Gallup Poll discovers that 1/5th of Americans have an IQ of less than 75

[Divinus Arma]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/14/poll.wiretaps/index.html

The problem with Democracy is that a large portion of the population consists of sheep.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I'd be reasonably happy if they weren't describing the highest quintile.

[Goofball]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/14/poll.wiretaps/index.html

The problem with Democracy is that a large portion of the population consists of sheep.

I think it can probably be chalked up to you average joe's inflated sense of his own importance.

"Of course my calls have been tapped! What, you think I'm not important enough to rate a wiretap!?!"

[Papewaio]

Maybe it is more a reflection of the cultural diversity and lack of intergration into the wider society of individuals.

[Strike For The South]

Or they like to think they actually have a say in the goverment. :laugh4: :laugh4:

[Kongamato]

EDIT: Never mind.

[Skomatth]

1/5th of Americans are terrorists.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Just let me quote a few lines from one of my favorite songs.


Paranoia strikes deep
Into your life it will creep

[Major Robert Dump]

I think a highly comfortable, fast-paced liefstyle (especially if you have kids) encourages people to be out of touch. I realize IQ isn't necessarily about booksmarts and current events, but after a while peoples minds wane as they focus on themselves, their family and their needs. In fact, I believe our leaders want the vast majority of us to be stupid

Then throw in drugs, alcohol, sloth and a youth culture that values "coolness" more than "brains" and you get a happy mix of stupid people, myself included. Eat the poor.

[Harald Den BlåToth]

IQ tests ascertain the level of knowledge and the ability to use this knowledge in genuine situations.
In other words, they measure the extent by wich certain notions and algorithms have been assimilated.
The only explanation is the lack of education. In the end, intelligence is nothing but learned behaviour.
75 is not that bad afterall. I'd be curious to learn more about the structure and the proportion of the sample they've used.

[Divinus Arma]

IQ tests ascertain the level of knowledge and the ability to use this knowledge in genuine situations.
In other words, they measure the extent by wich certain notions and algorithms have been assimilated.
The only explanation is the lack of education. In the end, intelligence is nothing but learned behaviour.
75 is not that bad afterall. I'd be curious to learn more about the structure and the proportion of the sample they've used.

Obviously you failed to read the linky linky. Take another look.

And by the way, the high end of Down Syndrom is an IQ of around 75, but I could be wrong.

[Harald Den BlåToth]

Actually, 75 is the lower limit of normal intelligence. What's under 70 is called "idiot" and it's pathologic.

I tried to read the article several times but all I get is this:
"



Poll: Fifth of Americans think calls have been monitored

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- About a fifth of Americans think federal agents have listened in on their phone calls, a CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll released Tuesday suggests.
Twenty-one percent of the 1,000 adults who replied to the survey conducted Thursday through Sunday said it was very likely or somewhat likely their conversations had been wiretapped, while 52 percent said it was not at all likely.
Twenty-four percent said it was not too likely.
The sampling error for the question was plus or minus 3 percentage points.
Shortly after 9/11, President Bush authorized the National Security Agency to conduct electronic surveillance of communications -- phone calls, e-mails and text messages -- between people inside the United States, including Americans, and terrorist suspects overseas, bypassing a secret court set up to provide warrants for such surveillance.
The Bush administration has said the program is designed to monitor terrorists, while critics say the spying is illegal and may infringe on the civil liberties of Americans.
According to the poll, Americans appear to be split over the legality of the domestic eavesdropping program. About 49 percent of respondents said the president had definitely or probably broken the law by authorizing the wiretaps and 47 percent said he probably or definitely had not. (Poll results)
Those numbers were similar to a question about whether the program is right or wrong -- 47 percent said it was right and 50 percent called it wrong.
The sampling error for those questions was plus or minus 5 percentage points.
http://images.clickability.com/pti/spacer.gif
Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/14/poll.wiretaps/index.html

[Divinus Arma]

Do you think that I might be trying to make a suggestive statemnt beyond what the title says? Just maybe? Like a little? A wee teeny tiny itsy bitsy smidge of a crumb?

Edit: (not to be sarcastic. Wait. Actually yes. That was totally sarcastic. Man, I'm a dick sometimes)


It gets kinda rough back here my friend.

[Kanamori]

:inquisitive: Is there any way to reply seriously to this thread?





Nope.:wall:

[English assassin]

Is there any way to reply seriously to this thread?

