It's really not that complicated.

Generation 1 are responsible for bringing up generation 2 to cope well with whatever is thrown at them.
If generation 2 fail to cope (come up with bad policies in response, or fail to reverse bad policies after they're no longer appropriate), then generation 1 has done something wrong (or failed to do something right).
Generation 2 are responsible for bringing up generation 3 to cope with whatever is thrown at them...

I don't understand why you're having such trouble comprehending such a simple concept.

If generation 2 implement, or fail to reverse, policies which are bad, then generation 1 has failed in their task of preparing them for whatever is thrown at them.

If such a situation has occurred (and I agree it has), it is patently foolish to look back to the approach which absolutely, without doubt, lead directly to where we now are. We have to change something about the previous approach otherwise we will just re-run the same process.

It's like you're setting a ball rolling down a hill, you're fine with it near the top whilst it's going quite slowly, soon it gets out of control and starts running away from you. Your solution is just to take the ball back to the top of the hill because you liked it there. But we know exactly what will happen if you start the same ball rolling down the same hill the same way. It will be fine for a while and then start running out of control, just like it did last time.

As for your faux offense, any complaints about the state of affairs implicitly blames someone (even if only of dereliction). If you want me to say nothing about the fault in your generation, why do you get to harp on about the faults in mine, or my descendents. — Isaac

Are you a parent? How old are your children? Most of us understand conditioning our children to be good children and that is about all we know about parenting. I have not found a child who could comprehend what talk about and without that discussion it is not possible to begin the discussion on what needs to be done. I am not convinced the necessary discussion can occur with you and you think you know a lot and appear to have some interest.

Even if a parent and all the children in that family understood what I am saying, they would be powerless to do any more than share the information with others and hope they join the effort to raise awareness and plan for something better. I have been trying to do that for many years and you can see how well that goes. The world is full of uninformed people who insist I do not know what I am talking and that prevents a discussion from going any further. So now please tell me what I can do to save our democracy and liberty. Take the responsibility. I am glad to give it to you.

You do not know as much as you think know, especially not my opinions about education past, present or future, and the discussion would go much better if you stopped assuming and started asking questions. Do I think the Dick and Jane early readers were the best books? No! Dick and Jane and all the other test books were racist and sexist!

Or wait. Just give me 8 democratic principles. Most older books list 10 or 12 principles so if you are literate surely you can tell us 8 of them. Explain what morals and science have to do with our liberty. If you can not do these things, you are not ready to prepare your children to defend the republic our forefathers gave us. If you are willing to take the responsibility you say I should take, and can not answer the questions, what are you going to do about that?

There is no way the US would have entered the first world war if schools and the media had not convinced the population that the US had to defend democracy. The US was isolationist and did not want to get involved. The US was protected by an ocean in the west and an ocean on the east and did not feel threatened by a land invasion. The technology for airfare was not well developed. It did not have enough trained typists, engineers, mechanics for war and didn't have that many people enlisted in military service. — Echarmion

Yeah, so why did the media convince an isolationist populace? Idealism for democracy? Possible, but then why not enter earlier? A more likely rationale is that, apart from pro-democratic sentiment, which certainly existed, there was also the matter of all the credit given to England and France. If they lost, that money would be gone. So there was a strong economic incentive to intervene. And America's behaviour in the interwar period was almost entirely focused on their economic interests.

Please share your source of that information so it can be discussed. There was a lot of defending of colonies but that was far from being prepared to fight off an invasion with an army equal to Germany's army. — Athena

I recommend "The Sleepwalkers" by Christopher Clark. But that all the european nations where gearing up for war in the early 20th century really is common (among people interested in the period) knowledge. You can probably read it on Wikipedia.

oldtimer: education was always meant to benefit the ruling elite. It is only when civilizations went from agricultural to industrial that the elite realized that the lower class/farmers needed to be educated so they could run complex equipment...and the rest is history

Yeah, so why did the media convince an isolationist populace? Idealism for democracy? Possible, but then why not enter earlier? A more likely rationale is that, apart from pro-democratic sentiment, which certainly existed, there was also the matter of all the credit given to England and France. If they lost, that money would be gone. So there was a strong economic incentive to intervene. And America's behaviour in the interwar period was almost entirely focused on their economic interests — Echarmion

.

