For instance, textile manufacturing has almost entirely moved overseas to cheaper labor markets because it is more profitable to take advantage of the low cost of labor than to improve the manufacturing process.  The lower cost of textiles is not due to a genuine improvement in manufacturing, it is directly a result of imbalances in the labor market and will disappear when these imbalances disappear; we will have cheap textiles only as long as the imbalances in the labor markets exist.  If the labor market balances out, not only would the cost of production rise to what it would cost us to make the products here, but also provide the laborers in other countries consumer power allowing them to afford these products as well.  This increase in demand would not be offset by the increase in production since the improved wages would not necessarily equate to increased production.  The disturbing reality is that it is in our best interest to 'preserve' and even 'perpetuate' the imbalances in the labor market because, unless we offset the correction of the imbalances with genuine improvements in production, our standard of living will decline as those in other countries rise.  Even if we do improve our manufacturing that gain can, if we 'preserve' the labor imbalances, be used to improve our standard of living further, rather than being used to offset the labor correction.  I am not saying this to suggest that we should 'preserve' or 'perpetuate' the labor imbalances, but to point out the very real conflict of interest that exists within our system.  We must understand, as a people, that our standard of living cannot be justly sustained without innovation.  We must choose either to live comfortably off the backs of others, decline for the sake of others, or work hard towards, and invest in, genuine improvements in production that are significant enough to bring labor markets into balance while improving our own standard of living.

No, it's not that you aren't worth the effort, and Yes, I know how to play the game.

I present myself in the best possible light, while treating you like you're extraordinary and fascinating, when I don't even know anything about you.  We talk and I am interested in every thing you say, while you laugh at all my jokes.  I show interest, and then act aloof, you tease and flirt.  I chase, then you chase, and we dance some more.  We go to nice places and see concerts, and shows.  We hit clubs, and bars, and stay out later than we should.  I send you flowers, and buy you things.  You protest and I insist.  We fall hopelessly in love, letting ourselves believe we've found someone just like we've always wanted, because we've always wanted, but this is not us, and in the end, we are who we are.  Three months go by, then six, and we find that we are not who we thought we were.  Under the shadows of disappointment, and the haze of the half truths, we learn finally whether we even like each other.

Yes, I know how to play, but I'm not willing.  I know who I am and that's all I'm willing to be.  I don't know who you are, so you can show me what you want, but please just be who you are, because that's who I want to spend time with.  When I say you're beautiful, it's because you are.  When I get you flowers, it's because I was thinking of you.  We know the game, but we don't have to play it.

Before you answer take a look at who our politicians are working for.  Follow the money (http://www.followthemoney.org/ , http://www.opensecrets.org/ , http://www.campaignfinance.org/), just look around a bit and see who is investing in our representatives, and how much, and ask yourself who's representatives these REALY are.  The sad fact is that our leaders will solve the problems we ask them to, but they will only do so in a way that also benefits those they represent.  With very little investigation you'll find that there are a great many interests that invest heavily in both parties, ensuring that their interests will be served no matter which party takes Office.  This is the advantage of a two party system, fewer options for the people and fewer palms to grease.  I'm not asking that you believe me; I'm asking that you look at the data, and think about the two party system.  It's all right there for anyone who cares to look.

What should be the big issues of the 2008 election?

How do we get the government back into the hands of the people?  How can we dismantle the monopoly of the two party system and prevent money from driving our political system?

Until we get the government back into the hands of the sovereign citizenry, how can we expect it to act on our behalf?

It dilutes the balance of powers set up by the founders.  The founders chose three branches because triads are unstable.  This instability makes it difficult to control by those, whom the founders foresaw, that would want to use the government to promote their own interests.  This inherent instability is diminished when all three branches are controlled by only two parties.