Yes


The problem with Democracy is that a large portion of the population consists of sheep.

Aha, who would have thought, despite all our modern morals, that the voice of Theogonis of Megara (6th C BCE) could be found on the Org today? Theognis thought that the noble alone had judgement (gnome) and reverance (aidos), and therefore were capable of moderation, restraint and justice. The masses lack gnome and aidos and are therefore shameless and arrogant. Furthermore these qualities are fixed at birth "no one has ever discovered a way to make a fool wise or a bad man good"

Pindar was of the same view " Most men need interpreters. The wise man knows many things in his blood; the vulgar are taught. They will say anything. They clatter vainly, like crows against the sacred bird of Zeus".

And five minutes of Big Brother could convince anyone that the Greek oligarchs had a point.

Eh voila, a serious, or at least eclectically read, :book: reply~;)

[Rodion Romanovich]

Well, it's not technically possible to tap all people today, but it's very well possible in theory to tap up to 5% of all people. I don't think it's lack of intelligence, but lack of technological knowledge, that makes people think they're tapped. I think it's very derogatory and superior to call people stupid sheep because they lack that knowledge, and then proceed and say, indirectly, that democracy should be abolished. On the last two occasions that democracy was abolished some 50 million people died due to the superior wisdom of the oligarchs. The masses may not be experts at quantum physics, but most regular people know more about what life is really about than many people who are called intelligent due to a good IQ test result do. The problem of democracy is that it isn't full democracy, so that you have to vote for packages, not what to do in each political question separately. For example Hitler = superb economy and new hope of the future BUT ALSO start a world war and mass murder millions of innocent people in a genocide. As long as votes are for "packages", persons or parties, and not about individual political questions, unworthy leaders will get power, and it's then always easy to blame it on the "stupid masses" instead of the failed system. Do you seriously think more than one percent of extremists would have voted yes to the genocides during ww2 if it would have been a separate vote from improved economy and war with France and England? Plus the voters seldom get to hear the entire political program before voting. Did the Germans know there would be genocide when they voted in the 30ies? Did the Americans know there would be atrocies in Iraq when they voted Bush (and did they have an alternative when the other party would have started one or two arbitrary wars too)? Similarly the ancient Greek democracy was also a joke. If you made a suggestion that didn't win the polls, you were sent out of the country and wasn't allowed to come back - really good way to encourage free speech and discussion.

[Kanamori]

If I try to respond to the answer of my rhetorical question, then I provide a counterexample.

Life sucks.~:(

[KukriKhan]

Long ago, in a different life, we kids used to laughingly answer the phone with "J. EDGAR [obscene command to perform an anatomically impossible act]!!"

Mother was not amused.

[Bartix]

You can tap some people all the time.
You can tap all people some of the time.
You cannot tap all people all the time.

Tap me once, shame on you!
Tap me twice.... tap tap tap tap tap tap tap tap tap tap tap tap tap tap tap tap tap tap tap tap tap tap tap tap tap :idea2: tapioca pudding today? Barb?

[Harald Den BlåToth]

Do you think that I might be trying to make a suggestive statemnt beyond what the title says? Just maybe? Like a little? A wee teeny tiny itsy bitsy smidge of a crumb?

Edit: (not to be sarcastic. Wait. Actually yes. That was totally sarcastic. Man, I'm a dick sometimes)


It gets kinda rough back here my friend.
I must confess that 8 hours ago my mental status and cognitive functions were run by subcortical centers wich are not very sensitive to subtilities...
It was 2:33 AM...
Good joke though.

[quote=The problem of democracy is that it isn't full democracy, so that you have to vote for packages, not what to do in each political question separately.[/quote]

...And it will never be. The opinions of the rich and powerful will always weight more than those of the plebs. The rich and powerful have the means to make things happen. The plebs are allowed to criticise. Their criticism is sometimes accounted, sometimes dismissed as unworthy of further consideration. Nonetheless, neither the rich nor the plebs could survive alone in a democracy. If there would be only plebs, there would be war until some of them become rich by sacking others, or, if they're stupid enough, they may try a popular democracy, aka as communism. If there would be only rich there would be a war too, until some become plebs and some even richer than they were.
Democracy is an ideal never to be reached, imperfect just like everything else in the universe. There's no such thing like "perfect sphere", and if it exists though, it's unatural and contradicts the basic rules of common sense...like communism for example.
Democracy offers equal chances not equal resources.
Atrocities have nothing to do with democracy. Atrocities come along with every war. In fact, war itself is an atrocity...mandatory from time to time.

