Yoe you just stepped on my toes! I ain't no shirt tucking golfing manager either! JT rocks and so does Carole King. (heck fire just because you can actually understand what they say in the vocals does not mean they are not cool)

This is America. We don't do substance here. And despite ripping off Siegfried from Get Smart, I'm making a serious point. Our political system is like a game show or "reality" TV.

But not quite as ridiculous as the candidates' wives favorite recipe. Then again, many of us are descendants of England, where the queen's and princesses' fashions are daily news.

Well, admittedly, Dorothea, none of the artists or songs listed can measure up to my intoduction to German Rock? Pop? Electronic? music: Autobahn by Kraftwerk. Almost 40 years on I am still trying, and failing, to figure the appeal that out :0

"where the queen's and princesses' fashions are daily news"

The royal family has no political power. That's why it's called representative monarchy. Can't people in the USA understand that? By the way, don't you think that Michelle Obama's well-toned arms look fantastic?

"Almost 40 years on I am still trying, and failing, to figure the appeal that out"

Why do you listen to music that you don't like?

"Our political system is like a game show or "reality" TV."

Well, the Repuglicans are indeed quite entertaining in a really sad way, of course.

What I find the most frustrating in the USA is that there are only two parties in the parliament. That's why a candidate has to convince more than 50% of the voters in order to win the election. However, there's no way that one single party can truly please half the nation all at once. In Germany, 30-35% of the votes are usually sufficient to win the election. This means that German candidates don't need to bend so much in order to appeal to the masses. They can remain truer to themselves.

I really can't stand phony politicians who merely make vague statements or who only tell the people what they supposedly want to hear in order to get their votes. I want politicians who are not afraid of speaking their mind and who stand up for their convictions, even if this means that they will get fewer votes. Sadly, Obama belongs to the first category. He wants to be liked so badly that he caves in all the time. This guy has no backbone. Also, I have no idea what Obama's actual, personal views are. Rick Santorum, on the other hand, belongs to the second category. As totally outdated as his views are, what I like about him is that he stays true to himself and doesn't play a role. And that's why he will lose the election.

What I find the most frustrating in the USA is that there are only two parties in the parliament.

We don't have a parliament. I know Congress sort of looks like a parliament, but it isn't. For one thing, the President, who is both the head of state and head of government, is not a member of Congress. For another, Congress can be controlled by the party in opposition to the President, something impossible in a parliamentary system. And even if the same party controls Congress, the President is still not in charge of Congress the way a chancellor or prime minister is.

Another problem we've got is that, strictly speaking, the parties do not divide along ideologies. You'd think they did, especially listening to Republicans, but the real split is over the question of implied powers. The Constitution enumerates only a few specific and a few broad powers. One party is defined by the perception that the only powers the federal government has are the ones that are enumerated. The other party, on the other hand, recognizes that the enumerated powers imply other powers (e.g., that the power to regulate commerce implies power over currency and monetary policy). The tendency is for the right to deny implied powers and for the left to embrace implied powers, but that's not enough to define ideologies. And so, factions that would normally establish their own parties in a parliamentary system form instead coalitions defined by the split over implied powers. The really tragic part of this is that the part of the Republican coalition that is currently in control of the party is made up of people who would, in Germany, be members of parties so extreme that they would be unable to clear the hurdle for representation in the Bundestag, if they weren't banned altogether.

It's a rubbish system. It's very stable, but that stability is bought with an inability to get things done. Extreme example: slavery was abolished in the British Empire peacefully by an act of Parliament; in the US, slavery was abolished through a civil war which was the consequence of decades of inaction caused by the fact that in our system the political minority is always able to prevent action. Compounding the problem is the difficulty of amending the Constitution. Although, considering the radicalism of the Republican Party today, that's something of a blessing. Change is needed, but it may have to wait for a time when the right's dominance of the political system can be broken by other means (whatever they might turn out to be).

