"Undisclosed Recipient" emails from a person who has never ever sent me a personal note.

Some people have a group name which includes most of the addresses they have and they send anything of interest to everyone in that group name...

Sometimes when I receive such an email, I know that the person who sent it was just broadcasting and the email really isn't something the author thinks would be of interest to me.
EXAMPLE: I got an email addressed to "Undisclosed Recipient": It was an article telling people who wish to, how to gain weight. If you know me, that email was not applicable to me at all.

I have chosen to send emails to several people in a single email addressed to "Undisclosed" which is not a group address...then I BCC people from my address book that I think will specifically benefit...for that email.

SO! You know this email is specifically meant for you...and no one else sees your address in the TO: or CC: block (to maintain any privacy for your address).

Each time I send to Undisclosed, I select exactly to whom it will go...EACH TIME. It takes a minute or so extra time for me, but it avoids sending you an email about how to gain weight (if you are even slightly as heavy as I am - grin).

I urge you to consider a similar method of your own. Why? Because broadcasting to everyone in your address book or to a large number of them, indiscriminately, is like telling a story out loud in the middle of a bus station :
(1) some people don't think you are talking to them and don't listen
(2) some people disregard any email not specifically addressed to them (unless they know you have purposely selected them)
(3) some people broadcast everything they get in email as a forwarded item
(4) persons who you really want to read the email for important information often put off reading such emails.
(5) I grow weary of receiving emails addressed to "Undisclosed Recipient" from people who I would like to think are thinking of me, only to realize I was put on a distribution list long ago; the sender is just doing a "quick and dirty" mailing to a group that hasn't been updated and I've really been forgotten (which is okay, just update your group listing and quit bugging me). I have received dozens of Undisclosed emails from a person who has never ever sent me a personal note and to whom I have not written in years.

Give 'em a Big Mac and Fries

"The Farm Bill" H.R. 2419 has been widely criticized, vetoed by the President, and that veto overridden by congress. You can see why almost any citizen should be incensed by examining provisions of the bill
(Link provided here)

Here is one item as example:

Section 17 of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 2026) is amended by adding at the end the following:
(k) Nutrition Education and Promotion Initiative to Address Obesity-
`(1) IN GENERAL- The Secretary shall establish a demonstration program, to be known as the `Initiative to Address Obesity Among Low-Income Americans' (referred to in this subsection as the `Initiative'), to develop and implement
solutions to reduce obesity in the United States.

(3) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS- There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this subsection $10,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2008 through 2012....

So what is the target "low-income" definition? "...individuals living in households with incomes at or below 185 percent of the poverty level...."

At the lowest threshold published by the US Census Bureau, that would be approximately $18,400...or about 23% of the population.(i.e. approximately 70 million people). A Census Bureau estimate is that 21% of US citizens are obese, therefore the bill addresses about 15 million people.

If 15 million overweight people were offered a choice.

(1) read a pamphlet about good eating habits.
(or attend a Demonstration Program)

(2) a free Big Mac, fries and small coke.
(What that $40-50 million would buy 15 million people)

Which do you think they would choose?

Do you think 15 million people don't know what makes them fat?
Do you think there is no free access to information about diets and exercise via libraries, public schools, TV, etc. ?
Do you think a government program could significantly reduce obesity where all other efforts and reasons have not?
If there was ever a good solution, "Just say No" comes to mind...and Hillary Clinton (who voted FOR this bill) can be the one to say it.

Legalize Prostitution

I advocate a legalized form of prostitution !!! Why?
Differences betwen a married couple and a prostitute with her John:
Married Couple	Prostitute and John
Sanctioned by the church	Illegal IAW local laws
Government licensed	Government enforces prohibition
Woman has papers on man	Woman profits by pleasing man
Children - sometimes	Children not desired
Failure = havoc on all forever	Failure = one time
Minimal STD	Excessive STD
Taxed, federal and state	Untaxed
Minimal crime	Excessive crime
Prostitution exists and will continue to exist as the oldest profession.
If prostitution in some form was legal, no governmental costs to enforce; unwanted children avoided; safeguards against STD could be established; income taxable by federal and state; and crime reduced where aided by black market sex.
So WHY don't we make some form of legal prostitution? Many women feel they cannot compete! Many women could/would not get married without sex for sale as a contract for support and fidelity. If your average Joe just wanting sex, could get it at competitive prices with less fear for disease, crime or police arrest - the result would include less undesirable marriages; less sex related abuse; less man vs. woman hate; more employment; less welfare costs and a lot less undesired children requiring welfare support etc. Many want ownership and guarantee of support from a chosen partner...probably acceptable where children result...but the arrangement can be one of slavery...for either sex. None of this excludes the equal opportunity for males - just substitute men where women are mentioned above.

