News What Does America Really Mean in Modern Governance?

[jimmie]

do you know what "America" is?

President Bush uses the phrase "defend America", often.

Is there a common definition as to exactly what "America" is?

 

[rachmaninoff]

Yes, in context it's an informal name for the country called the "United States of America", which is a much longer country name than say, "Spain". The official 'short form' of the country is "United States". Most people call it "America". Occasionaly it also refers to the entire region of the North and South Americas, as in "Interamerican trade".

 

[cronxeh]

I'm pretty sure that includes North, Central, and South America for economic as well as historic reasons (Monroe doctrine, Cuban missile crisis, etc)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Americas

 

[pattylou]

President Bush uses the phrase "defend America", often.

Is there a common definition as to exactly what "America" is?

His actions seem more in line with defending the "american lifestyle." This is just about as hard to define, or perhaps harder. His actions have eroded what "america" means to me. He has destroyed america from my perspective. It ain't the country it was five years ago.

 

[hitssquad]

in context it's an informal name for the country called the "United States of America", which is a much longer country name than say, "Spain".

Actually, the name Spain itself is short for the Kingdom of Spain.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/sp.html#Govt

 

[Echo 6 Sierra]

He has destroyed america from my perspective. It ain't the country it was five years ago.

A Yankee Dime for Pattylou!

 

[pattylou]

What's that worth these days? About three cents?

 

[Smurf]

His actions seem more in line with defending the "american lifestyle." This is just about as hard to define, or perhaps harder. His actions have eroded what "america" means to me. He has destroyed america from my perspective. It ain't the country it was five years ago.

You'll forgive me if I never regarded it in high esteem in the first place.

 

[Tarheel]

His actions seem more in line with defending the "american lifestyle."

Just think how happy the Iraqi's will be once they are able to launch their own versions of The Jerry Springer Show and Desperate Housewives.
Oh the Freedom

 

[TRCSF]

In this context it means Iraqi oil.

 

[pattylou]

You'll forgive me if I never regarded it in high esteem in the first place.

Yeah. Well. You know.

 

[Informal Logic]

President Bush uses the phrase "defend America", often.

Is there a common definition as to exactly what "America" is?

pattylou's perspective that the reference is to the American way of life is one aspect, and probably more applicable to terrorism. But in other instances, such as the invasion of Iraq, it is a twisting of terms to gain support. For example, changing the 'Department of War' to the 'Department of Defense' -- it sounds a lot better, right?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

President Bush uses the phrase "defend America", often.

Is there a common definition as to exactly what "America" is?

The US is literally defined by the U.S. Constitution. This is what soldiers, Supreme Court Justices, and Presidents are sworn to defend. When a US soldier dies while fighting a war, in principle he or she dies for the Constitution. At least, that's how it's supposed to work...

 

[Anttech]

When a US soldier dies while fighting a war, in principle he or she dies for the Constitution. At least, that's how it's supposed to work...

So how could anyone justifiably say that a soldier who has died in the Iraq war was defending the Constitution?

 

[TRCSF]

So how could anyone justifiably say that a soldier who has died in the Iraq war was defending the Constitution?

Who's saying it's justifiable?

 

[Anttech]

Who's saying it's justifiable?

I'll take that as 'nobody could'. If that is the case, then isn't the Iraq war unconstitution, and thus Bush has comitted treason against the constitution

 

[Ivan Seeking]

So how could anyone justifiably say that a soldier who has died in the Iraq war was defending the Constitution?

Well, that's why Bush tries to make this a war on terror. But beyond that we do have the Truman doctrine which declared that we are the policemen of the world. We use this rationale to justify intervention when American interests are not directly at stake. That is, we view freedom as a right of all people be they Americans or not.

 

[Anttech]

The Truman doctrine states that the United States would support "free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures."

I can't see how this can be used as a rational to start a war in Iraq, unless "armed minorities" can also mean goverments...

Has any antiwar campaigners used this slat againt Bush (that the war in unconstitution)?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The war in Iraq was justified by the alleged threat of WMDs. When we didn't find any, the focus shifted to "freeing the Iraqi oil...I mean, people".

But for the record, I believe the war is unconstitutional, and I think Congress and the American people have failed to do their jobs.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Has any antiwar campaigners used this slat againt Bush (that the war in unconstitution)?

Yes, based on the idea that the Bush administration hid information from Congress. And even though he did lie and obfuscate, it seems that too many Americans now find this sort of behavior acceptable; that is, as long as people are dying and not just getting easy sex.