Congress can be controlled by the party in opposition to the President. And even if the same party controls Congress, the President is still not in charge of Congress the way a chancellor or prime minister is.

I know. That's indeed a really strange thing. What I don't understand is why US media often refer to the US President as the "Leader of the Free World" when he doesn't even have power over his own country. And why did Obama make so many promises during the presidential campaign in 2008 when the presidency lacks the political power to implement these promised changes? That's intentionally misleading the people. The success of politicians is measured based on whether or not they are able or willing to keep their promises.

The tendency is for the right to deny implied powers and for the left to embrace implied powers, but that's not enough to define ideologies.

I understand that Repubs are supposed to be for small government, whereas Dems are supposed to be for big government. However, if Repubs truly wanted small government, then why don't they support things like marriage equality or the legalisation of prostitution.

I know that Repubs are all about freedom. However, freedom is only good when all people can enjoy freedom equally. And that's why you need regulations. Regulations ensure that the freedom of one person ends at the point where the freedom of other people would be violated. Without these regulations certain people could expand their own freedom at the expense of others. The wealthy and healthy could exploit the poor and sick, which would lead to total injustice. Freedom without equality sucks as much as equality without freedom. You need both to be happy.

Factions that would normally establish their own parties in a parliamentary system form instead coalitions defined by the split over implied powers.

This forming of "coalitions" is useless when people can't vote for them and have to vote for the entire party instead.

Also, I've heard several people on MSNBC complain about the two party system. However, they never do anything about it. Someone who only gets his news from MSNBC would think that voters in the USA only have the choice between two parties. The existence of third parties is (almost) totally ignored. Why don't MSNBC people use their shows to introduce some of the third parties, e.g. GPUS and SPUSA? In the long run, this could bring more diversity into your "non-parliament".

The Republican coalition that is currently in control of the party is made up of people who would, in Germany, be members of parties so extreme that they would be unable to clear the hurdle for representation in the Bundestag, if they weren't banned altogether.

That's true. The NPD got 1.5 % in the last federal election. A ban of this party has been in discussion for a while now. However, banning a party is a really difficult subject with lots of pros and cons to consider.

Compounding the problem is the difficulty of amending the Constitution. Although, considering the radicalism of the Republican Party today, that's something of a blessing.

Yes, it's impossible to have the good without the bad. In Germany, an amendment of the constitution requires a two-thirds majority in both chambers of the parliament. The left and centre-left parties have tried for a while now to include the feature "sexual identity" (= sexual orientation and gender identity) into the non-discrimination clause of the constitution. However, the two centre-right parties don't like this idea at all. They believe that the Equal Treatment Act of 2006 is more than sufficient, but actually it's not comprehensive.

What I don't understand is why US media often refer to the US President as the "Leader of the Free World" when he doesn't even have power over his own country.

That's American parochialism for you. I suspect that for a lot of Americans, the US is the world, and they prefer to pretend that nothing really exists beyond our borders (and they resent it when reality intrudes). It's a deeply-embedded attitude. Consider the World Series. Baseball is played in quite a few countries around the world, but the so-called World Series is only for American teams, apparently. Imagine a World Cup in which every competing team was consistently from India. No one would think it deserved the name, yet in the United States we have a "World" Series and hardly anyone thinks twice about it.

However, freedom is only good when all people can enjoy freedom equally.

True, except Republicans aren't fans of equality. They believe that freedom is degraded by equality. The more right-wing, the more pronounced that view.

The existence of third parties is (almost) totally ignored.

The two-party system is embedded in the US Constitution. Not explicitly, but it comes out of the implied v. expressed powers debate. As long as this constitution remains in force, the two party system will endure. Third parties can't break in, because there is no space from them to break in to. The lack of media coverage is more of a symptom than a cause of the two-party system.

