Would the Last Honest Reporter Please Turn On the Lights?
By Orson Scott Card

Editor’s
note: Orson Scott Card is a Democrat and a newspaper columnist, and in
this opinion piece he takes on both while lamenting the current state
of journalism.

An open letter to the local daily paper — almost every local daily paper in America:

I remember reading All the President’s Men
and thinking: That’s journalism.  You do what it takes to get the truth
and you lay it before the public, because the public has a right to
know.

This housing crisis didn’t come out of nowhere.  It was not a vague emanation of the evil Bush administration.

It
was a direct result of the political decision, back in the late 1990s,
to loosen the rules of lending so that home loans would be more
accessible to poor people.  Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were authorized
to approve risky loans.

What is a risky loan?  It’s a loan that the recipient is likely not to be able to repay.

The
goal of this rule change was to help the poor — which especially would
help members of minority groups.  But how does it help these people to
give them a loan that they can’t repay?  They get into a house, yes,
but when they can’t make the payments, they lose the house — along with
their credit rating.

They end up worse off than before.

This was completely foreseeable and in fact many people did
foresee it.  One political party, in Congress and in the executive
branch, tried repeatedly to tighten up the rules.  The other party
blocked every such attempt and tried to loosen them.

Furthermore,
Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were making political contributions to the
very members of Congress who were allowing them to make irresponsible
loans.  (Though why quasi-federal agencies were allowed to do so
baffles me.  It’s as if the Pentagon were allowed to contribute to the
political campaigns of Congressmen who support increasing their
budget.)

Isn’t
there a story here?  Doesn’t journalism require that you who produce
our daily paper tell the truth about who brought us to a position where
the only way to keep confidence in our economy was a $700 billion
bailout?  Aren’t you supposed to follow the money and see which
politicians were benefiting personally from the deregulation of
mortgage lending?

I
have no doubt that if these facts had pointed to the Republican Party
or to John McCain as the guilty parties, you would be treating it as a
vast scandal.  “Housing-gate,” no doubt.  Or “Fannie-gate.”

Instead,
it was Senator Christopher Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank, both
Democrats, who denied that there were any problems, who refused Bush
administration requests to set up a regulatory agency to watch over
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and who were still pushing for these
agencies to go even further in promoting sub-prime mortgage loans
almost up to the minute they failed.

As Thomas Sowell points out in a TownHall.com essay entitled “Do Facts Matter?” ( http://snipurl.com/457townhall_com]
): “Alan Greenspan warned them four years ago.  So did the Chairman of
the Council of Economic Advisers to the President.  So did Bush’s
Secretary of the Treasury.”

These
are facts.  This financial crisis was completely preventable.  The
party that blocked any attempt to prevent it was … the Democratic
Party.  The party that tried to prevent it was … the Republican
Party.

Yet
when Nancy Pelosi accused the Bush administration and Republican
deregulation of causing the crisis, you in the press did not hold her
to account for her lie.  Instead, you criticized Republicans who took
offense at this lie and refused to vote for the bailout!

What?  It’s not the liar, but the victims of the lie who are to blame?

Now
let’s follow the money … right to the presidential candidate who is
the number-two recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae.

And
after Franklin Raines, the CEO of Fannie Mae who made $90 million while
running it into the ground, was fired for his incompetence, one
presidential candidate’s campaign actually consulted him for advice on
housing.

If
that presidential candidate had been John McCain, you would have called
it a major scandal and we would be getting stories in your paper every
day about how incompetent and corrupt he was.

But
instead, that candidate was Barack Obama, and so you have buried this
story, and when the McCain campaign dared to call Raines an “adviser”
to the Obama campaign — because that campaign had sought his
advice — you actually let Obama’s people get away with accusing McCain
of lying, merely because Raines wasn’t listed as an official adviser to the Obama campaign.

You would never tolerate such weasely nit-picking from a Republican.

If
you who produce our local daily paper actually had any principles, you
would be pounding this story, because the prosperity of all Americans
was put at risk by the foolish, short-sighted, politically selfish, and
possibly corrupt actions of leading Democrats, including Obama.

