, a HUGE fan of Plato's education plan: "Likes with likes."

English person? Go! Be with your kind of person!
Math your thing? Be free of Shakespeare! ENJOY those polynomials!
A budding musical prodigy? Put the Bunsen burners away and play that piano rag!

"But obiwanobiwan," you might say, "many careers need two or more fields working in conjunction, and what if children change their minds?"

One at a time...

-I do NOT mean to say Math students will ONLY take math classes and only lit. classes for English people...after all, I assume Shakespeare got a little tired of all those letters from time to time, and he certainly couldn't have written his plays in an isolated writing tank. Yes, there will be other classes taught, just to a lesser degree; for example, take Student A and Student B.

Student A wants to be a doctor and has fine science skills.
Student B wants to be a politician and she's quite a good orator.
A, however, is a shy fellow.
B, however, is not too big on dead frogs.

So--WHO should get the dissection frog and WHO should be allowed more time to speak in Political Science class?

That's one thing I always LOATHED in school, and still find times I dislike it in college--why, just the other day in Communications I was told, after class, by my professor--who IS a nice enough lady, I suppose--that I should've given the other people at my little discussion area more of a chance to speak. I told her they didn't want to speak. And they didn't.

I do NOT believe in forcing kids, in THIS regard, to do what they don't want to unless they're really too young to make a fair judgment about things, hence K-6 being a time to decide what you like and dislike--and have teachers MAKE YOU TRY EVERYTHING, so you don't miss out on anything because you were shy or stubborn or lazy or pigheaded--and 7-8 being a time to be sure of what you want.

But in my college class it's people AT LEAST 20 and above--you KNOW what you want to do and don't want to do by then...and if they don't want to talk and someone DOES and actually has something to SAY...LET THAT PERSON TALK!

Perhaps the other students will agree with what he says, and all will be well.
Pehaps they'll disagree and someone WILL speak up and then you'll have REAL learning and dialogue, not FORCED speech, and all will be well.

"AH!" you say, "but what if they disagree and yet are too timid to speak?"

Then they don't deserve to speak. Sorry. I have little sympathy or patience for those who REFUSE to exercise their willpower when they want something done and just twiddle their thumbs hoping it will somehow get done...and I have even LESS sympathy for those who encourage mediocrity and call it "equality."

That would be THE FIRST THING stricken from the teaching vernacular: "Everybody's special." THAT IS PURE, UNADULTERATED GARBAGE!

To say everyone's special is to take the "specialness" out of it!

Can everyone be "excellent?" To "excell," according to Aristotle, is to work at the peak of human faculties in such a way that not everyone can; an example he uses is that of the Olympian runner--everyone can run, yes, but can everyone be an Olympian runner?

No--not everyone is that disciplined, conditioned and, as we are now suspecting more and more thanks to Genetics, not everyone is gifted with that ability.

Secretariat literally DID have a larger heart and circulatory system than other horses and it worked in such a way that it did help Secretariat run faster...it wasn't that the other horses didn't TRY hard enough, but just that Secretariat was naturally better.

Now, that doesn't mean that EVERYTHING is naturally selected, far from it--Dante reserved a Circle of hell for those who didn't realize their potential and wasted it, and we've seen plenty of overachievers throughout history.

It's a combination of the two, natural ability and personal will--but NEITHER can be forced upon someone is my point. Natural ability cannot be taught, and neither can willpower; if anything I'd say teaching can actually crush the Will more than it can possibly help it along.

So what does this all mean?

Different fields are required, yes, but so is specialization. As we saw, Students A and B were in the same class. They wee both taking Bilogy and Speech Class.

But A, being more adept with biology and wanting to be a doctor, took the lead dissecting the frog that was making Student B sick even just looking at, and likewise B was more talkative and more inclined towards a career that involves public speeking and so got more time to speak than A, who was shy and quiet and perfectly content to keep his thoughts of nucleotides and neurons to himself.

To each his own.

Now, naturally some fields require TWO specialties...take astronomy and theatre.

Naturally for the former you would need BOTH math and scientific skills, and for theatre you would need English/literature and public speaking skills.

In such a case...sure, let the child have the time and resources he needs in both fields, and this can be allowed for BECAUSE of the fact that we are now no longer squandering resources on those who do not or cannot or will not use these skills practically.

Student B didn't dissect a frog--that means there's another one free for Student C, who's great with both Chemistry AND Biology and wants to be a bilogical engineer someday.

And because Student A didn't take up time unnecessarily with his stammering ramblings in a speech he never wanted to give, Student D, who IS a theatre person and so would like that extra time to speak, has it.