There are only two instances in which third parties successfully arose and became a part of the political system, and in each instance that was possible only because one of the established two parties failed in some way. The first was when the Federalist Party withered to a regional party due to it's stance on the War of 1812. The Whig Party eventually formed in the space left by the Federalists, but the Whigs ultimately disintegrated over the issue of slavery in the 1850s, which allowed the Republican Party to form and become a player. In all other cases, third parties either simply fade away because they can't get any traction or because the cause or causes which motivated them were taken up by one of the two established parties.

This has been the case as long as the present constitution has been in force. If that is ever to change, we would need a new constitution, one that establishes a proper parliamentary form of government.

In Germany, an amendment of the constitution requires a two-thirds majority in both chambers of the parliament.

That's actually much easier than what we've got. We've got two methods of amending the constitution. The only one that has been used so far is for Congress to pass an amendment by a two-thirds votes, and then for the amendment to be ratified by three fourths of the states. The other method would have two-thirds of the states call for a constitutional convention, the results of which would then need three fourths of the states to ratify. Either way, it's a very high hurdle to jump.

MeddlingMonk - I do hope you are a government/history teacher. If not, you should be. You have a way of bringing to life the intricacies of the way our Country does and does not work. My other thought is offered with only the best wishes for you and that is for you to consider politics. We need thinking people like you to represent us.

@ redapplelady: I second that!

@ MeddlingMonk:

Baseball is played in quite a few countries around the world, but the so-called World Series is only for American teams, apparently.

As you mention the "World Series", dare I give you another example? But please don't shoot the messenger! By using the words "America" and "American" as synonyms for "USA" and "US American" people from the USA ignore or deny the existence of all the other American nations. See also the video clip "The Word - Hell, No!" from The Colbert Report.

Third parties either simply fade away because they can't get any traction or because the cause(s) which motivated them were taken up by (...) established parties.

For the most part, this applies to Germany as well. However, there are two exceptions: the Green Party and the Pirate Party. Both started as tiny single-issue parties and managed to evolve beyond that. The Greens have already become an established party, the Pirates are deservedly on their way. Although the bigger parties frequently take up the issues of the smaller parties some years later, lots of voters still stick to the party that brought up the issue at first, because this party is considered more experienced in this issue and more genuine in its politics. The smaller parties are very important, because they set the trends. The bigger parties merely follow these trends if/when it becomes convenient, either to angle for more votes or for fear of losing voters to the more pregressive smaller parties. The bigger parties are so phony, because they care more about power and votes than about issues. Example: The centre-right Christian Democrats have always been in favour of nuclear power. When the Fukushima disaster happened last year and the polls showed that the Green Party gained up to 15 percentage points, the Christian Democrats panicked and made a U-turn regarding nuclear power. Now, the Christian Democrats will go down in history as the party that abolished nuclear power, although actually the Greens deserve all the credit for this.

The lack of media coverage is more of a symptom than a cause of the two-party system.

That's an interesting point. I haven't thought of it that way. However, I still think that even though the third parties will never make it into Congress, they are worth listening to. Their ideas should serve as inspiration to the Dems, who could definitely use some pressure from the left.

If I were a voter in the USA, the two major parties wouldn't be options for me, because they are simply too right-wing. I'd opt for SPUSA instead, because I wouldn't be willing to settle for less. Sellout? No, thanks.

In Germany, an amendment of the constitution requires a two-thirds majority in both chambers of the parliament. - That's actually much easier than what we've got.

The requirements might be nominally higher in the USA, but the respective majorities are probably equally difficult to achieve in both countries. We have five parties in the parliament. To amend the constitution, usually four of the five parties have to agree on this issue. This hardly ever happens, because two parties lean to the right and the three others are left-leaning.

pregressive -> progressive

By using the words "America" and "American" as synonyms for "USA" and "US American" people from the USA ignore or deny the existence of all the other American nations.

There is a problem with that view. There are quite a few Americans who share it, but the thing is that the US is the only country in the world with the word "American" in it's name, and in any case what is the alternative? United Statesians?

