Technocratic Party

We need to do a few things. Firstly, we need to spread this political party's influence by gaining exposure though telling prople about the Technocratic Party, gaining sponsors and backers who share our ideology of scientific methods and logic to solve society's problems. Then, when we have more members with high education and influence within the science community, we develop a solid platform based around our scietific knowledge and understanding to come up with ways to develop solutions to the problems we face today such as enviromental damage, poverty and world hunger, education reforms, and international relations. As the final step, we help and get scientists and engineers or politicians with high education degrees and interests elected into high influence political positions from governers to senators and house representatives.

We need to focus on a major problem facing the United States: the reform of the US Education System. As someone who has been to school, I found that school wasn't a pleasant experience, and I can see why. There was a strange form of indoctrination as the teachers taught that they were the undisputed masters of the classroom, ridiculous and stressful testing standards, funding being cut to certain schools, outdated policies, and many more. We must solve this problem.

The Technocrat is more than just a technical expert in a given field. They are persons who strive to understand the the technical machinations of the world and how we as human beings fit in, they yearn to understand the human mind and heart and how all of these elements can work together to give our country and the citizens of the world a better life and indefinite future. The technocrat is open to their natural human curiosity and thirst for knowledge, exploration, and discovery with a desire to use the the technical knowledge gained from these endeavors to enrich their present and future lives and the lives of those around them. The technocrats expertise allows them to be creative and empathetic when it comes engineering solutions to the problems of their fellow citizens. The technocrat has the patience and vision to take into consideration all technical, environmental, and human variables when making political decisions. Most importantly anyone can be a technocrat, all you need is the desire to learn and grow.

If people are going to join the technocratic party the first thing they see when they click on membership shouldn't be a sell list. Every other major political part accepts members free of charge however, having a suggested donation list is a great way to make people know they have a choice, to decide how involved they want to become.

I know part of this party's platform is the Canada-us merger but wouldn't merger the three together be more economically sensible. it would make NAFTA all but non needed, and would also for immigration reform and a host of other things to be changed easily.

Your donation to the Technocratic party will inspire our efforts to fight for: techoprogressive principles and the real change. We exist, because you place your trust in us, and we will continue to fight on your behalf. Making the case to the American people – Technocrats are here to govern and to lead our great nation to the brave new frontier.

By Submitting Your Donation You Acknowledge That:

• Contributions or gifts to the America for Technocration Action (ATA) are not deductible as charitable contributions for federal income tax purposes.
• Contributions from foreign corporations and foreign nationals are prohibited.

"What profession do all of these senators and congressmen have?"

"Law, law, law, business man, law, law, law..."

"Where are the Scientists? Where are the Engineers? Where's the rest of... life"

The 9gag post that led me here.

Take a small town.

Create it virtually as is.

Contestants have 15-30 days to optimize it.

Winner's results are submitted as steps to Mayor.

They determine whether or not they want to implement them.

...

Profit

The United States and Canada are far more integrated than most people think. In fact, a merger between the two countries isn’t just desirable—it’s inevitable.

We share more than just the world’s longest border. We share the same values, lifestyles and aspirations. Our societies and economies are becoming similar in significant ways.

In 1966, I emigrated from the United States to Canada as a young woman. In the nearly 50 years since then, I’ve seen Canada become more like America and America become more like Canada.

Put together, the United States and Canada would be a colossus, with an economy larger than the European Union’s—larger, in fact, than those of China, Taiwan, Japan and South Korea combined. We would control more oil, water, arable land and resources than any jurisdiction on Earth, all protected by the world’s most powerful military.

Far-fetched? Maybe. But consider this: Two Canadian prime ministers – one after the First World War and another after the Second World War – seriously considered proposing a merger with the United States. They did not proceed for political reasons.

In the 1970s, Canadian tycoon E.P. Taylor, famed for his thoroughbred race horses, told a biographer: “If it weren’t for the racial issue in the U.S. and the political problems [Vietnam] they have, I would think that the two countries could come together … I’m against the trend of trying to reduce American ownership in Canadian companies. I think nature has to take its course.”

Since then, “nature” has been taking its course, in both directions. Three million, out of 35 million, Canadians live full or part time in the United States. Most retire in Sunbelt states, but there are an estimated 250,000 Canadians work in Los Angeles, another 250,000 in Silicon Valley and an estimated 400,000 per day work in Manhattan. This doesn’t include the million or so Canadians who became U.S. Citizens before 1976, before dual citizenship was allowed.

This north-south brain drain has been constant throughout Canada’s history. In 1900, Canada’s population was only 5.37 million people, and by 2000 seven million had immigrated to the United States. Millions of Americans have Canadian roots – including well-known figures like Ellen DeGeneres, Alec Baldwin, Vince Vaughn, Madonna, Angelina Jolie, Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin, Jack Kerouac, Walt Disney, Walter Chrysler and Thomas Edison.

The flow of people has also drifted northward. More than 1 million Americans, like me, live in Canada, and our offspring, even if born in Canada, are entitled to U.S. Citizenship. In addition, Canada’s 800,000 aboriginals, known as “First Nations,” are effective American citizens by virtue of the 1794 Jay Treaty.

