America Thrives on a "Free Market" economy, right?
Wrong! If we did have a "free market" economy, there would be NO government intervention or oversight of anything. Businesses would regulate themselves without any government intrusion or regulation. That's the definition of "free market" after all. There wouldn't be any such thing as "anti-trust" or the Sherman Act, nor would there be agencies like the FCC, FDA or the SEC.
America is a "Democracy". Right?
Wrong again! Technically, our current governmental system is a hybrid of multiple classic systems. Part "republic", part "capitalist", part "oligarchy" (whether you believe it or not), and part "corporation". After all, what is the Federal Reserve? Think you know? Go check it out.
The Federal Reserve is a Government Agency. Right?
Nope. It's a group of private bankers who form a board with "limited" oversight by a government representative. The names of the members of the board are not shared with the public. They are kept secret. They control a significant portion of our financial system, and hence our national existence and stability, yet they are not a government entity. Think about that for a moment.
Presidents are elected by Popular Vote. Right?
Completely false. The popular vote, which are the votes cast by "ordinary citizens", whatever that means, are simply used as a guidance for the Electoral College. The Electoral College is a body of representatives who cast their vote to determine the winner of the presidential election. There have been two cases in American history when the Electoral College cast their vote in opposition to the popular vote. This occurred in 1876, 1888, 1824 and 2000. Still think we have a "democracy"?
A "Monopoly" is Illegal in the U.S.
Wrong. Some monopolies are allowed. The Anti Trust act and subsequent addendums simply provide the means and the legal ability for the government to intervene and take action to prevent or remove a monopoly if deemed necessary for the national interest.
A "Commonwealth" is not a "State". Right?
At one time that was true, and it held legal significance. Differences in legal rights or policies that exist today are not directly associated with the title "commonwealth" but rather with the government of each body (state, commonwealth).
An American Citizen Can "Own" Land. Right?
Sort of. In most cases a citizen owns "rights" to use land or live upon it, under some restrictions or conditions (local codes and restrictions for example). Rarely does an individual own unlimited rights to their land. For example, "mineral" or "drilling" rights, should oil, or precious minerals. Regardless, local, state and federal government may occupy or sieze land owned by a citizen under the right of "eminent domain" for reasons which affect national security, or special public interests (highway construction, facilities construction, toxic material removal, and so on).
American Currency is Based on Gold. Right?
Wow, where have you been? The Bretton-Woods Agreement, signed in 1944, effectively ended the use of Gold as a basis of value for currency in America. The "value" of our money is simply an agreed-upon reference that is monitored and regulated, with limited effect, by our government, and the Federal Reserve.
"One Nation, Under God"...
The words "Under God" were officially added to the Pledge of Allegiance by President Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1954. The words were not officially part of the Pledge prior to that, even though they were publicly accepted and used as early as 1951.
The Truth?
Do they teach these "caveats" to kids in our public schools? I've never seen or heard of it anywhere. None of my four kids have ever been taught any of this, even though it is all public information that is easily accessible from official sources such as local, state and federal government web sites, public libraries, country municipal agencies, and so on.
2 comments:
The major shortcoming of the current system of electing the President is that presidential candidates concentrate their attention on a handful of closely divided "battleground" states. 98% of the 2008 campaign events involving a presidential or vice-presidential candidate occurred in just 15 closely divided “battleground” states. Over half (57%) of the events were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Virginia). Similarly, 98% of ad spending took place in these 15 “battleground” states. Similarly, in 2004, candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their money and campaign visits in five states and over 99% of their money in 16 states. Two-thirds of the states and people have been merely spectators to the presidential elections. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or worry about the voter concerns in states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. The reason for this is the winner-take-all rule enacted by 48 states, under which all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state.
Another shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. This has occurred in one of every 14 presidential elections.
In the past six decades, there have been six presidential elections in which a shift of a relatively small number of votes in one or two states would have elected (and, of course, in 2000, did elect) a presidential candidate who lost the popular vote nationwide.
Indeed, the presidential elections of 1876,and 1888 were decided by the electoral college in contrast with the popular vote. In 1824 the electoral college was indecisive and the vote was decided by the House of Representatives. Indecision is decidedly indecisive it seems.
Post a Comment