[Rodion Romanovich]

...And it will never be. The opinions of the rich and powerful will always weight more than those of the plebs.

Today's leaders were yesterday's plebs. Today's plebs were yesterday's powerful. It's easy to change who holds the power. But as long as the plebs after liberating themselves keep using the same system, history repeats itself. Oppression followed by rebellion, rebellion followed by guilliotinne, guilliotinne followed by new oppressors. By the way Switzerland has come very far, by having several referendums a year about relevant political questions. Finally, believing that we'll never improve is illogical and unsupported by historical facts. Where are the harems, religious prostitution, god kings, human sacrifice and heretics mass murder? We've gotten past that, so we can get past the problems we have today as well.



if they're stupid enough, they may try a popular democracy, aka as communism.


The communists didn't have democracy. Forbidding all other parties isn't democratic.



Democracy is an ideal never to be reached, imperfect just like everything else in the universe.


Most animals don't oppress each other nearly as much as humans. I wouldn't say it's a biological necessity to have genocides and world wars. The "intelligent" who have formed today's society are less able at forming a society than gorillas and wolves.



Atrocities have nothing to do with democracy. Atrocities come along with every war. In fact, war itself is an atrocity...mandatory from time to time.

That's why every society should have democracy AND conscription for everyone. Only a fool would then vote yes to an unjustified war. That's why democracy minimizes the amount of warfare seen.

By the way, every time someone wishes to abolish democracy and freedom of speech, they usually think "it's ok because MY GROUP has the power, and we act responsibly". First of all, look at how many policemen have criminal kids - inheriting titles doesn't work as expected. Secondly, once you've edited the system to be anti-democratic, it doesn't mean some other group can't take over power. All you've achieved is dictatorship, and you can be sure it'll leave your responsible hands before you can say "oops". If there's something we've learnt from 1917 and 1933, it's that if we have the system we have now, we should never accept any leader to remove democracy even if he's elected. We should also have learnt that it isn't the voters, but the faults of the system, that makes such people elected. Blaming it on democracy and saying yes to dictatorship is naive IMO.

[Spino]

Most animals don't oppress each other nearly as much as humans. I wouldn't say it's a biological necessity to have genocides and world wars. The "intelligent" who have formed today's society are less able at forming a society than gorillas and wolves.

??? :inquisitive: ???

Where are you going with this? Is living the life of an unimaginative species whose livelyhood is entirely dependent on its instincts and the local floral and fauna that attractive to you? And using another example from the primate world isn't such a good idea. Behaviorally speaking human beings alot like chimpanzees which are notoriously cruel, disloyal and spiteful. Chimpanzees also exhibit odd or disturbing behaviors that are alarmingly similar to our own (cannibalism, murder, etc.) If you want to live in a human world, one full of invention, art, music, engineering, democracy, etc. then you're going to have to accept the good with the bad. The same genetic mutations that gave us our 'evil' inclinations gave us our 'good' ones as well.


That's why every society should have democracy AND conscription for everyone. Only a fool would then vote yes to an unjustified war. That's why democracy minimizes the amount of warfare seen.

You're really giving the average person way too much credit. Give the average voter/conscript incentive enough to risk his life by waging war on his neighbor and he will do so. Spoils of war and all that...


By the way, every time someone wishes to abolish democracy and freedom of speech, they usually think "it's ok because MY GROUP has the power, and we act responsibly". First of all, look at how many policemen have criminal kids - inheriting titles doesn't work as expected. Secondly, once you've edited the system to be anti-democratic, it doesn't mean some other group can't take over power. All you've achieved is dictatorship, and you can be sure it'll leave your responsible hands before you can say "oops". If there's something we've learnt from 1917 and 1933, it's that if we have the system we have now, we should never accept any leader to remove democracy even if he's elected. We should also have learnt that it isn't the voters, but the faults of the system, that makes such people elected. Blaming it on democracy and saying yes to dictatorship is naive IMO.

Good point.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Where are you going with this?

I'm argumenting that people who are against democracy are aiming very low compared to the potential human beings have.



You're really giving the average person way too much credit. Give the average voter/conscript incentive enough to risk his life by waging war on his neighbor and he will do so. Spoils of war and all that...