If
you who produce our local daily paper had any personal honor, you would
find it unbearable to let the American people believe that somehow
Republicans were to blame for this crisis.

There
are precedents.  Even though President Bush and his administration
never said that Iraq sponsored or was linked to 9/11, you could not
stand the fact that Americans had that misapprehension — so you pounded
us with the fact that there was no such link.  (Along the way, you created the false impression that Bush had lied to them and said that there was a connection.)

If
you had any principles, then surely right now, when the American people
are set to blame President Bush and John McCain for a crisis they tried
to prevent, and are actually shifting to approve of Barack Obama
because of a crisis he helped cause, you would be laboring at least as
hard to correct that false impression.

Your
job, as journalists, is to tell the truth.  That’s what you claim you
do, when you accept people’s money to buy or subscribe to your paper.

But
right now, you are consenting to or actively promoting a big fat lie —
that the housing crisis should somehow be blamed on Bush, McCain, and
the Republicans.  You have trained the American people to blame
everything bad — even bad weather — on Bush, and they are responding as
you have taught them to.

If
you had any personal honor, each reporter and editor would be insisting
on telling the truth — even if it hurts the election chances of your
favorite candidate.

Because
that’s what honorable people do.  Honest people tell the truth even
when they don’t like the probable consequences.  That’s what honesty means .  That’s how trust is earned.

Barack
Obama is just another politician, and not a very wise one.  He has
revealed his ignorance and naivete time after time — and you have swept
it under the rug, treated it as nothing.

Meanwhile,
you have participated in the borking of Sarah Palin, reporting savage
attacks on her for the pregnancy of her unmarried daughter — while you
ignored the story of John Edwards’s own adultery for many months.

So I ask you now: Do you have any standards at all?  Do you even know what honesty means?

Is
getting people to vote for Barack Obama so important that you will
throw away everything that journalism is supposed to stand for?

You might want to remember the way the National Organization of Women threw away their
integrity by supporting Bill Clinton despite his well-known pattern of
sexual exploitation of powerless women.  Who listens to NOW anymore? 
We know they stand for nothing; they have no principles.

That’s where you are right now.

It’s
not too late.  You know that if the situation were reversed, and the
truth would damage McCain and help Obama, you would be moving heaven
and earth to get the true story out there.

If
you want to redeem your honor, you will swallow hard and make a list of
all the stories you would print if it were McCain who had been getting
money from Fannie Mae, McCain whose campaign had consulted with its
discredited former CEO, McCain who had voted against tightening its
lending practices.

Then
you will print them, even though every one of those true stories will
point the finger of blame at the reckless Democratic Party, which put
our nation’s prosperity at risk so they could feel good about helping
the poor, and lay a fair share of the blame at Obama’s door.

You
will also tell the truth about John McCain: that he tried, as a
Senator, to do what it took to prevent this crisis.  You will tell the
truth about President Bush: that his administration tried more than
once to get Congress to regulate lending in a responsible way.

This
was a Congress-caused crisis, beginning during the Clinton
administration, with Democrats leading the way into the crisis and
blocking every effort to get out of it in a timely fashion.

If
you at our local daily newspaper continue to let Americans believe —
and vote as if — President Bush and the Republicans caused the crisis,
then you are joining in that lie.

If
you do not tell the truth about the Democrats — including Barack Obama
— and do so with the same energy you would use if the miscreants were
Republicans — then you are not journalists by any standard.

You’re just the public relations machine of the Democratic Party, and it’s time you were all fired and real journalists brought in, so that we can actually have a news paper in our city.

This article first appeared in The Rhinoceros Times of Greensboro, North Carolina, and is used here by permission.

According to the CIA Factbook, the U.S. population is http-equiv=”Content-Type” content=”text/html; charset=utf-8″> name=”ProgId” content=”Word.Document”> name=”Generator” content=”Microsoft Word 11″> name=”Originator” content=”Microsoft Word 11″> 303,824,640 (as of July 2008 est.)