 

[Andre]

Although in hindsight it appears that Ivan is 100% correct, yet it might be a lot more complicated. There is that individual human uncertainty factor and the perception of threat which causes a slippery slope upwards. In the tension of the game, the intell guys interpret anything as a worst case. Worst cases are compiled together and bingo Iraq is loaded with WMD.

I'm convinced that GWB, whatever you may think of him - and I'm no fan of his, believe me, had no other information than that and he feeled that he had no other option but to handle the way he did. It's not a conspiracy, just a complicated maze of human interaction, filling in the blanks with fear.

 

[Echo 6 Sierra]

What's that worth these days? About three cents?

Depends on who's giving it. For those of you that don't know, a Yankee Dime is a quick smooch on the cheek.

 

[Echo 6 Sierra]

I like Ivan's definition of the Constitution being what America "is". I'm pretty sure the Framers had no idea that the more recent and most current events would have been made possible by a complete graying of the whole paper.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Andre, I would agree were it not for the information known to have been withheld from congress. It may not have been Bush, but people around him knew that the case for WMDs, and in particular the aluminum tubes, was weaker than they claimed. Even Powell has talked about this directly.

But the most important point is even after we knew all of this, he got re-elected: That was a crime.

 

[pattylou]

Depends on who's giving it. For those of you that don't know, a Yankee Dime is a quick smooch on the cheek.

Oh honey. I had no idea.

 

[jimmie]

it is a twisting of terms to gain support.

I can understand that, but do not agree with that.

Twisting terms, spin-doctors, gray areas.

I believe in morals. Right is right. Period. Either an action is right or it is not right. No middle ground. On or off.

An individual can talk about 'justifiable' actions, but a justifiable action is not a right action.

I think that particular individuals either elected or appointed to an office have either become dizzy/confused (twisting terms, spin-doctors, inside the gray area) as to what the word "right" means, or they do not care about what the word "right" means and what it represents.

And even though he did lie and obfuscate, it seems that too many Americans now find this sort of behavior acceptable

BUSH April 10, 2001

"This administration is doing everything we can to end the stalemate in an efficient way. We're making the right decisions to bring the solution to an end."

If we as human beings lose sight of what the word "right" represents, and find that sort of behavior acceptable, then anything goes. And I mean anything. Everything can be justifiable. Suicide bombers--go for it. Terrorism--do your worst. Nation A invades nation B-- did it before, can do it again. Errors in 'intelligence' gathering--relax, we're working on it. Economic sanctions--they don't deserve food.

All shall be lost because one side believes they are right, and the other side believes that they are right. Neither side is right because there is no side, and believing that one is on a 'side' precludes the possibility of that one attaining right perception and being "right".

If human beings that currently govern the planet cannot agree what the word "right" represents (order, peace, truth, not duality) then any action by any human at any point is 'OK', and 'good-to-go', and 'alright'.

And nothing shall be right.

 

[jimmie]

So, is "America" "right"?

 

[Archon]

So, is "America" "right"?

Where have you been living for the past five years?!

 

[jimmie]

uhh... Canada.

And after reading your response, Archon, (the smilie gave it away), it occurred to me that my previous question could be construed as: Is America "right-wing"?

So, one more question: Is right-wing America "right"?

 

[Archon]

uhh... Canada.

And after reading your response, Archon, (the smilie gave it away), it occurred to me that my previous question could be construed as: Is America "right-wing"?

So, one more question: Is right-wing America "right"?

I interpreted it as meaning "are America's actions correct." Given the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, the domestic and foreign policy bungles, etc, I think the answer is clearly "no." But of course, this depends on your definition of America. You could argue that the idea behind America is "right" (in the sense of noble and good), but current administration is another story entirely.

Your new question: it depends on what your definitions of "right" and "is" are. Seriously, I think I addressed this question above.

 

[jimmie]

I interpreted it as meaning "are America's actions correct."

And after reading your response, Archon, (the smilie gave it away), it occurred to me that my previous question could be construed as: Is America "right-wing"?

Uhh..OK... I blew that speculation out of the water.

But your last post brought up a very important point.

You could argue that the idea behind America is "right" (in the sense of noble and good), but current administration is another story entirely.

I believe that "right" is non-changing and absolute. In the sense of noble and good and that the IDEA behind America is "right", the fact that a system (democracy) allows a variable (administration) to 'twist' the constant word "right" to suit its own agenda and what its IDEA of "right" is, is not "right".