Why not enter earlier is easy to understand! Number one, in the US government, does not tell the people what to do. The people tell government what to do. This is the meaning of a patriotic defense. Only when we accept a war is our patriot duty and the will of God does our congress agree to a war. Schools and the media were used to get US citizens to agree to the war.

Industry wanted to close our schools, claiming the war caused a labor shortage, but teachers argued an institution for making good citizens was good for making patriotic citizens. We could not have done so well in mobilizing for war and maintaining the war effort without our schools.

Secondly, the US was not prepared for war. We are not appreciating the technological crisis when we were a low technology, intense labor society, and women volunteered to knit socks for soldiers, and children used their lunch money to buy US bonds. People are thinking of war as we know it today, but this is how we came to know war because of Prussia. What we have today is very different from the past.

The Prussians took control of Germany following the 30 years war, and they central public education and focused it on technology for military and industrial purposes. The US did not have the typist, mechanics, and engineers need for modern warfare, because our education was about citizenship, and Americanizing immigrants, not vocational training. We did not have the trained manpower for a modern war.

Likewise, England's education was about character and being a good Englishman. It rejected Germany's education for technology because education for technology is a great social/economic leveler and England wanted to protect its classist society. The US education was about transmitting a culture, not about vocational training. The US did adopt Germany's education for technology in 1917 and this was a wonderful thing as it led to our growing middle class. Education for technology is vocational education and has always been for slaves. Our liberal education was for free men. Now we are back to education for slaves and we are in a cultural crisis. We don't care enough about education to understand such things. I doubt if anyone here has paid much attention to education. I am spent years studying this stuff, and because what I say is not in agreement with what everyone knows, I the person who doesn't know what she is talking about.

[qoute] I recommend "The Sleepwalkers" by Christopher Clark. But that all the european nations where gearing up for war in the early 20th century really is common (among people interested in the period) knowledge. You can probably read it on Wikipedia.
[/quote]

When the library opens I will check out the book.

I recommend "The Sleepwalkers" by Christopher Clark. But that all the european nations where gearing up for war in the early 20th century really is common (among people interested in the period) knowledge. You can probably read it on Wikipedia.

I will check it out.

Some countries were colonizing and using military force to defend their colonies. However, if they had been preparing for war, things would have been very different. I will allow Sarolea to explain.

"Under present conditions of international relations, as a continental Power, Germany needs no powerful navy but needs a powerful army. In at least one definite sense it may be said that to Germany the army is essentially defensive. On the contrary, England, as an insular and maritime Power, needs no mighty army but needs a mighty navy. In the same special sense to England, the navy is essentially the defensive weapon. To put the position and mutual relationship more clearly; if to-morrow England started raising a powerful army of 500,000 soldiers, assuming that it could not conceivably be directed against France and Russia, but that it could only be used in alliance with France and Russia in a joint attack against Germany, Germany would legitimately take alarm; and she would naturally argue that England would not make such tremendous sacrifices merely to send out an eventual punitive expedition to Nigeria or China. She would assume that England was preparing for an attack on Germany. And in just the same way when Germany is adding to her formidable army a formidable navy, which could only be used against England, she cannot wonder if her naval policy gives rise to the gravest apprehensions and if the English people draw the inevitable inference that Germany, if not indeed contemplating an immediate attack, is at least preparing for such an eventuality when she judges that its necessity has arisen".

Do you see a difference between colonial behaviors and the major powers paring for war against each other?

The problems around the world are challenging and I am not sure what part in them the US should play? But we can know this is not the first time a democracy became a defender of the world. — Athena

You're defining current US foreign policy as defending the world? Our destruction of Libya and Syria under Obama? Our futile invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan? Our incursions into Somalia and Niger?

I'm afraid you and I will need to agree to disagree. US foreign policy is not benign, is not about defending freedom, is not helping anyone. On Bush's watch the US became a torture regime, and under Obama the torture became institutionalized. This is wrong. It's evil.

Number one, in the US government, does not tell the people what to do. The people tell government what to do. This is the meaning of a patriotic defense. Only when we accept a war is our patriot duty and the will of God does our congress agree to a war. Schools and the media were used to get US citizens to agree to the war. — Athena

You realize this is contradictory, right? Americans decide for themselves, yet schools and media tell Americans what to decide.