That’s 303 million plus living in the U.S.

and this is a billion:1,000,000,000 (I checked). and 1 billion is 1,000 million.

So, if you had $1 billion then and gave an equal share to each U.S. citizen, what amount would they get?
that would be:
   $1,000,000,000 / 303,000,000 (rounded down for simplification).
= $3.30 per individual.
or for those who wish to be really accurate
  $1,000,000,000 / 303,824,640
= $3.29per individual

Now what if you had 700 Billion? 700,000,000,000?
that would be $700,000,000,000 / 303,000,000
= $2310.23 per individual.
or for those who wish to be really accurate
  $700,000,000,000 / 303,824,640
= $2,303,96 per individual

Now that’s counting every one that’s alive:
now if we take every adult that’s alive and Not every single child that’s alive and using the same source (CIA Factbook)
the U.S. population breaks down into the following categories:
0-14 years: 20.1% 15-64 years: 67.1% 65 years and over: 12.7%
Given that I don’t know where the break at 18years old within the 15-64 year mark is, we’ll take the two groups 15-64 and 65 and over and add them together:
67.1% + 12.7% = 74.4%
 and 74.4% of 303,000,000 equals =  227250000 people age 15 and over in the U.S.
or for those who wish to be really accurate
       74.4% of 303,824,640 equals = 226045532 people age 15 and over in the U.S.

Now lets distribute the $700 billion amongst that age group (no offense to the 14 and under crowd)
that would be $700,000,000,000 / 227250000
= $3080.31 per individual
or for those who wish to be really accurate
that would be $700,000,000,000 / 226045532
= $ 3096.72

and the amount must obviously increase when you take the age group only from age 18 and up.
So, instead of bailing out whoever this week,
 why doesn’t the govt, just give me the $3096.72 and we’ll call it a day?

22,000 Scientists Disagree
With UN Global Warming Push

“Dr. Robinson, in collaboration with other scientists, was one of the early critics of doomsday global-warming theories. He has authored articles and created video presentations demonstrating that the hypothesis of human-caused global warming is wrong, showing that the hypothesis is not supported by the observable evidence. To come to this conclusion, Professor Robinson and his colleagues brought together the findings of hundreds of peer-reviewed studies about all aspects of the global-warming hypothesis.

TNA: Those who blame mankind for causing global
warming would respond to that point by saying that the Earth is the
warmest it’s been in 400 years, and that’s significant.

Dr. Robinson: They’re right, but
they only show you the data from the last 400 years. If the data for a
longer time interval is considered, temperatures today are seen to be
not especially warm. The current temperature is about average for the
past 3,000 years. It was much warmer during the Medieval Climate
Optimum 1,000 years ago (see Figure 1). The climate, as we know from
historical records, was just fine during that warm period. In fact, it
was a little better. So, yes, it is the warmest in 400 years.

TNA: To the average person, those IPCC reports look very authoritative, very intimidating. It looks to us like a battle between two sides of experts. How do we know whom to believe?

Dr. Robinson: First, just because the UN has spent an enormous amount of money to convene meetings of 600 mostly self-interested people — many of whom are receiving research grants and other perks for participating — to try to determine something that isn’t knowable with current data and techniques, and produce a report, proves nothing.

Moreover, many of these 600 disagree with the conclusions that the UN-IPCC advertises. The scientists are never allowed to approve or disapprove the final report, and many of the comments that they submit for publication in the report are rejected by UN bureaucrats.

First, the report that is initially released to the public by the UN-IPCC is an executive summary put together by a handful of people including bureaucrats, politicians, UN operatives, and a few scientists. They issue a summary report with UN propaganda in it. They then go back to the reports of the 600 scientists and insert sentences into those reports so that they will conform to the summary.

At no time in this process do the 600 ever vote approval or disapproval of their own report or of the summary report. So this report is not even approved by the people who are claimed to have authored it. This is a fraudulent process.

TNA: Don’t they use the same set of data as you do?