And here's an alternate view. Years ago, when Star Trek: The Next Generation was on the air, there was an episode concerning descendants of American Indians who had colonized a planet that was due to be handed over to the Cardassians. I remember getting involved in discussion over whether the term "American Indians" was a good thing to use. The discussion went all over the place until the one person involved who was a member of a native tribe spoke up: he preferred to be called a "Canadian Indian", thank you very much. So it's not just Americans who limit the use of the word to the inhabitants of the United States. Other inhabitants of the Americas do the same thing. Like I said, what's the alternative?

If I were a voter in the USA, the two major parties wouldn't be options for me, because they are simply too right-wing.

I like to tell people that the Republicans are a far-right party and the Democrats are a center-right party. There is only one Socialist in Congress. I'm not a member of either of the two national parties for the reason you cited, but I also don't go for any third party because in our system that would just be throwing my vote away. I vote for Democrats primarily because they serve as a firewall to the Republicans. They're a pretty crap firewall overall, but it's what we've got, and the Republicans have become far too dangerous for protest votes in my opinion.

Fortunately (if that's the right word) the Republican Party is getting more and more extreme and appears to be gradually shrinking to a regional party (the South). In other words, if this keeps up, the Republicans will go the way of the Federalists, only not as quickly. That should open up some space when it happens. May I live to see it.

Better yet, there is a movement to get enough states to call for a constitutional convention. If that's successful, anything could happen, even replacing the current constitution with a better one. It's not impossible. After all, the last such convention was called in 1787 merely for the purpose of amending the Articles of Confederation. But the delegates quickly decided to just start over. It could theoretically happen again. And while I'm wishing, I'd like a pony.

(My undergraduate degree is in education, but I never got the opportunity to use it. Long story short, I picked the 'wrong' combination of endorsement areas, and the educational system is very inflexible about such things. It's a very unprofessional profession in a lot of ways.)

The US is the only country in the world with the word "American" in it's name.

Right, but that's not the point. The point is that there is a superior entity that already bears this name. The double-continent and its inhabitants were named America resp. Americans way before the USA was founded. Therefore, people from the USA don't have the right to steal these labels and thereby deny other Americans their Americanness. As for the alternatives, I suggest "US American" as demonym and "US-American" as adjective. In German, we already have the words "US-Amerikaner" and "US-amerikanisch".

We had a similar problem in the past when there were two different German countries. West Germany got the sole right of representation. This means that West Germany was allowed to simply label itself "Germany", whereas East Germany had to call itself "GDR". Being from East Germany myself, I found this quite degrading, because the implication was that West Germany is the real Germany or the superior Germany. I didn't mind that my country was called "East Germany" as long as West Germany was referred to as "West Germany" and not just "Germany". To this day, lots of West Germans still look down at us and treat us like foreigners, because they are the real Germans, you know. Now you may understand why I empathise with those non-US Americans who consider the choice of words an issue. And even though Canadians don't care, South Americans do.

He preferred to be called a "Canadian Indian".

I know that Canadians don't want to be called Americans. However, that doesn't change the fact that they are indeed Americans, too. Just like my being German automatically makes me a European as well, simply because Germany is situated in Europe. Whether or not I like this geographical fact is totally irrelevant.

In case my above statements couldn't convince you, I suggest that we agree to disagree on this subject.

I like to tell people that the Republicans are a far-right party and the Democrats are a center-right party.

I am very relieved that there are people in the USA who have the same view as most West Europeans. A while ago, I coincidentally discovered a thread that was called something like, "USA - the land where left-wing means centre-right". You should make that your national slogan... Just kidding.

There is only one Socialist in Congress.

Really? You have a socialist in Congress? Please, tell me who that is. Or is it possibly a sting operation? My favourite US politician so far is Barney Frank, but sadly he'll retire soon. Therefore, I am desperately in need of a new one to like.

I vote for Democrats primarily. They're a pretty crap firewall overall, but it's what we've got, and the Republicans have become far too dangerous for protest votes in my opinion.