Actually people are due to better knowledge of history and what war really is like starting to learn that war is hell. For every century, fewer and fewer have high thoughts of war and the mass murder it is. Opinions are challenged by words. Oppression is fought by fighting the few oppressors. One day we'll have good enough education that all people realize that.

[Viking]

Do you think that I might be trying to make a suggestive statemnt beyond what the title says?

A quick note about thread titles (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=59362)

:wall:

[Harald Den BlåToth]

Today's leaders were yesterday's plebs. Today's plebs were yesterday's powerful. It's easy to change who holds the power. But as long as the plebs after liberating themselves keep using the same system, history repeats itself. Oppression followed by rebellion, rebellion followed by guilliotinne, guilliotinne followed by new oppressors. By the way Switzerland has come very far, by having several referendums a year about relevant political questions. Finally, believing that we'll never improve is illogical and unsupported by historical facts. Where are the harems, religious prostitution, god kings, human sacrifice and heretics mass murder? We've gotten past that, so we can get past the problems we have today as well.
You must be some sort of incurable idealist. It's not meant as an offence. People like you push human kind to evolution.
Well...the human kind, the world, the universe, all of these are the mere result of a compromise; we exist, we are the way we are, in a state of pseudoequilibrium (we move though, but imperceptible -quasistatic equilibrium- as in thermodynamics) as an outcome of two opposing forces.
Just like in the universe, as one corner is wandered by greedy and ferocious black holes that swallow matter and time so draining the word "future" of any meaning, another corner shelters star nurseries, spawning new worlds to take the place of those just vanished, human kind is in a continuous turmoil. In our case we have an imperfect democracy opposing a "perfect" totalitarian regime. (As we're humans, and we usually strive for better, I think the difference between "evil" and "perfect evil" is of no great significance).
Switzerland is indeed an example of an almost perfect democracy. Unfortunately it is the exception that strengthens the rule...and, why wouldn't we admit it...they were LUCKY.
The best example of "functional" democracy (notta bene, not perfect) is Britain. They once beheaded their king, tried a sort of popular democracy wich soon turned to be worse than monarchy. They learned their lesson.
Those fit to rule shall rule those fit to obey. Because this is how world is split: black holes and cosmic star nurseries, masters and slaves, rich and poor, clever and smart an so on. However, plebs in Britain (yeomen) do have the chance to accede to the ruling class. They may be knighted, and once knighted they behave and act quite different from the villains they once were. This, beside the obvious political skills of those who ruled, kept Britain away from rebelions, revolutions and and other violent means of bringing plebs to power. Continuity became tradition. The result is a a far more liberal an fair democracy than US (wich paradoxically, was born as a democracy and not evolved into one as Britain did)





The communists didn't have democracy. Forbidding all other parties isn't democratic.
They actually did have a democracy. A popular democracy... Perfect equality was the rule. Equal chances, equal resources. Unfortunately, in his idiocy, Marx didn't foresee that even if people are provided with equal chances and material resources, some of them might achieve more than others. These not so many great achievers were usually eliminated (by the majority of people) as they were mere promoters of inequality in a society of unequivocal equality. Their achievements, if acknowledged, would have raised the standards, and the seams of this artificial society, leveled even in stupidity and incompetence, would have become obvious. Is this Democracy? Yes it is. Why? Because it's what the majority has voted for. It happend in China, in Russia, in Eastern Europe.



Most animals don't oppress each other nearly as much as humans. I wouldn't say it's a biological necessity to have genocides and world wars. The "intelligent" who have formed today's society are less able at forming a society than gorillas and wolves.
Who's opressing who?




That's why every society should have democracy AND conscription for everyone. Only a fool would then vote yes to an unjustified war. That's why democracy minimizes the amount of warfare seen.
What are you trying to imply? Wich is the unjust war?

[Rodion Romanovich]