Right?

 

[Echo 6 Sierra]

I believe that "right" is non-changing and absolute. In the sense of noble and good and that the IDEA behind America is "right", the fact that a system (democracy) allows a variable (administration) to 'twist' the constant word "right" to suit its own agenda and what its IDEA of "right" is, is not "right".Right?

Exactly. It depends on who is using the word and what position of government they occupy. Can anyone pinpoint when the US Presidency became Grift Central for me? Or, which Administration started the overtly crooked dealings and twisting of the word of the law to suit their agenda?

 

[jimmie]

Can anyone pinpoint when the US Presidency became Grift Central for me?

yeah, the year 1776. At that point, they made the particular (which they thought was the whole) the precedent. Of course, at that point, the founders believed they were creating a whole by uniting the particular states, "one nation under God". And at that point in their minds, they did create a whole. A whole in a particular geographic location.

The year 2005. The U.S. is but one state among 192 other particular states.

Should the very words and intent that the U.S. was founded upon be used again to unite all the particular geographic states on the planet to form one united whole?

 

[loseyourname]

I believe that "right" is non-changing and absolute. In the sense of noble and good and that the IDEA behind America is "right", the fact that a system (democracy) allows a variable (administration) to 'twist' the constant word "right" to suit its own agenda and what its IDEA of "right" is, is not "right".

Right?

If that is what you mean by "right," then no government can ever be right. If you invest power in a leadership structure, you always run the risk of people coming to power who will do things that not everyone agrees are morally appropriate. On the other hand, if you have no leadership structure and invest all power directly in the hands of the populace, you run the same risk, only that this time the people themselves will do things that are not right. The best you can do is to have a rule of law that states clearly and unequivocably what is right and that sets up a balance of power to ensure that what is right is what will be done. That is what any constitutional republic tries to do, and none have ever done so perfectly. Even the perfect government does not ensure the perfect country or perfect actions. That requires a confluence of perfect culture and circumstances as well. Good luck finding those.

 

[loseyourname]

Exactly. It depends on who is using the word and what position of government they occupy. Can anyone pinpoint when the US Presidency became Grift Central for me? Or, which Administration started the overtly crooked dealings and twisting of the word of the law to suit their agenda?

I don't know about 1776. Plenty of constitutional compromises were made to balance particular agendas, and there were problems with vice presidents who were adversaries of the presidents they worked under early on. The first administration I can think of that may have had ulterior motives in a policy decision was the Monroe administration. The Monroe was explicitly designed to keep European colonialism out of the Americas for good, but on the other hand, it created a near de facto colonialism of the US on its American neighbors. The earliest overtly crooked administration I can think is the Jackson administration.

 

[jimmie]

If that is what you mean by "right," then no government can ever be right.

What about one true world government?

 

[loseyourname]

What about one true world government?

Why would that be any different? World leaders can be just as corrupt and bad as national leaders. The only thing you'll eliminate by creating a single world government is governments going to war against other governments.

Heck, even in Star Trek it took the discovery of extraterrestrial life to unite all of the world's nations in peace. Then humans perpetrated their wars on other species instead.

 

[jimmie]

Why would that be any different?

Because with a true world government, all things are in their place and know their place. There is order. There is not politics.

World leaders can be just as corrupt and bad as national leaders.

There would be no world leaders, because the world would have already been lead out of duality and into oneness; only particular individual(s) that function as a meeting place for the various industries that participate in mass-production. A head office that is not that big of deal really. And all individuals have immediate and direct access to the head office.

Such a government would allow all individuals to live their life as they see fit, without fear or competition.

Heck, even in Star Trek it took the discovery of extraterrestrial life to unite all of the world's nations in peace.

Define the word "extraterrestrial".

 

[loseyourname]

All right, I have to admit I can't really tell what you mean at this point with oneness and direct access to the head office. You'll have to be somewhat more specific on why a world government would be any different than any other government in any way other than scale and scope of power.

Do I really need to define the word "extraterrestrial?" I suppose if you take the etymology literally, you could interpret marine creatures as being extraterrestrial; that isn't what I mean if you're confused about that. Anyway, the Star Trek comment is tangential; it really isn't pertinent.

 

[jimmie]

Do I really need to define the word "extraterrestrial?

yeah, I know, I was just playing.

You'll have to be somewhat more specific on why a world government would be any different than any other government in any way

OK...first forget about the current situation on the planet, temporarily.