Therein lies the problem. That's the reason why Obama doesn't bother to please or even listen to lefties. He assumes that they'll vote for him anyway. Therefore, Obama spends all his time on sucking up to the so-called "moderates" to get their votes. Thereby, he becomes more and more right-wing. Lefties need to give Obama a warning that they might as well vote for a third party if he keeps ignoring their demands. He should have to earn your vote instead of taking it for granted.

Fortunately (if that's the right word) the Republican Party is getting more and more extreme and appears to be gradually shrinking to a regional party.

I totally understand what you mean. The more obvious and pronounced the right-wingness, the easier the danger can be recognised and thus opposed. There's a deterrent effect. Hidden or subtle dangers are much harder to discover, which is a danger in itself.

And while I'm wishing, I'd like a pony.

Hey, that's funny.

May peace - and social justice - be with you!

Really? You have a socialist in Congress? Please, tell me who that is.

Bernie Sanders, one of Vermont's Senators. His Senate bio describes him as an "independent" but that may be just an issue with the Senate web-site's profanity filter (joke).

And while I'm wishing, I'd like a pony.

Hey, that's funny.

Thanks. I stole it myself from from Calvin & Hobbes.

Oh, and following the C&H link just takes you to whichever strip is currently being shown. I don't know just when the "I'd like a pony" line appeared. It was said once by Susie Derkins, when she realized that some things she was hoping for were not very likely to happen. I find it both funny and useful (in disarming potential criticism of pie-in-the-sky fantasizing).

Thanks for the info. I've heard of Bernie Sanders, but I had no idea that he's so wonderfully left. The label "independent" is really totally useless, because this can mean anything from right-wing psycho to pacifist pinko.

That may be just an issue with the Senate web-site's profanity filter.

Good one. Speaking of which, why do you think it is that "socialism" is considered a dirty word in the USA? Could it be because people mistake "socialism" for "national socialism"? I've read several comments by US conservatives which indicate this. For example, someone wrote something like, "Keith Olbermann is so left. He's practically a Nazi."

So, you like comics! Makes me wonder how old you are. Please, don't take that negatively! It's just that here in Germany, I've never met an adult who's into comics.

why do you think it is that "socialism" is considered a dirty word in the USA?

I suppose it's because 'communism' isn't really available for demagoguery any more. The right always motivates its followers through fear, and I imagine that for GOP purposes 'socialism' looks enough like 'communism' if you squint and turn your head just so. And Republicans do like throwing supposedly scary-sounding words and phrases around. The real meanings of those words don't seem to be important to them. All that matters is the basic message: be afraid.

Could it be because people mistake "socialism" for "national socialism"?

If it's a mistake, then I think it's a willful mistake, because no one could honestly confuse Sigmar Gabriel for Adolf Hitler, for example. I think that what really is happening is a word-association game. National Socialists are scary-evil, so Democratic Socialists must be as well, so that means that Democrats are Socialists and therefore Democrats are Nazis. It's cheap and stupid and, I think, intentional. It's a conscious effort to manipulate the ignorance of their intended audience. Anybody who knows anything knows that the German Workers' Party added National Socialist to their name to signal their opposition to the 'international socialism' of then-ruling SDP, making the Nazis formal name a word-game in itself. It's a far-right con that the Nazis indulged in as well. Like I said before, it's all just about motivating with fear.

Makes me wonder how old you are.

I'm a child of over-40. I'm not into comics as such, especially not "graphic novels" (which were less grandiosely called comic books when I was young). Comic strips are a different matter. They can be very, very clever and subversive. Especially the now-defunct Calvin & Hobbes, Peanuts, and Bloom County, and the on-going Doonsbury and Non Sequitur.

It is important who he listens to though.

Steppenwolf-Hippo Stomp

And Steppenwolf-Monster on the loose

More like Steppenwolf- Move Over!