The Prussians took control of Germany following the 30 years war, and they central public education and focused it on technology for military and industrial purposes. The US did not have the typist, mechanics, and engineers need for modern warfare, because our education was about citizenship, and Americanizing immigrants, not vocational training. We did not have the trained manpower for a modern war. — Athena

That didn't change before the US entered the war. It was after entering that the US rapidly set up what would become the most powerful military in the world. They could have started that process in 1914.

I am spent years studying this stuff, and because what I say is not in agreement with what everyone knows, I the person who doesn't know what she is talking about. — Athena

It'd help if you didn't paint history with a broad brush and made absurdly sounding claims like "vocational training is training for slaves".

Do you see a difference between colonial behaviors and the major powers paring for war against each other? — Athena

Sure. Imperial Germany's naval expansion was the great blunder of the 20th century. But you're forgetting that, while Britain did not have a large land army, France and Russia did. And it was the fear of the "Russian Steamroller", together with the characteristically Prussian penchant for fast and decisive military action regardless of the risks, that lead to Schlieffen.

You're defining current US foreign policy as defending the world? Our destruction of Libya and Syria under Obama? Our futile invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan? Our incursions into Somalia and Niger?

I'm afraid you and I will need to agree to disagree. US foreign policy is not benign, is not about defending freedom, is not helping anyone. On Bush's watch the US became a torture regime, and under Obama the torture became institutionalized. This is wrong. It's evil. — fishfry

Assuming is not a good thing. How about our trouble with Iran begins during the Eisenhower administration because he used the CIA to create a rebellion in Iran that took out the democratically elected leader and put in his place a tyrant because the US wanted to be sure it had control of Iran and not the USSR. That was a disaster as we brought in our troops making matters worse until the Iranians rebelled again and threw us out. I would be glad to go on about the wrongs done by our military-industrial complex, and how screwed the taxpayer is and how completely powerless we are if that is what people want to discuss. But that conversation would only be pathetic venting and do absolutely nothing to make things better. I am so angry about the perversion of our democracy and the place to make a difference is education.

Had we been paying the real price of oil from the 1950's until fracking, our gasoline would have cost at least as much as the Brits were paying for gasoline and many of us could not have afforded it because the real cost of oil is the military expense of controlling it and that went sky high during the Reagan administration when we took control of the Persian Gulf and granted arms to people like Sadam.

Bin Laden did not attack the people of the US. He attacked the military-industrial complex and we should have thanked him and taken advantage of this moment to take power away from the military-industrial complex but really is that our biggist problem compared to global warming and doing to our water supply what we have done to our oil supply, and -----

Does anyone remember when we thought our constitution prevented the federal government from controlling public education? How about remembering when the government could not track us through education, banking, and medical care and now our cell phones? What do you think of having to have a government-approved ID to ride public transportation? And that wall we are building with taxpayer money walls us in and well as walling others out. No more fleeing to Canada to avoid the draft and the No Child Left Behind bill mandates schools to give military recruiters students names and addresses.

Bring it on, dump your anger here, then maybe people will start taking discussion of education seriously. This is supposed to be a philosophy forum and this thread is about the military-industrial complex and culture change. I didn't think this forum got political. We were known around the world as a nation that stood against war. Iran loved us because we helped them get rid of British control. Making America great again did not mean a military power controlled by neocons and paid for by taxpayers. And our education was based on the Enlightenment, not technology for military and industrial purpose which I have said is education for slaves and is destroying our democracy.

It'd help if you didn't paint history with a broad brush and made absurdly sounding claims like "vocational training is training for slaves". — Echarmion

I will be back in a few minutes, but I just unloaded and then read your statement and I want to correct you. Liberal education is for free men. Education for technology has always been education for slaves. It most certainly is not education for free men prepared for leadership. It would be so much easier to have this discussion if people asked questions, instead of assuming things.

You realize this is contradictory, right? Americans decide for themselves, yet schools and media tell Americans what to decide. — Echarmion

What is contradictory? You doubt that public education was used to mobilize us for WWI and WWII? You doubt that was essential to congress approving the US entering the wars? Would you like quotes from my sources of information?

That didn't change before the US entered the war. It was after entering that the US rapidly set up what would become the most powerful military in the world. They could have started that process in 1914.

What didn't change before the US entered the war? The Prussian take over of Germany following the Thirty Years war?