You must be some sort of incurable idealist. It's not meant as an offence. People like you push human kind to evolution.
Well...the human kind, the world, the universe, all of these are the mere result of a compromise; we exist, we are the way we are, in a state of pseudoequilibrium (we move though, but imperceptible -quasistatic equilibrium- as in thermodynamics) as an outcome of two opposing forces.
Just like in the universe, as one corner is wandered by greedy and ferocious black holes that swallow matter and time so draining the word "future" of any meaning, another corner shelters star nurseries, spawning new worlds to take the place of those just vanished, human kind is in a continuous turmoil. In our case we have an imperfect democracy opposing a "perfect" totalitarian regime. (As we're humans, and we usually strive for better, I think the difference between "evil" and "perfect evil" is of no great significance).
Switzerland is indeed an example of an almost perfect democracy. Unfortunately it is the exception that strengthens the rule...and, why wouldn't we admit it...they were LUCKY.
The best example of "functional" democracy (notta bene, not perfect) is Britain. They once beheaded their king, tried a sort of popular democracy wich soon turned to be worse than monarchy. They learned their lesson.
Those fit to rule shall rule those fit to obey. Because this is how world is split: black holes and cosmic star nurseries, masters and slaves, rich and poor, clever and smart an so on. However, plebs in Britain (yeomen) do have the chance to accede to the ruling class. They may be knighted, and once knighted they behave and act quite different from the villains they once were. This, beside the obvious political skills of those who ruled, kept Britain away from rebelions, revolutions and and other violent means of bringing plebs to power. Continuity became tradition. The result is a a far more liberal an fair democracy than US (wich paradoxically, was born as a democracy and not evolved into one as Britain did)


What have black holes and stars to do whether we choose to oppress each other or not? What have equilibrium on a quantum physics level to do with whether people should be allowed to have a say or whether we should have immoral, fascistic slavery? What has space to do with genocides? You use fine words, but your parables are irrelevant. Switzerland is not lucky, it's a result of enlightened strive towards perfection, peace and benefit for oneself, while realizing maximum beneift for yourself comes by making a plan that gives maximum benefit for everyone. Most other countries have been formed by power-hungry maniacs any modern day man would want to see in a mental hospital if they read about them in the history books. But the persons are of minor concern - the society system is the most important part. The game is formed by the rules. Just like sports that don't give penalties to violence become violent, a society form which makes it benefitial to oppress, or makes people think it's benefitial to oppress, sees much oppression. Oppressors should remember the guilliotinne, it will be put up in town squares again and again as long as there is oppression. Rebels who seek power and not freedom should remember the whip, it'll continue being used by totalitarians for as long as rebels go after the men who oppress rather than the system. A society system where oppression isn't benefitial and the very system is solid, such as in Switzerland, WILL see a much better future than others. Most other countries, and probably Switzerland too to some extent, have remnants of old dictatorship systems left in their systems today. Remember the very basis was formed by not very ethical struggles. The reason why our society isn't better is because we simply haven't tried making it better! If we try just a little, we can all be like Switzerland. If we try a lot, we can be even better. How often do you succeed in things you don't even try?

And yes, today's rulers are yesterday's oppressed. Think of all heads of ruling people that have rolled throughout history. Roman patricians, French aristocrats, and Russian tsar and related. It's not idealism to say that evilness and oppression doesn't pay off, it's the plain truth. The only reason why oppression still exists is that those who start to oppress fail to see that the inevitable long term consequences of oppression and evilness is destruction, defeat and most cruel and unusual death. People still think that evilness pays off. Once people learn the truth they will stop, and if they don't, their closest will stop them from gaining power and drawing their innocent friends with them. And that's how most of the peaceful of today's democracies work - people are educated enough to realize the weakness of an agressor strategy.



They actually did have a democracy. A popular democracy...


USSR was no democracy, because they didn't allow any party to hold the power and carry out the tasks of acting for the people. Secondly it didn't allow any opinion that wasn't within the limits of their own secteric, extremistic and wrongly interpreted version of communism. Not even Marxists would have been happy living in such a system.

Plus you're wrong when you say Russia voted for communism. Lenin got some third of the votes but seized power through a revolution. While Lenin was a bad guy, he wasn't nearly as bad as Stalin. After Lenin creating a semi-ideologic dictatorship the power as usual ended up in the hands of an anti-democratic power-abuser - Stalin - without any ideology at all. In Eastern Europe there was pressure from the USSR which forced the countries into communism. It wasn't the will of the people there either. Thus not democratic.

Whether communism is good or not is another discussion. I don't support communism, on the contrary I'm aware of the faults it has on the theoretical level, which get magnified into a lot of big problems on the practical level (that said, there are of course also lots of good points in communism at the theoretical level). Lenin's early revolutionary moves by removing the tsar from power was entirely justified - the tsar family not only oppressed but also had guts to scornfully saying that "the people of Russia loves the whip", and had their secret police kill anyone who tried free speech against the regime. In a way I understand why Lenin and others weren't happy with removing them from power and also wanted them dead for that, but that's an emotional reaction for which there's no place in a democratic society. After Lenin achieved democracy and there would be a vote in Russia, everything was as it should. But then, when he saw that he didn't win the vote, he forcedly took power in the second revolution (October revolution), which was completely unjustified. That, and the mass killings of dissenters following the illegal claiming of power despite the will of the people, is why he's infamous.