Dr. Robinson: Yes, for the most part. Except that they often unethically omit that part of the data that does not agree with their hypothesis. They pick the parts of the data that favor their conclusion and discard the rest.

If you play with the data, you can falsify with it. So the UN is picking parts of the data. We are considering it all.

TNA: Scientists who are not intimidated to speak out about this are typically charged by the enviros as being paid by the oil companies.

Dr. Robinson: Well, we’ve never been fortunate enough to receive any money from them, and I mean in any way, personally, professionally in our laboratory, or anything. We have never received a dime from anybody who has a specific economic interest in this issue. However, UN power to control and ration world energy — the real goal of their activities — would have a terrible, negative impact on the lives of all Americans. In that sense, all of our supporters have an economic interest.

TNA: Al Gore also makes a big deal about glacier recession.

Dr. Robinson: But he only shows the data for the limited time intervals that seem to support his claims. Here is the world glacier curve (see Figure 2) based on an average of all the world’s glaciers for which there are good records. Some glaciers are actually increasing, but on average the glaciers are decreasing — toward the more normal lengths that are typical of long-term average world temperatures. This curve is offset by 20 years because there is about a 20-year lag between the temperature increase and the shortening of the glaciers.

So the temperature increase reflected in the glacier lengths begins in about 1800. The glaciers have been shortening for 200 years. They started shortening a century before significant amounts of CO2 were produced by human activity. Notice also that the shortening is linear. Hydrocarbon use increased six-fold and the glacier melting rate did not change at all.

The glaciers started shortening long before we were using significant amounts of hydrocarbons, and, when we increased our use by six-fold, the shortening rate did not change. Therefore, human hydrocarbon use is evidently not the cause of glacier shortening or the mild natural temperature increase that is causing that shortening.

TNA: So what is causing the Earth to warm?

Dr. Robinson: A good clue is contained in data showing arctic air temperature vs. solar activity (see Figure 3). There is a good correlation. Surface temperature vs. solar activity data also correlates well (see Figure 4).

TNA: What about Gore’s demonstration in his movie, with those very large graphs, that CO2 tracks right along with temperature and is, therefore, the cause of that warming?

Dr. Robinson: In those curves, the temperature goes up before the CO2 and goes down before the CO2. The CO2 lags the temperature. And the reason it does is that the CO2 rise is caused by the temperature rise rather than vice versa. As temperatures rise, carbon dioxide is released from the oceans, just as the carbon dioxide is released from soft drinks when their temperature rises. Gore shows the curves with poor resolution, so that this cannot be seen by the viewer. His film is filled with dozens of other deliberate errors and misrepresentations.

My favorite is the part where Gore says that “the scientists who specialize in global warming have computer models that long ago predicted this range of temperature increase.” He then displays a graph of their alleged “predictions” and the claimed actual temperatures.

This graph is bogus in several ways, but the most striking is that the computer-predicted curve begins in 1938 — before either Al Gore or the computer had been invented. Unless Al Gore invented the computer before he was born, and didn’t show it to anybody but climate modelers until after WWII, this is impossible, because there were no computers in 1938!

TNA: Speaking of computers, allowing the UN to take over the world’s energy would have a big effect on our higher standard of living, would it not?

Dr. Robinson: An estimated nine percent of the energy of the United States is now used to power computers and the Internet. This technology cannot exist without energy. Automobiles require energy. You cannot warm your home without energy.

If the UN controls, rations, and taxes energy, they will have the power to determine whether you can run a wood stove, whether you can run an automobile, or can use any of the technology that makes our modern life possible.

When you say this to people, their eyes glaze over. They don’t believe it’s going to happen.

The power to tax and ration energy is the power to control the world — to have life and death control over every human being on the planet. No government should ever have this power. The United Nations-IPCC process is not about the climate or saving the environment. It is about power and money — lots of it.

Should Gore and the UN succeed, the effect will not only be diminished prosperity in the United States. In underdeveloped countries, billions of people are lifting themselves from poverty by means of hydrocarbon energy. If their energy supplies are rationed and taxed, they will slip backwards into poverty, misery, and death. This fits the population control agenda of the United Nations.