Thirty Years' War - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Thirty_Years'_War
The Thirty Years' War was a war fought primarily in Central Europe between 1618 and 1648. It resulted in the deaths of over 8 million people, including 20 ... — Wikipedia

It'd help if you didn't paint history with a broad brush and made absurdly sounding claims like "vocational training is training for slaves".

I don't think a post the size of a book would work very well. No one would read a post that big, but providing some details of history is essential so I will.

Sure. Imperial Germany's naval expansion was the great blunder of the 20th century. But you're forgetting that, while Britain did not have a large land army, France and Russia did. And it was the fear of the "Russian Steamroller", together with the characteristically Prussian penchant for fast and decisive military action regardless of the risks, that lead to Schlieffen.

Oh please, France, and especially Russia, did not have the developed military technology of Germany.
France and Russia did not have education for technology for military and industrial purposes, any more than Britain or US did. The Prussians were so much more ahead in the war game because they understood things about war the rest of the world did not.

Please take a minute to consider what those countries thought was important about education. France was riding high on being the cultural leader of the world and when it came to war they were in the past. England's education prepared the young to be good Englishmen and they wanted to protect their social classes and rejected education for technology. The US was working with the ideology of the Enlightenment and totally focused on liberal education for citizenship. In 1917 the US adopted education for technology, but it retained education for citizenship until 1958. That is bolded because I say too much and people won't read it all and this is the most important point.

"The war of the future is a problem of economic organization of the most difficult nature and highest technological achievement, such as has never been hitherto demanded from any army. The old military qualities must give way to the organizing qualities. No doubt the courage and endurance of the individual soldier must remain for all times the foundation of military power, but organizing genius is required in order not to waste that courage and endurance. This is clearly shown from a mere examination of the colossal numbers engaged. To transport, to locate, and to feed these masses of men is the daily preoccupation of the military authorities. That they rightly understand the nature of the problem is certain, but it is very doubtful whether the problem can ever be adequately solved by commanders who are recruited from the Junkertum. Anxiety only arises with regard to their other qualifications. We know that our nation possess in its industries successful organizers, brains accustomed to direct great quantities of material and "personnel"- men who create new conditions of life for whole economic districts without having to appeal to any mystical authority. As democratic politicians, we may often have to oppose bitterly those captains of industry, but if it comes to war we shall be willing to be led by them."

I tire of my argument so I am sure readers are tired of it too, but this needs to be understood.... Cheney and Haliburton controlling oil and other resources essential to war and supplying our military. Making huge fortunes and not being part of the military. Hello America, the military-industrial complex is a fact of our lives, not just a conspiracy theory. The Prussians realized total warfare far ahead of the rest of the world and realized industry is just as much a part of the war effort as the military. In case you miss the point- industry is leading our military decisions. As Germany did, we are using our military to protect our economic interest and this is far beyond our national defense goals before the second world war. There were some exceptions in the days of colonization but today our military goals are far beyond what they once were. We bravely used force to make weak and almost primitive societies bend to our industrial well, but that is not equal to being prepared for war with our equals and competing with our equals for finite resources, and statically controling areas of the world and military essential resources.

Mention of bureautic change being a big technology change has not gotten attention. "In the past, personal and political liberty depended to a considerable extent upon government inefficiency. The spirit of tyranny was always more than willing; but its organization and material equipment were generally weak. Progressive science and technology have changed this completely." Aldous Huxley

Assigning Social Security numbers to every individual is very important to the efficient management of a population and the bureaucratic ability to manage a bureaucracy the size of Social Security would not be impossible without adopting Prussian military bureaucracy and applying it to citizens. THE US HAD EXTREMELY INEFFICIENT GOVERNMENT AND WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CAPABLE OF RUNNING A BUREAUCRACY SUCH AS SOCIAL SECURITY. This post is too long, and so incomplete, but know it is the combined work of Hoover and Roosevelt and the crisis of the Great Depression, that gave the US Big Government.

oldtimer: education was always meant to benefit the ruling elite. It is only when civilizations went from agricultural to industrial that the elite realized that the lower class/farmers needed to be educated so they could run complex equipment...and the rest is history — archaios

I have studied the history of education since ancient times and I disagree with you. Historically there have been many different purposes for education and different groups holding the responsibility of education. Scholasticism was the effort of the Catholic church and centered on Aristotle, supporting the authority of the church of course, but also lifting humanity out of the dirt and setting us up for the age of Englightenment and the return of liberal education. Scholasticism moved philosophy into science and the modern age. Liberal education is about freedom and that is why I opened this thread.