To each his or her own...and what's more--all awarded according to merit and desire.

I have faith in children--far more faith than I suppose those currently have. I know children are drawn to what they are naturally good at, what interests them, and what their friends and the popular kids are doing.

Setting aside the popularity issue--that's a matter for an after-school special--we can adress a child's natural abilities and desires and their propensity for wanting to be with friends by teaching "likes with likes."

Generally MY friends were interested in mostly what I was, and I assume that's what most--not all, mind you, but most--of all of you would agree to as well, that you and your friends shared MOSTLY common interests.

And even if your friends didn't share any scholastic interests with you in common, that's fine--that's what recess, lunch period, and after school are for.

But because we have eliminated from the upper levels those who do not want to learn Subject X, students who DO want to learn that will therefore have more teacher-time and more resources.

All of this is reserved for 9th-12th grade and college. K-6 you're jsut learning how to learn. 7th and 8th grade your body decides to freak out on you and it's time for the Hormone Monster to be let loose...needless to say it's a period of indecision and at times may just seem insanity. ;)

But by 9th grade you should have an idea of at least what you LIKE TO DO, if not necessarily the exact field or exact career you want, and you should know what you are good at; put those together and you ahve the system as explained above.

Finally, as I find it exceedingly important to do so, Letter Grades must go.

Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle--THEY got along without letter grades, and somehow they and their schools produced thought that formed that foundation, along with Hebrew and Roman thought and belief, of much of Western thought, belief, and civilization.

Wittgenstein's best conversations with Betrand Russell were NOT incited by grades.

Children want to be free to express their ideas, and while that doesn't mean they should be allowed to do so whenever and however they wish, for obvious reasons, they also should be allowed to, and what's more...

Their ideas and accomplishments should be rewareded CONSIDERABLY and EXCLUSIVELY.

What I mean by this is--no giving EVERYONE in class grades...passes and fails do just fine...

But for those papers or projects or ideas that they give that DO go above and beyond--note THOSE.

Give THOSE "As" and the rest all passes or fails.

Create a new standard--one for the excellent students IN THEIR FIELD and one for those who are merely competent...and for those who are not even that, let them (or make them) seek hep from those extraordinary "A" students.

Let "A" stand not just for the shiniest of the silver coins amongst the lot, but the GOLD COINS amongs the silver coints...the TRULY exceptional...

And give those students a taste of responsibility AND a motivation to hel their fellow student by encouraging or requiring them to tutor those who have work and ideas of lesser quality, who are failing and need the help not of just some peppy, perky prick who's tutoring because it will look good to some college later, no, make the tutors those who not only are able to help but, by making their position unique, perhaps even giving them unique priviledges, make tutoring and helping one's fellow student an HONOR and something kids STRIVE FOR.

They want rewards--and they will come for the rewards of Pride, Priviledge, and Prestige, but some of them WILL, nurtured properly, stay for the reward of helping someone and seeing that by helping someone else they DO, in fact, help themself.



To those who say "That sounds awfully classist, obiwanobiwan"...

You'd better believe it.

But NOT classist on a racial, religious, monetary, ethnic, or other such factor.

I strive to create the Class of the Excellent and the Class of the "Good."

And over time the Class of Failure will drop, not through eugenics or genocide or class victimization--ALL students get the same quality of education in my system; I WILL cut from other places to make up for that, but that I will get into in another...wow, this is becoming an article, isn't it?--but because the Failutres will become the "Good" and the "Good" will make that jump to the Extraordinary...

And we can only DREAM of where the Extraordinary will end up.

"Obi, I'm curious" you, there, in the back, ask me, "what if a student doesn't want to go to school, if he's a gang-banger or a bad seed?"

Try to fix him...and when you reach 9th grade, when they choose waht they would like to pursue, if he doesn't care and just drops out or committs major offense after major offense...

Toss him out. Let him taste the cold, unyielding, uncaring world for Failures.

And if he chooses to reform THEN, he can come back--be he 15 or 35.

I don't move the children up or down--moslty--according to age, but MERIT! Now, that doesn't mean I'll be puting a very smart 6 year old with 16 year olds unless that child is Stephen Einstein Shakespeare or what have you, but there's no reason that a brilliant 14-year old shouldn't be allowed to sit and discuss Literature with 16-year olds of his caliber, or 16-year olds with 18-year olds, and so on.

And if they run out of chances to reform these Failures, and are left derelict on the streets?

sorry. Time's up, money's up--not every student is meant for school, and not every seed can grow well, not "everyone's special."

There WILL be Failures in life. No matter WHAT is done. That SHOULD NOT mean the Excellent and the Good and the Competent and the students who ware failing but at least are Attempting should be penalized.