The historical facts above should be enough to prove that the communism in USSR wasn't a democracy.

Finally, I don't see where you're trying to go with this discussion. The point I'm arguing for is that democracy should exist, and that the arguments against democracy mentioned above in this thread aren't valid. If you're debating me that would make your opinion being against democracy. Have I understood it correctly or are you just debating some of my arguments while still supporting democracy? I'm not trying to be offensive, I'm merely asking for a clarification. Because if you're also of the opinion that democracy is good we already agree so the debate would then be pointless ~:).


Who's opressing who? [...] What are you trying to imply? Wich is the unjust war?
You might not have noticed, but I'm discussing in a big historical perspective. If you can't find a single example of oppression or unjust war in the entire history of mankind then... well I can't teach you world history just in passing by ~:)

[Harald Den BlåToth]

I'm not against democracy. All I am trying to say is that there's no PERFECT democracy.
Actually you speak more about "the importance of being human" rather than democracy. They're tied though...

The Swiss were lucky. Otherwise, I bet there would be at least 10 more Switzerland-like republics on the face of the earth...

I wrote all those metaphors hoping that they would highlight better my conception upon the "imperfection of everything" and "compromise theory". They might have been out of line. I apologize.

Here's some stuff about democracy...No matter how you turn it, democracy is a dream.


"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."

Sir Winston Churchill


"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine."

Thomas Jefferson
(...)"tyranny of the majority"

Alexis de TocquevilleShould I remind you what the bulk of majority is made of?

[Harald Den BlåToth]

Communism CLAIMS to be a democracy. Technically, it is..."tyranny of the majority" in its most lugubrious aspect.



Democracy would be wholly valueless to the proletariat if it were not immediately used as a means for putting through measures directed against private property and ensuring the livelihood of the proletariat. The main measures, emerging as the necessary result of existing relations, are the following:
(i) Limitation of private property through progressive taxation, heavy inheritance taxes, abolition of inheritance through collateral lines (brothers, nephews, etc.) forced loans, etc.
(ii) Gradual expropriation of landowners, industrialists, railroad magnates and shipowners, partly through competition by state industry, partly directly through compensation in the form of bonds.
(iii) Confiscation of the possessions of all emigrants and rebels against the majority of the people.
(iv) Organization of labor or employment of proletarians on publicly owned land, in factories and workshops, with competition among the workers being abolished and with the factory owners, in so far as they still exist, being obliged to pay the same high wages as those paid by the state.
(v) An equal obligation on all members of society to work until such time as private property has been completely abolished. Formation of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
(vi) Centralization of money and credit in the hands of the state through a national bank with state capital, and the suppression of all private banks and bankers.
(vii) Increase in the number of national factories, workshops, railroads, ships; bringing new lands into cultivation and improvement of land already under cultivation – all in proportion to the growth of the capital and labor force at the disposal of the nation.
(viii) Education of all children, from the moment they can leave their mother’s care, in national establishments at national cost. Education and production together.
(ix) Construction, on public lands, of great palaces as communal dwellings for associated groups of citizens engaged in both industry and agriculture and combining in their way of life the advantages of urban and rural conditions while avoiding the one-sidedness and drawbacks of each.
(x) Destruction of all unhealthy and jerry-built dwellings in urban districts.
(xi) Equal inheritance rights for children born in and out of wedlock.
(xii) Concentration of all means of transportation in the hands of the nation.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm?title=

I thought you're referring to a particular war...History has described plenty of more or less justified wars.
Regarding history lessons, in our days, Wikipedia provides more than it's necessary...All one needs is the ability to read and comprehend.

[Adrian II]

i find that statistic rather conservative, at best.

im doing a shhoot this week that spans both Carolinas and it's like looking into a petri dish.LOL. You're not alone out there. If you need a change of colours in your petri dishes I can send you some thinking amoeba from The Netherlands.

[solypsist]

okay sorry this thread title is very misinformative. the article is about phone spying, etc. and thus is geared towards sensationalism rather than discussion.

start the thread anew with an ACCURATE subject heading, please.