Mythology was the bases of education since mankind gathered around the fire and began telling stories. Mythology has always been about transitioning the young into adults and social bonding. That is a very different purpose of education than serving the elite.

This thread would not exist if our education had not changed from the humanistic goals to technological military-industrial complex goals.

You might be interested in Thomas Jefferson and his concern that education is essential to a strong and united public. The ideology of our democracy begins with the philosophy of ancient Athens and was developed through the age of Enlightenment and this root of the education is far from education that benefits the elite.

Where does your understanding of education come from?

Assuming is not a good thing. — Athena

I agree with pretty much everything you say; and even with some of the same passion.

I'm not sure why you directed this at me, but I'll take the liberty of using your excellent post to add some of my own thoughts; as I say, mostly in complete agreement.

How about our trouble with Iran begins during the Eisenhower administration because he used the CIA to create a rebellion in Iran that took out the democratically elected leader and put in his place a tyrant because the US wanted to be sure it had control of Iran and not the USSR. — Athena

I am well acquainted with the CIA's deposing of Mohammad Mosaddegh and the installation of the hated Shah. I saw a documentary on tv once. Mosseddegh spoke for the rights of the people of Iran to control their own resources and their own destiny. Clearly he had to go. Leading to the people overthrowing the Shah and leading to the Mullahs and Jimmy Carter's hostage crisis and all the rest right up to today. Perfectly well aware. I hope I've made it clear that I'm a very longtime critic of US foreign policy and fan of Chomsky.

That was a disaster as we brought in our troops making matters worse until the Iranians rebelled again and threw us out. I would be glad to go on about the wrongs done by our military-industrial complex, and how screwed the taxpayer is and how completely powerless we are if that is what people want to discuss. But that conversation would only be pathetic venting and do absolutely nothing to make things better. I am so angry about the perversion of our democracy and the place to make a difference is education. — Athena

Yes. I agree totally. And one of my great frustrations is that the warfare state, as some libertarian blogs might call it, is deeply bipartisan. Joe Biden represents the warfare state. Trump, by the way, ran in opposition to it; and to date has not started any new wars and has kept John Bolton from starting one with Iran. Just to toss in a little politics.

Had we been paying the real price of oil from the 1950's until fracking, our gasoline would have cost at least as much as the Brits were paying for gasoline and many of us could not have afforded it because the real cost of oil is the military expense of controlling it and that went sky high during the Reagan administration when we took control of the Persian Gulf and granted arms to people like Sadam. — Athena

Yes. Agreed totally. Oil. "The Great Game" as they called it in the 1890s, when the movers and shakers and spies of the world realized that oil was the key to the twentieth century.

I will confess, though, that I've always enjoyed driving and that I am going to drive my gas-guzzling automobile till the last drop of fuel is extracted from the last pollution-spewing refinery in the world. So there's that.

Bin Laden did not attack the people of the US. He attacked the military-industrial complex and we should have thanked him and taken advantage of this moment to take power away from the military-industrial complex — Athena

That made me laugh. I'm as naive as you, I wish such a think were imaginable. I do not think Americans were quite in the mood to go, "Wow, you know, this is a good opportunity to throw out the military-industrial complex and the big predatory banks and start over." Nah, that wasn't gonna happen. Instead lust for vengeance, invade a couple of countries while not ever having a proper forensic and criminal investigation of the perpetrators. You know the fix was in from day one, right? I was there. I'm not saying the underlying events were anything other than what the 9/11 Commission says they were -- but from that moment onward, everything was a psy-op to whip up the country to march off to the list of wars specified in the PNAC document.

So Bush and the neocons. Bad people, right? But what of the Dems? Hillary, and DiFi, and Biden, and all the other so-called "liberals" who always seem to be on the yes side of every war. That's the thing. The endless warfare state is bipartisan. Mainstream GOPs -- which Trump crushed -- and the Dems. The entire GOP/Dem alliance wants war and Trump ran against the wars. People should try to remember that.

but really is that our biggist problem compared to global warming and doing to our water supply what we have done to our oil supply, and ----- — Athena

I'm afraid I'm not big on global warming one way or another. I like an open road and a tank full of fossil fuel. Tail fins. That's when America was great!

