and “fundamentally changing our system of government”.

Have at it.  I’d love to see this amendment come to fruition, but how many are willing to vote their campaign funding away?  When you’re bought and paid for by BigEverything, your choice is go along with the program or don’t let the door hit ya’ on the way out.

seahorse - 22 December 2011 09:14 AM

and “fundamentally changing our system of government”.

Have at it.  I’d love to see this amendment come to fruition, but how many are willing to vote their campaign funding away?  When you’re bought and paid for by BigEverything, your choice is go along with the program or don’t let the door hit ya’ on the way out.

From Article V of our Constitution:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress

I agree it’s unlikely the Congress would want to do this, but if they won’t, then we’ll take it to the States. With 2/3 of the states, according to this language, there SHALL be a Convention, there is no option to decline to do so. IMO, this is where efforts ought to be directed.

shadowdiver - 19 December 2011 09:42 AM

Wow…you make assertions that have nothing to do with my points and call me narrow minded. That’s interesting.

First, do not attribute to yourself what I say about your ideas. It may seem like a small point, but the difference is important. I did not say you are narrow-minded, but that you had a narrow-minded notion on this particular topic. you may be broad-minded in general and have broad views on other topics.

Your claims to my assumptions are ridiculous (I would prefer to use much stronger language). My points were directly specifically to the actions of the students in the article and not some over reaching commentary about the need to for education or the definition of success.

Sorry, but I don’t think they are ridiculous (in fact, you support them in these very comments). You said of the students who walked out of their classes, “these are supposed to be the best and brightest of our youth.” The implication is obvious—since the best and brightest aren’t supposed to behave this way, these kids must not be the best and brightest. 

Our problems can not be solved unless we understand them. How does walking out of lecture that discussed income inequality in order to go chant on the commons/mall forward the process of learning about or solving the problem of income inequality?

Here, again, is where you offer a narrow-minded view on where learning and understanding can and does occur. Who might those kids be chanting with in these protests? Who might they meet? Perhaps those on the other end of the income inequality spectrum. Where an econ class at Harvard (attended we should note by not a single person on the lower end of the income inequality spectrum) may teach in the abstract—numbers and theories and trends and the like, actually getting out on the street with the impoverished and seeing how they live and learning their stories and seeing how society views them may teach in more concrete real world terms. Three cheers for the econ class at Harvard, but let’s put it in proper perspective: tens of thousands of people have passed that class over the years and yet the problems persist.

They walked out of an economics lecture…not a mickey mouse general studies course.

They walked out of an economics lecture…they didn’t embark on a journey of self discovery along Rt 66.

Who are you to decide where a journey of self-discovery might occur in another’s life? That is what i meant about taking the blinders off. Seeing the world from even a slightly different point of view very well may be the beginning of a life of self-discovery for some of these kids.

They walked out of an economics lecture at Harvard…not remedial English at Chuck U.

While I agree with you that there is more to life than education and net worth, I completely disagree with your apparent conclusion that formal education and economic success are to be belittled.

I do not think they are to be belittled, but I do not put as much emphasis on either as you or others do. I also do not see the overarching purpose of education as a means to making more money. And I most certainly do not think formal education is the most important part of the education experience in a person’s life.

I see now the “OWS” have partnered with the “African-American Faith Community” to begin a new Occupy campaign, the new and improved “OWS” will now try to “Occupy the Federal Reserve” on January 16th, 2012. What a bunch of Loons.

Won’t these morons’s ever learn? Haven’t they realized the majority of the 99% they say they represent or in their twisted little minds believe they’re trying to help, don’t and never will give a crock about what they (“OWS”) perceive as an injustice.

They don’t speak for the majority, they speak for a minority, and maybe out of the 99% they think they represent; they might represent 1%, the 1% who thinks like they do. The last I read, the vast majority of the so called 99% these feeble minded people think they represent thought most of the “Occupy Wall Streeter’s” were dirt balls, rapist, drug heads, and pathetic losers.