Let us re-examine the use of punishments not often used:
the words that come to mind are banishment, deportation, exile, and expel among others.

An efficient, practical and productive answer to resolve many of our social ills is to banish individuals to underpopulated or unpopulated areas or outside our borders.

Citizenship implies entitlement, responsibility and rights. The rehabilitation of citizens who have committed certain crimes requires restoration of respect for these rights and entitlements. When these rights are diminished by natural environment an individual gains appreciation for the advantages of a protective society. When individuals are placed in a subculture devoid of the rights they violated they gain appreciate for and knowledge of their value.

Let’s deport any alien who commits a crime. Let’s banish alien repeaters.

Let’s banish our more serious, repetitive or incorrigible criminals to an area too practically remote to escape, where they can live with the rights of a subculture commensurate with their willingness to respect them. Banish incorrigible thieves to a colony of thieves, murderers to a colony of killers, sexual offenders to a colony of their ilk and etc. When the prospect of becoming victim of their own offenses at the hands of like offenders, banishment becomes a deterrent or at least a practical solution.

With the reduced incarcerations, and the associate costs, funding could be secured for transport, minimal self-reliant materials for survival, and oversight. In fact there should be savings.

In this manner, at least two land masses have been civilized and become nations of worldwide contribution with respect. The United States of America is one.

You might want to see these:
Native American Indian Justice

Indian tribes revive punishment of banishing

Eastern Band of the Cherokee Nation (North Carolina) Creates a New Law to Banish Drug Dealers


We need to go back to our old ways.

Banishment - Further Readings

Suppose you didn't vote "for the lesser of two evils"

---

Suppose "not voting" for the lesser of two evils, responsible citizens could vote NO to the candidates presented by the parties?

---

On JULY 4, 1776 The thirteen united States of America made a declaration.
This declaration began with these words.

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

If you extract some of the more salient phrases from the remainder of the document you can understand some of the motivation which should now motivate the American people. We should revolt against the current two party system which dictates our representatives in government for the same reasons we chose to revolt against King George.

Here are some:

...Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...

...whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends [ie. Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness], it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it...

...has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

There are more items of concern which might apply to this subject in the Declaration of Independence from King George and the British Empire. Remember, this commentary is aimed towards revolt against the Democratic and Republican parties. To whit and paraphrase the conclusion of the 1776 document:

We declare to be absolved from all allegiance to the existing political parties and that all political connection between them and the American public is and ought to be totally dissolved.

Remember, our constitution established three branches of government (with the intent to instill checks and balances). Neither the Republican party, nor the Democratic party, are established or defined in our constitution.

Should there be political parties to foster public service? Yes. Should these parties effectively prevent independent political candidates, voters or administration? No.

The reality, with historical support, is that in the past century allegiance to one of two political parties and it's methodology in selecting candidates for office has become mandatory. Candidates must adhere to the objectives of party insiders in order to be elected...a ruling class not ordained by our constitution. Our elected officials follow the wishes of their party more than the expectations for the good of the public...the governed from whom powers are derived. The parties manipulate, shape, focus and directs public opinion...it doesn't go from the bottom up.

We can't do that! Some will suggest. The two parties are so ingrained in our system that there would be chaos if they were completely abandoned. Not completely true but worthy of consideration.

Here is my revolting idea. Have another party...call it the independent party, the people's party or even the unaligned party. This party would have a simple platform. It would not select a candidate nor provide funding/support for a candidate. It would be comprised of independent citizens seeking alternatives to the existing parties. They would create caucuses and primaries via internet which would become a popular vote view; BUT the party itself would create only a phantom candidate. Suppose neither existing party could gain a plurality of the popular vote, but the popular vote was so great against their candidates that the phantom candidate (not representing either existing party) received a plurality.

---

Suppose "not voting" for the lesser of two evils, responsible citizens could vote NO to the candidates presented by the parties?

---

The constitution's requirements for president indicate only that the person be a native citizen, over 35 years of age and have resided in this country for 14 years. No where does it require the person be alive...George Washington or Thomas Jefferson meet the requirement.

If the public favored a phantom or a dead George Washington over the candidates being proposed by Republicans, Democrats, Green Party or whatever...might that influence the quality of the candidates? Might a candidate favor the interests of "the people's party" or whatever name is chosen over a political party? Would candidates "suck up" to the public more than to party fat cats?

For the first time ever, the average Joe or Jill, not only has access to information but the ability to voice himself to everyone who might be interested regardless of their location, financial status etc. via the internet. The internet is the most democratic tool available...and that is why some countries have implemented restricted access for their citizens.

