I'm ready to move whenever someone points out the boundaries. I sure hope Oregon is on my side, but that is probably too much to hope for since I have been among the minority here for quite some time.

If it is true that the squeaky wheel gets the grease, I must be a very slippery character by now.

Pass it on to all you know at either this blog or www.onlymoments.wordpress.com and let's get the idea out there.  Maybe in our lifetime it can happen as we are all miserable now no matter what side of the fence one is on.

Nick Oliva
Author, "Only Moments"
www.onlymomentsbook.com

You just made the argument why we should not implement a plan like yours. First you use a narco-state and a country that is divided (with French Quebec). Not good examples. Secondly the social programs you referenced has, over the long term, done more harm than good. You saw what was exposed in New Orleans after Katrina. That was the underbelly of socialism.
You are basicall advocating the Security and Prosperity Partnership agreement, a plan actively being pursued by right wing Bush.

Your are exrremely incorrect.  I advocate no socialism, no plans by right wing Bush.  Your opinion of a "narco-state" and a country divided is EXACTLY my point.  So divide it then, and let people be.  That's the message, not some strange interpretation of socio-economics.  The will of the people is not being accomplished and no one is happy with the outcome.  I must have laughed for 5 minutes being accused following the likes of George Bush.........that's a real hoot!

Nick Oliva
Author, "Only Moments"
www.onlymomentsbook.com

you need to understand just what socialism really is. I dont think Americans know because of their own capitalistic desires for unfettered freedom to make a buck and to carry arms to make sure they can.
Canada being a former British colony has much in common with us in NZ. We have had a social democratic Labour Government for nine years and the so-called liberal democratic right wing National Party is aiming to change all that at the elections in five weeks. They are promising huge tax cuts which can only be viable if government services are slashed -  health, education and social welfare! The price of democracy, my @$$!
Now Mexican socialism is probably a South American form of the Stalinistic Cuban brand  -  its a form of communism similar to the now defunct Soviet Union. Not pure socialism, not social democracy but totalitarianism! I'm presuming because I have not researched Mexican politics but we would all learn how the US invaded Mexico in the early 19th century and usurped a number of  their northern provinces or whatever they call them down there. These are part of present day California.
Hows that for starters Nick.?I liked the old WritingUp site because it had some great political, religious and controversial threads  -  I copped it in the neck sometimes especially when I criticised certain radical Islamic acts!!
Until later.

Kiwi Riverman

You're still not understanding what I'm saying.  Nowhere in this blog am I saying socialism is the way to go.  I am stating a fact that we are bordered by two countries that are.  Please let's move on with that concept and be over it.  There is NO endorsement of socialism, just a statement that we had a cold war with Russia and then a thawing and now another cold shoulder with a defunct communist and now mostly socialist state and the WORD is bandied about like an evil and that's wrong.  It's a form of governing, right or wrong, if there is a right or wrong.
As has been said many times by others Capitalism has pain as Christianity has hell."  (now FFF is gonna aim at me)  I can't get a handle on what exactly you're raving about honestly as you don't live here to see this polarization right upfront.  To talk about American's carrrying arms and unfettered capitalism and that Mexico is totalitarian doesn't make any sense.  I've lived in Mexico, it is far from that and last I looked no one is pointing guns at anyone to start a business.  You are however making my case for me when you say:
They are promising huge tax cuts which can only be viable if government services are slashed -  health, education and social welfare! The price of democracy, my @$$!

Democracy and capitalism are two different things.  The will of people is what democracy is all about, I'm saying we are too far apart in extremes in this country to do the will of half of the people, so I'm tired of listening to politcal nonsense from both sides. That's the topic here.
I will try to make you and anyone else understand what I am saying.  Capitalism in its pure form is a very harsh painful process.  Socialism levels most playing fields but is unfair to those who want to excel and determine their own future.  We are not served fairly by either.  The introduction of those elements was not elemental to my blog's point.  Right and left wing factionism was -and I think you got caught up in the "hot" words instead of my overall point.  We were a divided country 150 years ago and for most in the South, we still are (now Trick gonna target me in his scope, lol).  Like a bad marriage sometimes there needs to be a split.  If you're an American you can relate directly to what I'm saying and understand what we are going through and have gone through and will go through without some things fundamentally changing, and I don't mean presidents.
I appreciate your comments and the time taken for your response and as I see the number of hits on the blog it reminds me of old times, so that's a good thing. I think constructive criticism is good however, like I said at the end of the blog:       "Anybody got a better idea?"

