The U.N. is none of those things you attributed to it. The U.N. is a group of nations trying to get as much as possible for their respective countries. The reason the food for oil program didn't work in Saddam's Iraq is because the same countries that voted for the program were benefitting from it by violating it.

Sorry for the delayed rebuttal. This response just got overlooked.

In my previous comment I was trying to be more glib than I was succinct, so forgive me if I didn't transmit my intention wholly. Public education is an extra-constitutional idea/institution. The federal government has no authority to fund, withhold funds from, or compel, a public education system. This is a matter that should be left up to the states.

If you're really concerned about educating the poor, however, we should develop ubiquitous free wi-fi, cheap laptops, and online classes for every learning path and development stage. Rather than sending our children to indoctrination centers and conformance/authoritarian "learning" camps, let them follow their own educational path with tools developed by smart people.

There are a lot of completely constitutional ways of accomplishing this, but public education in its current incarnation in the US is a joke.

As for the UN thing, it undermines not only our constitution and the principles this country was founded upon, but it compromises our sovereignty as a nation.

"We the people" is the idea that the people whom the government represents choose their representatives in a democratic process. When we relinquish our sovereignty to powers which are not democratically elected by the people of our nation, we have compromised our most essential foundations.

Being a good global neighbor doesn't require signing away the voice of the people.

How does what I wrote smack of communism Joe? Please explain.

Many of the things I said I want America to be are things that America once was and I just want to return to and then improve. Also none of this goes against human nature it just goes against capitalism, where I'll admit in american and many other places is accepted as human nature. There are many nations that have a form of universal health care and not only are they not communist but they will probably never be, such examples include Canada and most of Western Europe.

Are you against helping the poor because it is "communist". Helping the poor is just the wish to help your fellow human being, something I consider to be a natural and basic human instinct; any political or economic system can allow helping those in need and thus to say that any attempt to help the poor is communist seems rather ignorant and indifferent.

It's funny Bradford. It's 3 AM and I came down to write about the same thing.

I was in a big argument with someone that (from my point of view) has wrapped herself in causes, labels, agendas etc. In my mind she has made these things part of who she is. This makes it difficult to talk to her because if you say anything that can be construed as being against the cause then you are against the cause; and if you're against the cause, you're against her and are thus attacking her. This makes it difficult to have a conversation.

When I started thinking about how difficult it was to have a conversation with her, I started drawing parallels to political correctness. I see political correctness as shackles placed on the majority by the minority. The intent is to keep the majority from trampling on the little guy. But the problem is that some little guys have used this to trampled all over the big guy. This act is then portrayed as not being harmful to the big guy and as due compensation for the years where the big guy trampled all over the little guy. The thing is that trampling is not right and it eventually forces the one being trampled to over react and the pendulum swings too far to the other side.

The caricature I have on my head is an elephant standing on a chair in the corner of a room. One foot on the chair and the other 3 rearing back in fear, eyes wide with fear and a little mouse on the floor keeping him in check, If the elephant dares to move even just an inch, the mouse cries racism, sexism or some such thing to get the elephant back in line.

The problem with this caricature is that it is how I see it, not how the other side sees it. The other side sees an elephant not paying attention to the harm his actions are causing. The elephant is so big in this room that every time he moves he inadvertently destroys something or tramples on the little guy.

We are all aware of when we are being trampled on and we identify with a particular group. The group we identify with is the group that feels trampled when we feel trampled. That's why nations (for the most part) put their differences away and unite when they are attacked and fighting a common enemy. The enemy is doing the trampling. But I digress. The point is that once an individual joins a particular group, the perception of being trampled is magnified, the individual becomes more sensitive to it and sees it everywhere because he's looking for it so he's bound to find it. If the thing you are looking at is being magnified by your brain or feelings, you describe them as much larger than they really are. The other side doesn't see the thing magnified because it doesn't affect them (it doesn't trample them) so they can't understand the first side and claim that the first side exaggerating. The thing is that they are both doing it and thus talk past each other. They are both identifying with a group and magnifying their problems.

To recap. When one group gains the upper hand, they push their agenda (this is just human nature. no group is immune from this.) to the detriment of the other groups. If it becomes super strong, the other groups will experience evil and eventually over react. Each individual thinks he knows the tipping point.

People shouldn't pick sides. Picking sides closes your mind to the plight of the other side. A closed mind is not conducive to a rational conversation and communication breaks down. Communication break down leads to battles.

No, not the poor..... the weak..... those not strong enough to survive should be left to perish in order to strengthen the human herd.

For example, a buffalo herd is made faster and stronger by predators that pick off the weakest and slowest in the herd.

So, if I'm ever on life support, just pull the plug. No sense in wasting energy ;)