If the misuse and falsification of the scientific method that drives the human-caused global-warming mania succeeds, it will cause the greatest acts of human genocide the world has ever known. It must be stopped.

It has been brought to my attention that some people believe that all scientists agree that Global Warming (Oh, wait, the first decade of this century has been colder than the 1990′s so it’s no longer “Global Warming” it’s “Climate Change”- although you will never see an article that says scientists admit being WRONG ON GLOBAL WARMING).

So, according to World Net Daily (and I do realize they are a conservative site) “31,000 scientists reject ‘global warming’ agenda“
One could argue that the site is biased, but one can’t argue that the petition project (which boasts: 31,072 American scientists have signed this petition,
including 9,021 with PhDs) isn’t real – cause it is, regardless of weather the mainstream media wishes to report it.

The petition states: “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of
carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will,
in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s
atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate,“

I guess there isn’t a consensus on man made global warming (urhhh Man made ‘climate change’ ) after all.

---

But wait, there’s more…

---

Is it true that all scientists agree with having fetal stem cell (uhhh embryonic stem cell) research?
I know CNN is quite the right wing site and all, but – oh wait, no it’s not. Then why would CNN put out a story that says that Scientists are in disagreement on Stem Cell research?
the article, entitled “Adult stem cells or embryonic? Scientists differ” suggests that not all scientist agree about embryonic stem cell research.
quote about what researchers say: “Working with adult stem cells, they say, may yield the same results.” – underlining – mine.

here’s the kicker:
<i>”The root of the debate really comes down to the ethical question of
what’s the moral status of a human embryo,” he said. “Is it a person or
is it a piece of property? And obviously we have no consensus on that
in this country and I think that means we should not use taxpayer funds
to fund this type of research.”
</i>

I guess scientist aren’t in agreement? hmmm…..

---

Are there any scientists who support intelligent design theory?
according to some – No, but according to one website – yes: “There are many notable biologists, biochemists, physicists, and
astronomers who support intelligent design, and their work continues to
develop the young scientific theory.”
Now , granted, the site is “the discovery institute, and it is a pro-intelligent design site. But does that mean it is lying when it claims (and names some by name) that there are scientists who are supporters of the ID theory? – methinks at least the names listed (scientists who have published on ID) are actual scientist who actually support the ID theory.

---

You see, I was recently informed that because Sara Palin is for allowing ID theory to be taught along side Evolution, and for Not supporting Embryonic stem cell research, and doesn’t agree with man made climate change,
Thus – Sara Palin is “Anti-science”.

I guess all of the scientists who feel the same as her are anti science as well!!!!!!!!!!!!

1st a definition-ish: Success as is used in this particular blog infers to financial stability, emotional stability, and spiritual stability. Not just rich!

So, I was at the “K” last night watching the Kansas City Royals Loose.

When the pitcher allowed the bases to get loaded (in the 4th inning) and then gave over a Grand Slam to the White Sox, I was reminded of the sinking gut feeling I used to get rooting for the Cubs.
It’s a feeling I’ve never like.
It’s that sinking feeling that eventually made me give up on the Cubbies and root for the Cardinals (it was nice to root for someone who actually was successful).
In fact I was silently rooting for the Sox anyway, but it wasn’t that exiting to watch the Royals do what they do best – Loose. And they were after all – the underdogs last night.

But the group I was with was anti-sox and vaguely pro-KC. So I tried to be nice and root with them.

Having said all of that, I have come to many realizations in my life and one of them is that there aren’t any true underdogs anymore.

Take pro baseball for instance:
Some say Florida’s pro team (marlins) bought themselves into a World Series in ’99 and ’03, and they barely have made the playoffs before or since.
So what you say?
So I say that the reason why teams like The Chicago Cubs and the K.C. Royals always loose and are always underdogs is because they are fashioned to be that way. They could be fashioned to be winners, but there are ownership and managerial forces at work to keep them as loosing underdogs.

