Thoughts on how to improve the current system

[kandrathe]

SCHOOLS
Children here in this country of school age must attend a state or private run institution of their choice until the 12th grade. ...

I would like to see parents receive vouchers, and enroll their children in the best school for their child. There needs to be more rationality to the level of co-curricular activities in schools. I'd like to see our tax funding mostly to curricular activities, and leave funding the co-curricular activities to the community.

The current system rewards the schools for how many children are enrolled. I don't see how a voucher system would solve anything? If instead you suggest parents might go to whichever school were "better", and schools would have to jockey for the attention of said parents, then schools would need a way to advertise which would mean increased revenue. Perhaps if this would happen, schools should allows commercials and advertising to be put up? Just a thought?

Advertising is easy. You just publish the statistics. What were the schools average SAT/ACT tests? How many were prepared for their adult life? How many went on to post secondary education? Perhaps a satisfaction survey given to parents and the graduates? But, we need to determine what success means, then measure it, and publish the results. Vouchers are a compromise to allow the government to continue to attempt to level the playing field. And, it sometimes works. However, the current approach doesn't draw a distinction between the ones who are trying hard, and those that lower the bar until the schools look successful. If you are too poor to move out of your slum neighborhood, then you are also too poor to get your kids to good schools. You are stuck with the ones the government provides, even when they suck. At least with a voucher system, these victims of bad school systems would be closer to an alternative if they can work out the transportation (i.e. city buses, trams).

MILITARY... I was unclear in my suggestion. I was foreseeing the potential of serving in the armed forces as an opportunity for young Americans to learn respect for each other, our nation, and break down as much ignorance and racism that grows in parts of this great country. I saw time in service as an means of unifying Americans, and then giving them opportunity later in life through paid-for college. To me, this is an ideal situation.

The military is a weapon used to repel those who invade or declare war on us, or on those we declare war upon. It's not a way to teach citizenship to young people, but it is a way to teach young people to follow orders to kill without questions. If the government couldn't teach citizenship and racial harmony to them in 4 years of high school, why would you think it would soak in during 4 more years of government indoctrination training them to shoot guns?

The bigger your armed forces, the bigger your weapon and the more compelling it is to use it to beat down your political adversaries. If we had a 25 million person army, we'd probably have swept through Iran by now. Our defense strategy should be simply to have armed forces sufficient to defend the United States proper from the #2 threat to world peace, China. Currently, (I believe) the US government is the biggest threat to world peace, and the prosperity of US citizens. Example; the definition of overkill -- a small pack of rogue disgruntled Islamist wacko's hijack planes and fly them into some key structures catching us with our defensive pants down killing 6500 or so people, so we spend a trillion dollars over a decade to invade Afghanistan (and Iraq), killing 7500 more of our own coalition forces, and umpteen thousand Afghan citizens. Now, do they love us more?

I'm still not sure what benefit there was in invading Iraq other than killing Saddam. We tore Iraq apart and then rebuilt it in our image, and now, they will probably systematically tear down what we've built -- it's too early to tell.

ILLEGALS... Ultimately, I'd like to see a one-world government, without boarders, without poverty, without slavery. But this would not be for a long, long time, and not in my foreseeable lifetime.

Governments and borders don't necessarily create poverty and slavery. Slavery (sex trade) is rampant in the US, more than we "know". One side of it is that we are wealthy, and so we can afford to "offer" seeming huge sums of wealth in exchange for people. The solution isn't to make everyone too poor, but rather to 1) expose it, and 2) help lift up the poor nations. You don't see Europeans, and Americans buying Norwegians. But, you do see Europeans, and Americans buying Latino, and Asian slaves. A one world government wouldn't eliminate this disparity between wealthy and poor, and it may just exacerbate it. In the worst cases of government abuse, such as the Soviet Union, state dominance led to corruption where Oligarchs and party favorites would control peoples lives, even to the point of slavery.

I'm sometimes encouraged by what is happening in the state of international affairs in our world. Even the worlds worst dictatorships somewhat conform to the democratic UN model. What is somewhat unfair though is the UN security council. It's dominated by the 5 "winners" of WWII, who are permanent members with a veto power. I'm discouraged by the political use of the security council to dominate or invade weaker (unpopular) nations.