Nick Oliva
Author, "Only Moments"
www.onlymomentsbook.com

and see what else comes out. No I can't get an American perspective but I can comment on what comes out of America.

Kiwi Riverman

The polarisation seems not so much a problem of right and left as it is the adherents of each trying to win votes by proposing the most extreme measures each philosophy has to offer.

The Democrats lost after Clinton because they strayed too far away from the center. Centrists, moderate Republicans, and Libertarians thought: OMG, you're trying to turn us into the "take half our income in taxes paternalism" we see in the Scandinavian countries.

I have not been much impressed with those on the far right who, for reasons that never make any sense to me, continue to argue on one hand that stealing our freedoms in order to be safe from real or imagined terrorism is wise public policy while, in the other, stating that their god is, or should be, everyone's god. The paradox I see here is that, at least as I was taught, that god never adocated a police state environment with all the trappings that go with it.

Now I have purposefully used the polarized words here because those are what I am tired of hearing. The Democrats seek income re-distribution and the Republicans seek control. Either way, we end up with a government that becomes more and more of the problem.

Had the South won the civil war, we would have ended up with two weaker countries. Should we split the blue and red states a part one way or the other, we'll also have weaker countries where, I think, the extremest views of both left and right will create smaller versions of hell rather than a quiet heaven or haven for any of us.

I'd rather break up the government so that it governs least rather than contending with one side who wants a Santa Claus state or another side that wants a Great Santini state.

TF

Trick,
You said "Had the South won the civil war, we would have ended up with two weaker countries."
 
There is no basis in fact for that statement  as no one could know how that would have turned out after 200 years.  Small countries exist over in Europe and have for centuries.
 
"I'd rather break up the government so that it governs least rather than contending with one side who wants a Santa Claus state or another side that wants a Great Santini state"
 
Though said in jest, still makes my point.  Most of what you say is about speculation of weakening the government - more than opposing my point of view.  If there is a option and remember it's and option, not a mandatory edict to move to either right or left leaning government then it mitigates the internal strife.  You may not experience it, but I have it right in my face from my own family, and it's not funny at all.  We can't even speak without them going off on Democrats and the evil they spread.  I'm fed up with it all myself.  If we split then no one can blame the other side for everything including their mother-in-laws. As much as I would like to drink to ease the pain, I am a disabled diabetic and haven't had so much as a New Year's Toast in over 15 years, so actually I do see things with a quite sobering reality.
Still, no one has come up with a better idea.

Nick Oliva
Author, "Only Moments"
www.onlymomentsbook.com

...because of the polarized and hateful attidue of both sides. While we (as friends) used to be able to have lightweight discussions about our political views, often with a lot of good natured joking, now--if we're still speaking to each other--we don't dare touch politics at all.

And THAT is just one side effect of the self-righteous political bickering we've seen for the last X number of years.

As for the Civil War...prior to it, the South had several states that led the union in production; after the war, they were impoverished. The South has had trouble coming back as it is; as a separate nation, I think it would have further broken down, partly because when the war came, it was by no means unified as to the best approach.

I also feel that the New England states would have split off from the north. Most people don't know that when the Louisiana Purchase occurred, the northeast protested very strongly and threatened to bail out mainly because they didn't want their votes and their influence weakened by a lot of riff raff from the west watering everything down.

What I'm saying is, that I don't think we would have ended up with a north and a south, but that both countries would have subsequently split a part taking various of the western territories with them. Texas might have gone its own way. So, too, California. On the plus side, some of the Native American nations might have actually survived as true and independent nations.

TF