Does anyone remember when we thought our constitution prevented the federal government from controlling public education? — Athena

Yes, I read the paleo-libertarian blogs. And there's a lot to be said for the point of view. Have you seen the condition of public education? The kids can't read, write, or think.

Do you happen to know which demographic is the most in favor of school vouchers so that parents can send their kids to independent private schools? African-Americans. That's right. They know their kids are being set up for a lifetime of failure in the public schools and they want to be able to get GOOD educations for their kids. I think the federal government has done a terrible job with the public schools.

How about remembering when the government could not track us through education, banking, and medical care and now our cell phones? — Athena

Yes, I read the cosmo-libertarian blogs too. I oppose the surveillance state. I oppose greatly the social credit score system being implemented by China, and coming here soon unless people wake up.

What do you think of having to have a government-approved ID to ride public transportation? — Athena

I oppose a national ID and I definitely oppose having to show any kind of ID to ride public transportation. How'd we end up talking about this? I'm a libertarian, but some people think that has a bad connotation, so I call myself an independent centrist with libertarian leanings, if that helps to categorize me. I totally oppose any restrictions on anyone doing anything that doesn't infringe on others rights. You want to get on the bus, get on the bus.

Why do you ask?

And that wall we are building with taxpayer money walls us in and well as walling others out. — Athena

I sometimes defend actions and positions taken by Trump; and overall, I support Trump for reelection. I am hardly blind to his many faults, and I don't agree with some or even many of his positions. On the wall, I oppose Trump with all my might. I happen to have a high interest in US-Mexican relations. The wall is bad optics, it's disrespectful, it's provocative, and most of all, it's ineffective. Wouldn't stop drugs, wouldn't stop the flow of people, wouldn't stop anything. Just make more human misery and insult Mexico, which is our friend, neighbor, and third largest trading partner.

On the other hand, let it be noted that Obama deported more Mexicans than Bush or Clinton and even Trump did; and that it was Obama who built the cages and put kids in them. Remember: The screwed up government is bipartisan. Very important point.

No more fleeing to Canada to avoid the draft p/quote]

I was in that demographic at the time and seriously considered that option.
— Athena

and the No Child Left Behind bill mandates schools to give military recruiters students names and addresses. — Athena

At the time of its passing I heard it referred to as No Lobbyist Left Behind. Pork-laden politicized bill I gather.

Bring it on, dump your anger here, — Athena

Me personally? Did I miss something? Hope you'll clarify.

then maybe people will start taking discussion of education seriously. — Athena

People who take education seriously advocate for school vouchers and basically demolishing the publi schools and the teachers unions that have destroyed them.

This is supposed to be a philosophy forum and this thread is about the military-industrial complex and culture change. I didn't think this forum got political. — Athena

Oh ok well you're right. Same thing happened to me, I was trying to be analytical and objective in one of the Trump threads and got attacked for this and that, and decided that anything political here is basically like arguing on Craigslist or Facebook.

But I think there's nothing wrong using examples ripped from the headlines to illustrate larger points.

As far as the mil-ind complex, I am 100% with you and the passionate and eloquent words you wrote.

We were known around the world as a nation that stood against war. — Athena

Yes. And I guess you'd call this getting political, but as an old anti-war type from the 60's and 70's, I'm shocked and appalled at the way the Democrats and even the left have suddenly gone all-in on the wars and the intelligence agencies and the generals as long as they think they'll get Trump.

And yes it started the moment Hillary voted for the Iraq war. At that moment the mainstream Dems had to take a side; and they sided with the warmongers. And now 20 years later we're at war in seven or so Middle East and North African countries and Pelosi and the Dems keep funding. Did you know that a resolution to end the Afghanistan war was voted down a week or two ago? It's insane. The mainstream GOP and the mainstream Dems did this. Trump ran against the warmongers in 2016 and they will throw everything they've got at Trump to get control so they can have their wars again.

Hillary was the warmonger. Trump was the peacemaker.

Iran loved us because we helped them get rid of British control. Making America great again did not mean a military power controlled by neocons and paid for by taxpayers. — Athena

November 22, 1963 is the date that deal went down. And Trump is the first president since JFK to directly challenge the intelligence agencies. Make of that what you will.