Economically, the countries are one another’s biggest investor, customers and suppliers. Canada ships more oil to the United States than any other country, roughly 2.5 million barrels a day (out of the total consumed of 19.4 million barrels daily) and is an important source of electrical power, uranium, metals, minerals, natural gas and automobiles. In return, Canadians buy more U.S. products than does the entire EU.

U.S. Corporations own roughly 12 percent of Canada’s corporate assets, roughly half of its oil industry and most of its manufacturing. U.S. retail chains garner 60 percent of all retail dollars spent by Canadians at home. Canadian corporations are the third biggest investors in the United States, and Canadian foreign direct investment levels in the U.S. nearly match the amount invested by Americans in Canada. Since 2008, individual Canadians have been the largest buyers of real estate in the United States among foreign buyers, or 25 percent of the total.

Given all this intermingling, why bother with a formal merger

If the United States and Canada were corporations, or European states, they would have merged a long time ago. Each has what the other needs: The United States has capital, manpower, technology and the world’s strongest military; Canada has enormous reserves of undeveloped resources and ownership of a vast and strategically important Arctic region.

Countries are like modern businesses, and must constantly recalibrate their economic and political models. Unless winners adapt, they eventually lose out, in economic and political life as in nature. Today’s America or Canada could become tomorrow’s Portugal or Greece. In the competitive and interconnected world of the 21st century, standing still is losing ground.

It’s been 26 years since the U.S.-Canada free trade deal. The border is worse, or thicker, than before. There are new regulations – due to U.S. concerns about security and drug smuggling out of Canada. The total cost of these barriers is unknown, but involves thousands of border guards, facilities, additional paperwork and regulatory requirements, inspectors and even drones in certain areas.

When I float this idea in Canada, I get a mixed and muted reaction. Canadians are very polite, and if they oppose the idea, they are rarely combative. If they approve, they won’t say much in deference to the feelings of their fellow Canadians who may oppose it.

But south of the border, an increasing number of policymakers agree that deeper integration between the two countries makes sense. And for many, the strongest case may be geopolitical.

Since the fall of the Iron Curtain, a new economic Cold War has emerged, pitting free economies like the United States against the state-directed capitalism of China, Japan, Russia, the Gulf Arab states, South Korea, Singapore and others. These countries control, or own outright, their corporations, and back their efforts with an arsenal of economic weaponry — from subsidies and protectionism to diplomacy to bullying and bribery — to capture markets and resources.

In this new world, bigger is better. Big countries can push back or reciprocate with duties, protectionism or restrictions. Big countries can insist on fair treatment, can impose non-tariff barriers and, if treatment is nasty, can threaten military or diplomatic sanctions. Smaller countries, or those without military might, have to take it on the chin.

Another benefit would be the development of Canada’s north, an area larger than Australia, and largely empty. Roads, airports, railways, seaports, military outposts, bridges, power generation facilities and other infrastructure are needed to tap its vast buried treasure. An estimated $17 trillionworth of metals and minerals — such as copper, gold, silver, nickel, uranium, diamonds, phosphates, potash, lead, zinc, iron ore, and rare materials used in hybrid cars, solar panels and electronics — are known to exist already, according to estimates by an expert with the Canadian Geological Survey, but there’s more. Much of the territory has not been mapped or even been trodden by human beings, let alone explored for resource development. Only American capital, know-how and military protection can do it right.

Despite the powerful logic of a U.S.-Canada merger, the obstacles remain daunting. Both countries are politically divided and heavily regionalized. Getting a budget passed in Washington is tough enough, but coordinating the wishes of regions and politicians on both sides of the border would be impossible unless, of course, there’s a crisis. To execute so audacious a move would require a level of statesmanship now lacking in both countries.

But remember: The Europeans pulled off something far more dramatic, uniting populations that shared no language and had slaughtered one another for centuries. Other recent, albeit less dramatic, examples of deeper integration include the Eastern Caribbean Economic and Monetary Union and the Economic Community of West African States. They all did it by opening their borders to trade and travel—while at the same time leaving governments intact.

Opinion surveys about an outright merger are rare but in 1964, a poll showed support from 49 percent of Canadians. In 2007, the World Values Survey Association, a research network of thousands of social scientists, found that about 77 percent of Americans and 41 percent of Canadians said they would opt for political union if it meant a better quality of life. In 2011, another poll by Harris/Decima showed that 65 percent of Canadians backed greater integration with the United States and supported a plan to eliminate the border by blending U.S. and Canadian customs, immigration, security and law enforcement efforts.

We don’t have to become one country—say, the United States of America and Canada. But there’s a lot we can do, short of a full-on merger, to join forces.

 Diane Francis is editor at large with the National Post, broadcaster and distinguished professor at Ryerson University’s Ted Rogers School of Management. She is author of Merger of the Century: Why Canada and America Should Become One Country.

Source: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/04/why-the-us-should-merge-with-canada-105610.html#.U1Ace_mIB8E

Trade and partnership needs to grow so that situation is a win-win for both parties. How to achieve that...

Fun speeches around the movies, thought it was appropriate for us. You know - inspiration. 

From the Tv show The Newsroom. It is an interesting take on the journalism, but this particular speech is very revealing. 

Energy independence and energy abundance is what going to secure our foreign policy. This is how to we are going to achieve this.

This is pretty cool speech