No child or teen or adult in my system will EVER be turned away so long as they are TRYING at SOMETHING.

But if all you want to do is smoke pot outside and text and disrupt the class and take up valuable resources and material...

You can have all the time you want for that--just not in class.



So ends Part I of my plan, "Obiwanobiwan's Reforming of Plato's Republican Teaching Ideals."

Some ideas are still rough, I'm sure, or sketchy, but really, if I try and nail everything down here...I'd have to charge you all $10 for reading a book-length post of mine! :p

*clap, clap, clap*
Bravo, Obiwan, Bravo.
It's an issue that's been in America since the 50's when students were compared to Russians being forced to study rocket science.

In essence, you have said that since we will be specialized in careers, classes should specialize too. Each student should have the right to pursue the path they want without needing to wait for the lowest members of the class to catch up.

are we expected to read that?

are you aware that that is a 6 page essay on Microsoft Office word 2010?

This kid is obviously bedridden, and typing on a laptop.

While I DO feel pity, I wish that he would find another outlet to spin out his sad existence.

This is not the fucking Special Olympics.

Well written, Obiwan. I'm guessing you're going to become a politician someday?

But will education reform eliminate the problems of American government under the current constitution and laws?

Wait. You think people should know what they want to do for the rest of their life by the end of 8th grade?!?!?!

Do you have any research that backs that up in the slightest? I thought the best part of HS was being able to try different things without it completely locking me into for the rest of my life.

HS should be for getting a solid foundation in many areas so that you can go off to do whatever you like in life or college. We already have trade schools for people who aren't as interested in academia.

I agree that the primary and secondary school system needs to be reformed, but really! Obiwan, think about what you're saying.

Also, what's all this "specialization" nonsense? Why can't people have diverse interests?

I have a BS in Electrical Engineering and am getting a Masters in Computational Nanoelectroncis, but some of my other interests include:

Writing. I worked as a journalist for local papers. I also have some short stories I occasionally try to get published.
Theater. I acted, produced, and directed plays throughout HS.
Band. I play the Trumpet and French Horn
Teaching. I've taught robotics and computer tech to 4th-8th graders at summer camps


I love math and science but I would have been miserable if that's all I did in HS. This reminds me of a great quote from Heinlein:

"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."

obiwan?

id just like to comment to obiwanobiwan, bravo. :D
however, maybe it sort of missed the question?
the question was, what should be done about the government, not education.
of course education is an important factor of creating a better nation. but the question is about the government.

here's my view of what america should do.
America has been the leader of the world economically, politically, and is also in military. however, american influence is falling due to many reasons. expectations for america from other nations have enormously decreased in comparison to the past. america still is the leader of today, but we must wonder how long they will and can lead.
america's position in politics is big. america's rule pretty much affects how the world goes. america still has the leading economy, however we can tell that china is beginning to rapidly grow, which may cause tensions between both nations. to confront this in peaceful means, reforms in world (US) governance is needed. it has always been doubted that US was a nation which chases after national-interest through the international system they have formed, capitalism. it has been doubted that this system would be more beneficial for the US, however it is clear that it isn't. It has provided a fair enough amount of opportunities for those in the system. so it can be seen that in the economic sense, that the US can no longer prosper as it did in the past, and we can also examine that politics which are based on economy is unsafe and not reliable. therefore, again there must be reforms in order to compensate for this.

the US is the first global leading nation. however, it's fall is inevitable. one nation can't stay at the top forever. however, this will probably create even more tension to who will be the next on top. this transition of power must be avoided if possible at all costs. rather than transition it must bend towards transferring of power.
however this may be too ideal. my idea is that USA governance must change into a government which can adapt to the transferring of power, rather than maintaining its power.
but without a doubt, USA is still the leading nation. China is still far, but maybe not too far, according to statistics. and throughout history, we can see that in transition of power, wars would always occur. it is probable that history repeat itself. the US will fall. but i doubt they would change their government based on an idea of transferring their power. the financial crisis in 2009 shows US inability in maintaining a safe international economy.

Wow

Reading that was like reading a memo from the Bureau of Repetition Bureau.

what are your thoughts might abgemacht

Really, I just want obiwan to defend his ridiculous post about education.

But, in terms of the government:

It certainly shouldn't be immediately replaced. That sounds like there would be a lot of bloodshed and I don't think I'd last long in that sort of environment.

Slow reform is more reasonable; it's just a question of if it will happen soon enough. But, even if China out-paces us, is it really that big of a deal?

We've entered a new era of globalization, which makes the past a bad indicator of the future. I'm not saying we should ignore the past, but I believe it will be increasingly harder to draw parallels.

