...you really mean this...?!?! Good God NO! If all my options to educate were about me memorising stuff and repeating in public, I would probably choose illeteracy instead And trust me, it wouldn't be based on my alleged fear of public presentations as much as on my complete indignation against memorising. As if one can't be productive instead of repetitive.
Besides, what is going on in the inside is what really matters and not how things appear to be. International politics are about the real world. And anyways... I would surely want to know in what way my governement is using my nation's power on the outside. I would really care if a governement would endanger my country's well-being or not by their international moves, and I would really really care to make sure my governement are using their power to create and not to destroy. All in all, I would want to know what my governement do with the power we give them a whole deal more than memorising and repeating. It is not such a great mental process after all. Understanding the world you live in, is.
As for my political inclinations, I can't really tell. I try to keep an eye on whatever is going on in my country and in the world in general, but I don't trust politicians in these days. I have my own ideas and opinions, they just have no representation in the official political arena

Maybe we could solve all this by doing both... studying (inter)national politics, writing a presentation, and then memorizing and presenting it. Then one learns "public" speaking, opinion-forming skills, writing, memorization, and real-world politics all at once.

=)

~Odyssey

OK... here is what I meant... you have to get a general idea of what is going on in the outside world, not to be taught into fanatism and the "mine-yours-his" thing. I agree with you on that. But I would not wake up a morning and find myself caught up in the middle of a war that I never suspected the night before, for instance. Besides, knowledge cannot hurt, even if its object it can't be changed
As far as memorising is concerned... I just consider it to be a mean, not a goal. I mean, what is there to be taught of...? It is a skill, a tool, and so is the presentation one... I don't really disagree with you, I just find your perspective strange (in the sense that it is different than mine... no insult meant...) By the way, I can't imagine that shooting a gun or ennemosity among nations are taught in many schools out there Anywayz... having been forced to memorise in university, I do indeed find it a useless process; isn't the main goal to actually learn...?

(I have to say this... if, by any chance, I sound aggressive or absolute, trust me I am not. I am on a foreign language and on written dialogue... not at my very best )

Yes. You said it well. Memorising and presentation skills are very useful tools but it does only harm if you think the mere tool is the goal.

IMO, that's really not that scary. I'm learning about the presidential candidates so I can make an informed decision on who to vote for and I really hope that candidate emerges as strong runner, but quite honestly, if it all comes down to it I will vote for whoever I think can beat Bush. It would be optimal if we all felt comfortable voting for our candidate regardless of his standing in the race, but given the last presidential election, I think many people are scared into voting for the front runner lest Bush have another term. That so many people recognize what a terrible leader he is strikes me as at least one positive thing revealed in our presidential election... maybe not the best positive thing we could hope for... but at least one.

(I've edited my original reply, it seemed a bit to INTJ which I sometimes lapse into)

It is funny that I originally disliked this George Bush guy 4 years ago, and the more critism that is made of him the more I like him. Perhaps because I am not American, I see very little difference in the Democrats and Republicans. The things the Democratic complain about can be used right back at them whenever they are in power. Wasn't welfare made more restrictive under Clinton? Clinton bombed Serbia. Clinton invaded Kosov (Serbia) without UN approval. Clinton first started the process of outsting Sadam. Clinton launched missiles into Afghanistan to destroy Al Qaeda.


Comments such as:

"only those Wall Street "money gamers" and self-dealing "management aristocrats" of Corporate America are dizzy with their huge bonuses, padded salaries, and self-dealt stock options."

can be dismissed. This type of comment has been used for centuries. The same old complaint. Other people are making money. I ignore jealousy. Also it is a lie. Those people are not the only ones making money in the USA. And if they were, I would still be happy for them.

"The remaining hard working Americans cannot eat "GDP.""

This is a misleading statement. There is no mass starvation or food problem in the USA. Nobody needs to eat GDP under the current economy conditions.
Also if people are hard working then they have enough money to eat.


"The U.S. has widening income gap between a few "haves" and many "have-nots.""

If absolute poverty is say $0 a year and wealth keeps increaing every year then the limit to wealth is infinite. Therefore there will always be an increasing income gap between those who do not work and those that do.

"Just to keep up with her population growth, the U.S. needs to create about 230,000 jobs a month"

230000X12 = 2.76 million jobs/year
population of USA is aproximately 280 million. growth rate is less than 1% /year.
=approximately 2.8 million people/year
the math looks good except that children and retired people do not need jobs, and not everybody is looking for work (like students)

also
"Last month, however, the U.S. only created 115,000 jobs."
"The unemployed rate of January this year was 5.6%, dipping only 0.1 percentage point."
so less than 230000 jobs were created and the unemployment rate went down.
obviously the math doesn't add up, even with people who have "given up" looking for work and people having "settle" with part time and lower paying jobs.
Also 5.6% is very low unemployement by world standards. Amazing job.
That would be assuming that the government actually controls the economy. The day Bush was elected the economy suddenly went to hell, not buying it.

I can reverse this statement too. Let's pretend a Democrat is in power.
"The unemployment rate this year was 5.6%, dropping an amazing .1 in just a month. By the end of the year with democrats creating 115000 jobs a month the unemployment rate should be down to 4.5%. And there is also the phenomena of people jumping back into looking for work as the economy prospers therefore the rate should actually be lower than it shows."



"In my class, he declared that "people are poor because they are lazy." He was opposed to labor unions, social security, environmental protection, Medicare, and public schools. To him, the antitrust watch dog, the Federal Trade Commission, and the Securities Exchange Commission were unnecessary hindrances to "free market competition." To him, Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal was "socialism.""

This statement might appeal to some, but to me it makes me trust Bush even more.


"This was the same kind of income distribution that the U.S. built during the McKinley-Gilded Age."
...which led to more and more prosperity and jobs...I'd be interested in seeing unemployment rates around that period of time.

"And America embarked on her imperialistic expansions of colonising Cuba, Panama, and the Philippines."

...all of which are so much better off now without America. What's their unemployement rate? Actually I am curious as to this colonisation. I don't recall Americans moving to these nations in mass proportions and the USA claiming them as territories. Obviously the author's intention is to somehow equate colonisation (which is suppoedly bad) with Bush and the military invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. However, I can't imagine Americans moving in their masses to either country. It also seems that those two countires will indeed be independent states.

It seems to me that most people are interested in intentions rather than results.