Some of the framers of our constitution felt the citizenry too beholden to local interests, too easily duped by promises or shenanigans, or simply because a national election, in the time of oil lamps and quill pens, was just impractical...and the Electoral College was the compromise reached. Today a national election by popular vote is not impractical. And the citizenry is still too easily duped by promises or shenanigans...which is an effect of the competition between only two parties without recourse.

---

Imagine the impact of an Internet Party with no allegiance to anyone except to those citizens who are not satisfied with the candidates proposed by existing parties. Citizens who can and will vote - but not for their candidate.

---

Well, the Declaration of Independence, did not include the answer to all questions and this proposed declaration doesn't either. What it did do is voice opposition to an existing political system and intent to alter it.

As for me, during the early days of our political parties' process I would have joined the Internet Party as a primary/caucus to tell Republicans and Democrats to present better candidates. Look at what they have presented in the last fifty years. Is this the best we can do?

Revise the Federal Reserve Act of 1913

At 2:39PM EST today, March 16, the Federal Reserve lowered the Key Interest Rate another .75 percentage points to 2.25%.
This further denotes a recession in the United States. We have all become "comfortable" with the way the Federal Reserve affects our economy and few of us understand how it does its job. However, it may be that time has come for us to be more knowledgeable of that organization and its functions.
The following URL reaches a "plain language" explanation of the Federal Reserve system, according to one of the twelve Reserve Banks [designated 10J].
Although it is anything but "plain and simple" it does give information that will help to explain.
http://www.stls.frb.org/publications/pleng/default.html

In my not so humble opinion, the Federal Reserve system has failed. I should say, that at least in one of its functions to examine the viability of each bank you and I use, regarding risk and liability...a sound and responsible performance. As each bank is examined, a rating is assigned which indicates the bank's processes and performance and further denotes if there are areas which require corrective action. So what happened regarding the fifth largest banking concern, Bear Stearns, that it was kept from collapse only by urgent action supported with special $30 billion Federal Reserve backing (bailout).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Facts:
Bear Stearns has never reported an annual loss.
At the close of the quarter in February it claims a profit.
At the end of 2007 the "book value" of its shares of stock was $84.09 per share.
Mid-March Bear Stearns agreed to be acquired by J.P. Morgan at $2 per share.

This was the fifth largest banking concern in the United States!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To use the imagery of a political candidate, the $30 Billion effort to get the bus out of the ditch doesn't concern me as much as how the bus got driven into the ditch in the first place with Federal Reserve oversight and examination.

Congress who oversees the Federal Reserve, established the Federal Reserve Act in 1913. Since then its responsibilities has been expanded and of course so has the infrastructure to carry out these functions...and like most such bureaucratic organizations it has metastasized into a maze of structure, regulations, personnel and officiousness. Banking reform was the reason it was created.

Time has come again to reform.

The Us Constitution defines the necessary qualifications for president as:

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

That includes a lot of people. However, the public at large defines further what is expected of a president for whom they will vote into office. Or do they? The current two-party process has generally presented candidates which have lead to the premise of "the lesser of two evils." The public so expects corruption in the political process that it is rare for a candidate to espouse honesty without a chorus of snickers. To say a candidate wins the presidency is not to claim selection of the best citizen for the executive job and at best only attests to the appearance of ability.

So just what are qualities a president should have? Candidates are quick to point to qualities they have that an opponent does not have. Th standard would seem to be whatever makes a candidate appear better than an opponent. And that reinforces the "lesser of two evils" perspective.

It is doubtful that it would be possible to establish criteria for the performance of the functions of the executive office that would endure from one election to another. Citizens usually call out present day concerns for solutions, for which candidates make promises to resolve, although there is no means by which to enforce delivery of the promises. Yet history gives evidence that current problems are often overshadowed by new problems for a president and for which he is unaware. The concept of voting for the candidate with the best solutions for today's problems is like driving by looking into the rear view mirror while traveling around a blind curve...even if the solution(s) are effective.

Would it not be better to examine candidates based upon qualities that will serve the future?

Let us begin with honesty. How many presidents of the past have been dishonest to the citizenry about significant issues?
Then perhaps integrity? How many presidents of the past have waffled to appease a poll or special interest despite previous positions stated?
How about leadership? Well Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin etc. were effective leaders in the broad sense of the word...even if their vision was poor.
Character? Conduct that conforms to an accepted standard of right and wrong would appear as character for one man and immoral conduct for another.
Decisiveness surely is a quality needed of an executive. How many presidents have been able to decide significant matters which failed regardless of their confidence?

How does one determine if a presidential candidate "has what it takes" to successfully execute the functions of office in light of uncertain future issues as well as the known ones?
Experience then? What experience approaches the ability to set off thermonuclear war at the press of a button?

What qualities has history deemed in past presidents that made one a better president than another?