The front runner for 2011's SUPER BURN OF THE YEAR.

>>>>>>>>>>>>instant replay<<<<<<<<<<<<

I largely agree with Obiwan's education plan and incidentally, this is similar to what many countries in the socialist bloc did.

There are eight years of general schooling which is mandatory - where education focuses especially on arithmetic, reading, and writing. This education occurs in two stage (basic and intermediate) - after each stage pupils take an exit exam to proceed to the next stage.

Secondary education is optional and lasts about 3 years (some systems made it mandatory later). Pupils had three options - continuing with general secondary education - which emphasize mathematics, science, history, and literature; vocational/trade schools - which prepared pupils for work in agriculture, industry, or office work; and specialized secondary education (technikums)- in which pupils prepared for professional jobs in engineering, healthcare, law, teaching and the arts.

I think this system worked very well and helps marry the needs of the economy with the education system.

As for overall government reforms - I'd propose moving to a parliamentary system with a high vote-share threshold for sitting in parliament. In essence, becoming like the UK's two party plus system. I believe it avoids the problems of gridlock and division that Presidential systems have. Unlike the UK though, I'd implement a run-off system to ensure that district representatives have majority support when elected.

Obviously in the end I would like a socialist system, but I believe these reforms would help the government in the short term.

I also think it would be good idea to have an unelected body of trained government administrators and civil servants of all of the various government departments review legislation before passage. Since the body would have members of all the various government agencies, there shouldn't be serious conflict of interest problems. This committee would review a bill and make recommendations to the government before it is passed. The government must either accept the changes made by the civil administrator panel or by a 2/3 vote overrule the panel and pass the bill in its original form.

The state shouldn't cut so much from education. And when it does, it should take deductions from different places. The school district I went to has cut all the gifted programs. All of them. However there have been no cuts in any of the sports programs.

There needs to be a better option for gifted students. Obiwan's method certainly takes that into consideration. I know this is about government, so I know I'm off topic, but really. It's sad because some of the best students are left to be bored in all their classes becuase class sizes are too big and teachers have too many students to handle. There is always help available for students who are struggleing, but what for the students who are doing well? No one wants to be bored in class for 6 hours a day 5 days a week 180 days of the year. It's annoying.

Pretty much, there needs to be more options for the advanced students.

Getting off the education tangent...

The legislative branch and the permanent bureaucracy needs to be reformed, in my opinion. Both radically so.

Congress: Weaken the Senate relative to the House. Don't give the House new powers per se, but allow it act in certain areas without also needing a bill to pass in the Senate. Appropriations, for instance. This way we won't be in the position of one Senator representing a puny state like Delaware or Wyoming holding up the totality of the government. Perhaps the Senate could go back to being elected by state legislatures, since a weakened upper house with limited national powers would not require such a stark democratic mandate. This way we could return to the Senate representing the federal character of the nation. Having two people represent California and two represent Vermont is blatantly undemocratic to begin with, so weakening the Senate's powers to specific areas would give it MORE legitimacy, since the Senators would again be explicitly representing their states as polities rather than fifty differently sized electoral districts. (No state can be denied equal representation in the Senate, that's an entrenched clause of the Constitution meaning that it's impossible for an amendment to change it). A more specialized Senate could also be able to have greater influence in foreign affairs, particularly treaty making.

The House would be strengthened in the sense that it would be all that was needed in many cases to pass a law; it would not need the Senate as well. Basically, the new House = the current Congress in the sense that it would be just the House acting more or less as it does now but that would be it before the president signs. This could make the Speaker into something of a de facto Prime Minister, but since we would still keep first-past-the-post, have a strong president, and political parties so radically different from ones in parlimentary systems they're scarcely the same thing, I doubt there will be as much change as one's imagination might run with (though some shifts in power away from the executive would be bound to occur).

I don't know what the cut off from where a bill needs to pass both the House and Senate to become a law and where it need only go through the House would be. The more deliberative Senate can definitely keep out truly objectionable bills from becoming law, but at the same time why should a group of Senators potentially representing a mere fraction of the country's population halt the business of the nation? I couldn't begin to work out the details since I'm not Framer, but my suggestion would have a Senate weaker than it is now but stronger than the House of Lords has ever been.