It constrains the open exchange of ideas.  When there are only two parties many of the harder decisions, that neither party wants to address, can conveniently be ignored by both.  A good illustration of this is the deficit during the Bush/Clinton election.  Neither party was talking about the obvious problem of the ballooning deficit until Ross Perot made it an issue that could no longer be ignored.  Parties choose issues based on what they can win on, and then elevate those issues, not the problems that the nation really faces.  Consider the Gay Marriage issues raised in the 2004 elections.  This was not pulled to the forefront of political debate because it was a real problem that everyone knew needed to be addressed.  It was artificially elevated because it was an issue that would draw strong support from certain segments of the populace and would bring people to the poles.  Parties use these kinds of political tricks because they work and they work only because of the limitations enforced by the two party system.

It limits compromise and negotiation.  The two party system rewards partisan behavior that boils disagreements down to 'them verses us' conflicts that are settled more by party power and influence than real debate, negotiation, and compromise.

We don't need a third party, what we need is to dismantle all laws, house and senate rules that support the two party system.  This will need to be done on all levels of government (federal, state, and local) but should probably start in the state and local levels.

It dilutes the balance of powers set up by the founders.  The founders chose three branches because triads are unstable.  This instability makes it difficult to control by those, whom the founders foresaw, that would want to use the government to promote their own interests.  This inherent instability is diminished when all three branches are controlled by only two parties.

It constrains the open exchange of ideas.  When there are only two parties many of the harder decisions, that neither party wants to address, can conveniently be ignored by both.  A good illustration of this is the deficit during the Bush/Clinton election.  Neither party was talking about the obvious problem of the ballooning deficit until Ross Perot made it an issue that could no longer be ignored.  Parties choose issues based on what they can win on, and then elevate those issues, not the problems that the nation really faces.  Consider the Gay Marriage issues raised in the 2004 elections.  This was not pulled to the forefront of political debate because it was a real problem that everyone knew needed to be addressed.  It was artificially elevated because it was an issue that would draw strong support from certain segments of the populace and would bring people to the poles.  Parties use these kinds of political tricks because they work and they work only because of the limitations enforced by the two party system.

It limits compromise and negotiation.  The two party system rewards partisan behavior that boils disagreements down to 'them verses us' conflicts that are settled more by party power and influence than real debate, negotiation, and compromise.

We don't need a third party, what we need is to dismantle all laws, house and senate rules that support the two party system.  This will need to be done on all levels of government (federal, state, and local) but should probably start in the state and local levels.

     Historically speaking, our universities have provided general and trade specific education to individuals under the understanding that, once prepared, the individual will, hence forth, have whatever knowledge is needed to compete in the market.  For some fields this is the case and for others it has not been the case for some time.  Today’s trends point to an accelerating change towards the latter.  The rate of change of information technologies and the rippling of these changes into every aspect of production and business is creating an environment where professionals must constantly learn and adapt to new ways of performing their jobs and in many cases transitioning to different jobs entirely, as their old function is optimized out of existence.  Terms like ‘lifelong learning’ or ‘continuing education’ have been used in relation to these changes but the change is far more fundamental.  The idea of taking 3-5 years to learn a trade in today’s market is nearly alien.  For many occupations, if it takes more than a few months to learn the fundamentals or more than a few days to adjust to changing details of your job, you’re hosed.  Fewer things can take 3-5 years to learn because fewer things will be around long enough for such an investment of time.

     To better serve the needs of a more dynamic world, universities will need to move away from the existing model of education or be replaced by newer forms of education.  For social justice, they should relinquish their monopoly as gatekeepers while doing so.  I submit that Universities should decouple their role as educators from their role as gatekeeper.  The gatekeeper role is one of certification.  When a student receives a degree from Harvard the university asserts that the student has learned a level of knowledge that meets Harvard’s standards.  There is no reason to believe that an individual could not achieve that level of knowledge at another university or on ones own so why must a student attend Harvard to get a degree from Harvard.  Similarly if an individual wishes to learn but is not interested in a degree (A lawyer with and interest in roman history for instance) there is no reason for this person to go threw all the red tape and admission overhead to become enrolled in a university when all that is desired is access to the information and someone knowledgeable in the field.  By decoupling the acquisition of knowledge and education from the certification of obtained knowledge, the university systems can provide more dynamic and more socially just education to a wider audience.