So why care for them?
And what does that have to do with your everyday underdog? the ‘little guy/gal’?

---

Welp, it’s about bootstraps.

---

Even as I type this blog, I realize I am avoiding other things that would make my life more productive and more successful. PLENTY Other things.
Should I then blame others who are doing things to make their lives successful for my own choice of mediocrity?
Should I profess to be the downtrodden underdog?

or should I admit that I am undisciplined and would rather wax philosophic than garner life success?

And it isn’t just me.
People feel good when they root for the underdog.
People want to cheer on the possibility of the little guy/gal making a big impact! (well that is, until she runs for VP, but that’s another blog)
People like rooting against the odds.
People like to cheer on would be challenger from the streets who takes on the fat cats (unless it’s those who would best America at the olympics, then we’re not so in favor of the little guys – but again – another blog).
But that’s one reason why shows like “American Idol” are so successful – the underdog – who still has talent can indeed become the next star.

But I must protest that a man who has spent his life in hard labor at the factory and hasn’t a dime to show for it upon retirement isn’t the underdog.
- Instead that is a man who never took his life into his own hands and never did what he needed to do to be successful.
Unless that was the life he wanted. Then he shouldn’t complain and we shouldn’t complain on his behalf.

That’s just one theoretical example (However, it’s an example I am genetically related to – So I know this ‘theoretical’ well).

People who are unsuccessful in life have refused to accept that it has rules – breakable and unbreakable both, but rules nonetheless.
The best rule out there is the more educated you are, the more likely you will succeed. – PERIOD

HARD WORK
It drives me nuts to hear people with a HS diploma, who never felt education was important complain that they got the shaft in life. After all, what they knew was that life was about hard work.
- hard work is but 1/3rd of a successful life IMHO
- And most people whom I’ve met that are indeed hard workers are usually hard workers more so on the job – where they have to be to get paid, and less so in the home, where they feel they don’t have to be because they bring home the money. It’s an archaic model of family, but people still try it and complain it’s not successful.

DISCIPLINE
- What is often missing in the ‘underdog’s’ life is discipline. it’s great that He gets up on time, clocks in at the foundry 5 minutes before his shift and never has had a sick day for 6 years running. But when he gets off work and decides the bar is more worthy of his paycheck, comes home late to a distraught wife and screaming kids that he’s neglected (he is after all the under appreciated underdog) and his personal life is in chaos – yes Chaos.
He will NOT ever be successful, financially or otherwise.

EDUCATION
- What Mr. hard work and no discipline outside of the clock punching on the job fails to realize is that he needed an education further than H.S. if he wanted to have some actual control over his personal destiny and not give it completely over to union bosses or corporations with pink slips.
- And nowadays, anyone who says that they can’t get afford a college education is either too ignorant to realize the breadth of opportunities available, or is just lying through their teeth. One CAN get at least an undergraduate degree fairly easily has one the DISCIPLINE and drive to do work they don’t want to do.

Why does an undergraduate matter anyway?
As most people who have one will tell you, it isn’t that much of an education – really. It’s not like an undergrad isn’t something most people couldn’t have self taught had they the time and the library resources. Anyone can be taught to read – and anyone can learn the collegiate verbiage that is sounds learned.
An undergraduate degree tells an employer that you actually can “Stick it out”. that the bearer of the piece of paper has had the discipline to get the degree in the first place.
That’s what that paper is for.
Frankly, nowadays, one needs a Masters degree to get ahead, and that is slightly more than just a piece of paper, but it is the same principle.

Having said that,
The one thing actually garnering an undergraduate degree does do, is it opens one up to possibilities they never knew existed.

having said that, EDUCATION is a life long process. And if people aren’t consistently learning (even post their degree), by the very fact that everyone else is, it will make that individual less successful.