As for the bureaucracies, don't let their regulations have the force of law but rather make Congress vote to authorize every new initiative. This way you can't have a situation like the EPA planning to impose by fiat what has failed to pass in the 111th Congress and the 112th has no intention of passing. Whatever you might think of the merits of this or other regulations, there's nothing democratic at all about an implementation like that. In the event that authorizing every new initiative is unworkable or politically impossible, require Congress to renew its authorization for these agencies at a set interval. For ideological consistency I'd say every new Congress, but 6-10 years also woudn't be a bad thing. Basically don't allow Congress to abdicate its authority to federal agencies. Constant justification would be a check on potential abuses. What's not to like about a government agency having to prove its right to keep on existing every decade or so?

My two cents, anyway. Just some cries in the wilderness.

Ugh. Too long.

@ray:

Oh, perish the THOUGHT! I have far better things to do with my life than to play the sad suckup game that IS politics...

@abgemacht:

Like I said, the kids can CHANGE their career path at any time, I'm just saying that they should BE ABLE to specialized by the time they start 19th grade--that'd be about 14 or 15...

Why, in older times that'd be old enough for a boy to start working as an apprentice if so he chose--why should it be any different now?

No one's going tpo force a kid to specialize or to stick with a physics-based career path if he should choose to pick a more English-oriented career...but HE SHOULD HAVE THAT CHOICE TO GET AHEAD IF SO HE WISHED, THAT'S my point.

I am no psychologist, and never hope to be one, but I AM of the opinion that kids act, to a certain degree, as mature and intelligently as you treat them--give the the chance to take some control over their lives and allow them to make choices in what they want to learn os as to play to their strengths, rather than forcing every child into a cookie-cutter system, and I believe you will not only see smarter adn more world-capable students coming out the other side, but HAPPIER students as well, as they get to learn more of what they want with more of the sort of crowd that they would care to associate with.

Likes with likes--Plato suggested it 2,500 years ago or so, and it's as valid today as it was then.



As for those who ask how educational reform has anything to do with governmental reform...

It ALL starts with the kids--get a grassroots movement of reform and children used to change and new ideals and allow a new government to be built upon THAT foundation.

If you rebuild a football team, you don't do so with an old system and old players--you draft players and quite often hire a new coach and staff (as a 49ers fan this has become all too familiar to me in recent years.)

You build form the ground up...case in point, I'd say, would be the American Colonists.

What sort of philosophy did the Founding Fathers grow up with?

The beginning of the Englightenment, Locke's "Second Treatise of Government" having been published a century earlier and Hobbes' "Leviathan" a generation before his.

These two texts form the foundation of the American political ideology as well as, arguably, the foudnation upon which American liberalism--those who would side more with Locke's view that equality and inherent human goodness takes precedent BEFORE governmental protection or authoritarian or militaristic rule---and conservatism--the view that PROTECTION, not huamn goodness, is first and foremost, and so a strong sense of authority and military protection precedes all but the most essential liberties in governing.

The Founders grew up with Locke and Hobbes, and as a result...well, look at the american Declaration of Independence and the influence of Locke in extremely apparent, even down to the choice of langauge, and while the structure of the government mostly mirrors Locke's idea (with a few changes, most notably the introduction of a Judicial Branch) the Executive Branch, especially from WWII onward, really DOES act as the sort of powerfully-protecting Leviathan figure that Hobbes envisioned, as while he certainly preferred a monarch or dictator he also DDI provide for the possibility of a strong elected leader or council, and so the Presidency as it is today may be seen as Hobbes' Leviathan leader softened by Locke's systematic Seperation of Powers.

ALL of this came from the Founders growing up in the atmosphere of such ideas, whether they initially rejected them or not.



Subject our children to a system in which they are responsible for a greater degree of their success and success isn't treated as jsut a universal, "everyone's special" nothing but rather TRULY extraordinary...

And I truly think this will produce students and later citizens and leaders that are more responsible in their LIVES and for their ACTIONS as a result, as this IS a huge issue in American government today, the finger-pointing game rather than any sense of culpability; look no further than the absurdity of liberals calling out the conservative's gun-toting metaphors and the conservatives--particularly Palin--playing the victims now after the Tuscon shooting.

NO CULPABILITY MEANS NO ACTION.

Let students learn responsibility. It's more important than math, English, science, and history all put together.

(Also sorry about the SEVERE lateness of my reply, must have slipped my radar...and as for my posts being long...I don't know, it doesn't take me too long, I've learned to type relatively fast and the ideas are there--I just have a lot to say I guess...whether or not that's beautiful or bullshit is up for you to determine, though I'd guess it's somewhere in between...and depending on the day and psot perhaps a bit better sometimes and a bit more bullshit others.) ;)

What to do?

LESS rights for the individual states
MORE power to the central government
LESS checks to the power of the state. Right now US cant decide on anything it seems. Senate and/or House of Reps (or whatever it is called) take turns in blocking any important reforms at all it seems