Lets start with a clean slate. Earth, humans, current technological know-how.

Humans need material things (products) to survive. Earth is the only source of materials to mass-produce those products. The planet is able to sustain life indefinitely if materials from the planet are converted from their natural state into an other state, in balance.

A true world government would consist of a nucleus/head office, where all industries (industry) meet to confer about improvements to industry, including and not limited to technological advancements, distribution, and creation of other mass-produced products, that are NEEDED.

A true world government ensures that ALL individuals are able to purchase either a 'high-tech' version or a 'low-tech' version of any particular type of product. Rest assured, all individuals have that which is needed in some particular form. And food (a wide variety of fresh fruits and vegetables, nuts, grains, seeds) and fresh water (preferably distilled) are plentiful, as always, but always DISTRIBUTED where NEEDED. Other food that individuals may 'want', such as meats, are left up to the individual to acquire.

Perhaps an individual has an idea about industry. That individual has direct and immediate access to the head office so as to confer about that idea. All individuals play an objective part outside of industry because they are not a part "inside" industry.

Gone are the days of salesmen 'pitching their wares'. Magazines ads, TV ads, radio ads, billboards, banner ads, sponsorships, lobbyists, product 'tie-ins', movie product placements, "celebrity" endorsements, telephone solicitors, door-to-door-sales, et al. Never to happen again.

Many more details. But that's the basic idea. Period.

Now, back to the current situation on the planet.

Humans are getting their collective a***s kicked by industry. Many individuals perceive that industry is in control and many individuals within industry perhaps believe that they are in control. Chaos is everywhere because industry (action) is at the helm, and it does not belong there. Non-action (objectivity) belongs at the helm, that rules all industry.

The fox has been in charge of the hen-house for all of history, and the hen-house is in ruin, almost beyond the point of no repair. Almost.

For the hen-house to survive (and ultimately the fox), the fox must be put in its place. OUTSIDE the hen-house.

I guess that's about it. I'll be in my ready-room. You have the comm #1.

 

[loseyourname]

Humans are getting their collective asses kicked by government as much as by industry, probably moreso. Any leadership structure that is invested with the power you are talking about runs the risk of being infected by negative elements. A perfect government requires perfect governors and no such thing exists. I would think that if you're going to seriously enlarging the scope of government to cover the entire world and invest the power to distribute resources to every single person on the planet, you're going to have to do an awful lot to ensure that the leadership structure can never fall prey to bad leadership. How would you do this? Bad leadership doesn't even require that the leader be corrupt or malicious. The best-intentioned person in the world can still make grave mistakes. Taking away all local autonomy would create a huge amount of bureaucracy, making the government naturally inflexible in that it would take a long time to respond to crises. When the inevitable crisis does occur, then what?

Not to say that a world government couldn't work, but I definitely do not think we are anywhere near ready for such a thing. A sense of worldwide identity and interest would need to be created and defined before such a thing could even be realistically imagined.

It almost sounds more like you're proposing a worldwide industrial monopoly on the production and distribution of goods. In theory, that might not be the worst thing for certain industries. We already see similar situations with mail delivery and utilities and such (although, strangely enough, the USPS and electric companies still feel the need to advertise, even though one has no choice but to use them).

 

[jimmie]

what I'm saying is that there would be no "leaders".

All the leading already took place, getting us out of the hen-house. The hard part is done and over with.

All that is left to do is for ALL individuals to manage their own particular actions, and know that a product shall be mass-produced ONLY if it is needed.

All the factories doing the manufacturing? Individuals know how to operate and maintain them. Materials acquisitions? Individuals know about engineering, Earth sciences. Mass-distribution? Individuals know how to operate ships, trains, vehicles. Logistics? Individuals know about software programs that deal with such details.

A perfect government requires perfect governors and no such thing exists.

Actually, a perfect government is no government at all. And that is what a true world government is.

There is no government. There is no nations. There is no system.

There is only individuals that thought there was a government, thought there was nations, thought there was a system. And then they thought that those thoughts took precedence over any individual. And that was the mistake.

Then along came a catalyst that wiped the slate clean, to allow those individuals to live their lives as they choose they should. Without fear. Without competition. In control of themselves, and working together for the common good.

the power you are talking about runs the risk of being infected by negative elements.

I recommend you not worry about 'negative elements'. Those 'negative elements' were on the slate, just prior to it being WIPED CLEAN.