If we're talking STEPPENWOLF -- first band I ever saw live back at the Fillmore East -- the whole list and its desperate grabbing for approval reminds me of the best song they ever did, the obscure B-side to "Born to Be Wild" which is also on their first album and the retrospective, "Everybody's Next One."

There's a lot of good music out there still. You're just not going to find it on your local Top 40 station, that's all.

But your local NPR or CBC or college radio station, or your favourite MP3 blog? Loaded with great music.

OK. OK. I'll get off your lawn.

I thought the only thing kids listened to now was windows rattling from all bass and no tenor.

I'm not a kid, at 58; I don't listen to Top 40, but I find a lot to like out there! Steve Earle, Lucinda Williams, Adele (yes, she does have a fantastic soulful voice), Amy Winehouse while she lasted, Dave Alvin, John Doe, the ever tuneful Nick Lowe, Buddy Miller, and I could go on and on! Omara Portuondo, Cesaria Evora, rest her soul. Even that limited list includes everything from alt-country to blues and hard-grinding anthem rock, amazing guitars, witty lyrics, and just an abundance of talent and wit. My point is, who cares what's on Top 40? Who cares what the kids are listening to? If it's good you'll hear about it. You can listen to college stations, public radio shows such as American Routes, podcasts by great musicians discussing their musical choices, Terry Gross interviewing fascinating musicians ... I get all my musical news and inspiration from these sources and the music-loving friends with whom I'm always surrounded. Have faith, there will always be radically good music!

Someone's been living under a rock since 1979 then.

I'm 65, and last year's new groups -- the Grammy list -- excited me more than music has for a decade -- but there's always been great stuff out there. Cut it off in 1979 and you ignore -- at random, a good list would keep me here until a doctor's appointment tomorrow morning -- DIRE STRAITS, all the later Springsteen, MIDNIGHT OIL, the music in the early 80s that reminded us rock could be fun too -- not just declarations of the world's rottenness -- and that we were even allowed to dance to it -- like BLONDIE & the B-52s and some STONES, we miss Bruce Hornsby, and then there's PEARL JAM and the whole Grunge scene, and ....

Maybe the 60s will never be matched -- because we were finding what music could be, and everything moved ahead so fast -- but even in the drear of the 70s there was good music out there -- and in every decade afterwards, leading up to the infusion of talent that is now appearing.

Sure there are exceptions. Dire Straits is fantastic. Springsteen and Midnight Oil only look good as a function of rising to the level of meh in a sea of terrible. Speaking of a sea of terrible, the 80s should be erased from music history with only a few exceptions starting with the B-52s and Blondie. Hornsby is fantastic but he was a throwback for his time. Grunge is HORRENDOUS! Stone Temple of the Jam Dog Pearl Pilot was the epitome of using feedback, distortion, and mumbling to hide absence of talent in overwhelming ambiguous background noise accompanied by... nothing.

B.B. King

Crosby Stills Nash

Etta James

Koko Taylor

The Beatles

Hound Dog Taylor

Led Zeppelin

The Allman Brothers Band

These bands/individuals made a living on talent not pop culture because they were capable of it.

Maybe they haven't heard that particular cover version by Beth Hart, but I'm pretty sure most folks have heard either the original or one of the many cover versions. My personal favorite is the one by The Gits with Mia Zapata.

Failure to be indiscriminate is not the same as living under a rock. Sometimes I wish that I had been living under a rock. I was born in 74', so I grew up subjected to the garbage most of my peers think constitutes music.

Yes, it's like a chef who thinks that her pheasant under glass is superior to chef boyardee! I mean it's all food and just a matter of preference, right?

Sorry, you're alone.

Yellow Submarine! Ringo's line upon seeing the lever that they aren't supposed to pull: "I can't help it. I'm a born lever-puller!" makes the movie worth it.

YELLOW SUBMARINE is wonderful, I saw it in theatres over a dozen times when it was running. SGT. PEPPER'S... is a whole different live action movie that was forgotten until it somehow got mentioned.

It IS awful.