And our education was based on the Enlightenment, — Athena

Haven't you heard? The wokesters and Antifa and BLM are opposed to enlightenment values. Free speech is "privilege." I assume you follow current events so that I don't have to cite chapter and verse here. Noam Chomsky's been #cancelled for advocating free speech.

not technology for military and industrial purpose which I have said is education for slaves and is destroying our democracy. — Athena

Right on. I agree. I just wish that I could explain better to people that everything you say is true; AND that Trump represents opposition to all those things; and Biden represents the restoration of the unholy neocon-neoliberal alliance that's led us to this point.

Well, thanks for such a stimulating post that got my typing fingers flowing. I'm sure I'll soon be in trouble for something I wrote.

Whoo, I got busy and forget about this thread. Amazing considering this my favorite subject. I am surprised by the responses because there is a huge problem with this subject. It is confused with conspiracy theories and that ruins discussion.

Yes. I agree totally. And one of my great frustrations is that the warfare state, as some libertarian blogs might call it, is deeply bipartisan. Joe Biden represents the warfare state. Trump, by the way, ran in opposition to it; and to date has not started any new wars and has kept John Bolton from starting one with Iran. Just to toss in a little politics. — fishfry

I am undecided about the international good or evil of Trump. I sure do not like him giving Israel the green light to close Palestinians out of Jerusalem. But the most important point might be the difference fracking has made? When Reagon told us we did not need to conserve oil, he was lying to us! At that time mid-east oil was essential to our economy and for economic reasons we had to get control of mid-east oil. If fracking had been more developed when Sadam is in control of Iraq, that war would have been avoided. In fact, Israel would not have become so strong with the help of the US if our economy did not depend on the control of oil. We have to defend our control of oil exactly as Rome hand to secure its supply of gold, for the same reason and has the same results of militarizing the nation. The Military-Industrial Complex is about economics.

Even if we could supply our own oil for hundreds of years, our banking system is tied the petrodollar. If the world stopped trading oil in dollars, our banking system would collapse. Oil is to our economy what gold was to Rome. That makes me very nervous about Trump because if the rest of the world follows Saddam's switch to trading oil in Euro's, we are in big trouble. The main reason Saddam did that was he objected to our connection with Israel. It is pretty important the world likes us and wants to play ball with us and I am not sure Trump is maintaining that? Which puts into question, who is managing the Military-Industrial Complex? Fracking has changed things.

People who take education seriously advocate for school vouchers and basically demolishing the publi schools and the teachers unions that have destroyed them. — fishfry

This is disastrous! The most important role of education in a democracy with liberty is cultural unity. There are two ways to maintain social order; culture or authority over the people. Jefferson understood this and devoted his life to universal education for a strong and united Republic. For nearly 200 years we had education for citizenship. That was replaced with education for a technological society with unknown values. Now we are dependent on authority over us to maintain social order and this is getting ugly!

I do not the National Education Association as the problem with education, but giving control of education to the military. This ended defending our democracy in the classroom and lead to leaving moral training to the church. Historically the church has not been good at keeping things peaceful. Leaving moral training to Christians is a huge problem leading to our very serious cultual divide. The book "NEA: Propaganda Front of the Radical Left" by Sally D. Reed is a must-read for anyone wanting to understand the cultural divide we have today. Christians are very well organized to control education but they are loosing because science is getting the upper hand. In a few days we will see who wins the struggle for our nation, the Christians or the people who put their faith in science.

I better stop here because people don't like long post. I hope to reply to more but not all at once.

oldtimer: education was always meant to benefit the ruling elite. It is only when civilizations went from agricultural to industrial that the elite realized that the lower class/farmers needed to be educated so they could run complex equipment...and the rest is history — archaios

I do not believe our education was about benefiting the ruling elite because I have books about the history of education, and collect old books written about education and primary grade text books. That most certianly was not how Jefferson, nor any of the education experts I have read, have said about education. The priority purpose of education was Americanizing immigrants, prevent social chaos and the end of our democracy with liberty. Education for technology was added as we mobilized for the first world war, and we could not have won the war without that change in education because we were not prepared for a war with advanced technology. That change in education greatly benefiitted all labor class people, because it prepared them for trades that provided better wages and better working conditions. But we retained education for citizenship until 1958.

We can see the result of replacing the former education for citizenship with education for a technological society with unknown values. We are now bracing for acts of war that we fear may follow the election no matter who wins the election.

We took our democracy for granted and we are in big trouble! We have culture wars and this cultural divide is likely to turn violent.