One Exception,
The luck/talent factor – this is something that has (due to media saturation) skewed the country’s perception of success. It may come as a shock to people, but the overwhelming majority of aspiring actors NEVER make it big. The Overwhelming majority of starving artists end up in other careers wishing they were starving artists being discovered by someone who recognizes their talents. it’s all silly.
But, there is a small percentage (I would argue less than 1/2 of 1 percent) of society that are successful because they fell into it or because they had talent no one else had, but that is rare indeed.

So…
Root for the underdog if you’d like, but root for them to get an education and get discipline. And in the case of pro ball, root for the management and ownership to care about successful seasons rather than simply selling tickets.

Pass the Aura has a great quiz out there I suggest everyone go to. LINK.

What ever happened to fun?
What ever happened to whimsy?
What ever happened to frivolity?

most of us need to seriously lighten up in life….

Apparently Donna Brazil and others on the left think so:
 they also seek to remind us that Pontius Pilate was a Governor:
- did you hear that Former Governor Clinton? Pilate who had Jesus tried and Convicted was a governor – just like you were. OH, they are probably aiming the “Governor” thing at Palin.
Nope, the democrats are the fair minded ones here…

apparently celebrated as truth by the left: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/9/4/162029/0439/39/586772
“Can we get that on a button?” said one blogger.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/09/union-president-jesus-was_n_125184.html

“We must organize the people to rally against Pontious Pilate. We must hold a community outreach meeting and spread the word against Rome and their unfair taxation, Then we must head to the Parthenon and get the press on our side!” – Jesus Christ, Gospel of nonexistence

It really makes me giggle when people who essentially know nothing about what’s written in the scriptures argue that their version of politics somehow fits.

At some level, I am tired of my choices for president this time around.
I want another Choice.
I don’t trust McCain.
Obama might be ready in about 12years (But I don’t believe in wealth redistribution remotely as much as he) I can post on Communism and Socialism and why they don’t work some time, but not right now.

I still want a country with a decidedly representative democracy such as ours.
I still want a country that has a constitution such as ours.
I still want a country that has English as its primary language (sorry, I speak some Spanish, French, Italian, and German)  but I don’t want either as my primary language.
I want a place where I can experience the wonderful outdoors as various as I have across America.

But, I want a place where the most important choice – of who is to be the leader of the country – to be more than LEFT or RIGHT. (or rather Left or farther left).

What I want is a place that has something like 7 viable healthy political parties.
What I want is a place that has a vibrant political system where people actually care about the issues and just don’t live apathetically for someone else to do the work.

I wonder if there ever is such a place…

1st, Go here: http://www.grassbgreen.com/, then chuckle and return.
I’ll wait….
What exactly does it say about us as humans when this item isn’t considered a gag gift, but indeed is considered a worthwhile marketable product?

We are a nation of people who refuse to wait. And I for one won’t stand for it. Something must be done about it immediately!
Why do we have such a hard time WAITING? where has the gift of patience gone?
We have data instantly available at our fingertips.
I have a job right now where if you name me the company, and they made charitable donations on their taxes last year. I can get their IRS forms (yes, it’s public domain information) in less than 1 minute. Any company, any charitable donation. No kidding. Alls it takes is the right software.

I finish crossword puzzles from the Sunday paper now by going online to get answers to names or geographic places. Is that cheating?

And what has all of our hurry brought us?
Other than high blood pressure. Exorbinant amount of stress, and disconnection with one another, what has all this rushing around gotten us?

We want quick fixes where long term solutions are called for.
We don’t want to do the work, we simply want the results:
We would rather paint the grass, then do the work required to have a healthy lawn.
(we just  don’t care if we’re killing our grass in the process, it’s the look that counts.)
Why do I have to study for classes. Can’t I just pay for the degree?

And we don’t want our country to have to do the work either:
Why isn’t their democracy in Iraq RIGHT NOW!!!!
Why don’t we have green cars on the streets RIGHT NOW!!!
Why can’t I have free healthcare RIGHT NOW!!!!

And we yell at others in traffic after we’ve cut them off. And we get stressed out because the project isn’t done. And we get mad at the ones we love because they can’t read our minds.

Soon is within a week, that is soon…