The ability to choose and charge a supporting staff of intelligent, capable and honorable people to address the needs of the public with selfless dedication and intent. In this manner both lesser and greater of two evils have been good presidents. Even the best quarterback cannot achieve victory without a team of good players backing him...but the worst can, with such a team.

Politics in the American process is based on garnering votes during elections to the promotion of advantage of one group's interest as opposed to others. A vote for candidate xyz is to insure that the government's funds will be expended with emphasis on your special interest and not others, because as of yet,
no government is capable of satisfying all of the people all of the time.

And money votes before people do...it is even a measure of a candidate's "electability" for most news sources and political pundits...reported as such. The measurement offends the populace but is accurate nonetheless.

Why does money vote? Money buys presence, the image of power and
the concept of winning.

In America, the general wisdom is that the candidate with the most money backing is more likely to win and Americans want to side with winners regardless of their character, experience or ability.

Who wins? Not the public at large. Polls, which are an undue influence as it is, indicate that Americans expect corruption and thus favor that corruption which most meets their wishes. The beauty pageant of campaigns is entirely image because the public believes that perception is reality. This is a very weak link in the United States of America national security.

Even our reviews of politics by "experts" concentrates on how well the media is handled and the perceptions of the public, versus issues of government or the ability of a candidate to fulfill the needs of the office they seek.

Our government elected officials will behave with conscience
when the populace votes on conscience.

Revolution is in order...if it is not too late.

United States "American/English" biased issue

Let me begin by denoting this is an United States "American/English" biased issue that might well apply to other peoples and should be considered in that fashion. Just substitute your own nation/language(s) into the logic.

I stumbled upon the DoNotCall register regarding the US FTC's online process and registered my phone with the government's program. While there, I noted a special section for those who required their information En Español.

Although I have no negative feelings about Spanish or those who speak it, I am gobsmacked by the lack of equal opportunity. Here's what I think:

For those of you who do not speak English or Spanish, PLEASE complain to your US congressman that you are not receiving equal opportunity as the English/Spanish speaking and want all government communication presented in your language of choice as well. Since there are over 750 languages in daily use, you can imagine the instruction "press 749 for Aragonese." Since Aragonese is spoken in Aragon Spain, not even all Spanish peoples are satisfied with "press 2 for Spanish."

For those of you who think the idea of the U.S. Government trying to speak in tongues...(as if they weren't incomprehensible already) is a silly irony...but see a need for translation at times, let me introduce you to a free on line translator of text and even websites:

http://babelfish.altavista.com/

Try it! Also if you didn't know AltaVista, just know that AltaVista developed the first search able, full-text database on the World Wide Web in 1995 and was THE search engine of its day. (otherwise you'd have no search capability via Yahoo, Google, AskJeeves, AllTheWeb, etc.)
Gemmelsmerch!

And for those of you who are innovative, imagine that instead of spending millions reproducing information in Spanish (and whatever language comes after that ad infinitum) , the United States government instead funded a project to build a universal translator for the world...much like GPS serves the world. Just maybe the rest of the world should help doing this universal translator ability.

Oh, one more thing. Spanish speaking people have some of the richest cultures on this planet and their inclusion at least in America (north and south) is essential. And the same goes for English speaking people specially in the United States of America.

No queen can be more mother

Humans, without regard to any cultural, societal or genetic difference,
can experience with equal enjoyment much of what is upon this earth
and the width of this experience grows. Equal in this view is that from the
lowest to the highest, no man can be without happiness nor can he
enjoy any less or more than other men...in this he is equal.

The exquisite rapture of sexual climax, is felt so well by a poor man as one wealthy.
A rainbow delights with prismatic brilliance in equal measure to all who watch.
A grandson held adoring, is to the heart of men the same.

Listen to Williams and Bream play Clair de Lune...as have millions, with
what might have been available to a rich few once but now more and more.
Yet, once presented, to old and young it is a sound which sings the same to all.

We may have race, language, science, religion, and sustenance differences
but we are more alike than different. No queen can be more mother than the
poorest nomad who hums a lullaby to her first born.

Thank God.

Presidential election = an ugly spectator sport

Our democratic process, as currently practiced, has proven unsatisfactory to the great majority of Americans. Even with hopeful new signs of internet enabled participation, our national elections remain essentially poll-driven, mass media campaigns and little more than an ugly spectator sport, though one with enormous stakes.

NPC Caucus
http://www.nationalcaucus.com/about

"Is this true," he asks with the most innocent expression of bewilderment?

I think our democratic process, as currently practiced, has proven unsatisfactory because Americans make their decision based upon matters that have little to do with a candidate's qualifications, and rarely upon informed logical process. So that's what politicians give them.

I really don't care if your logical process incorporates szindu gimmelsmerch so long as you examine the facts methodically with equal perspective. If you like a candidate because she espouses szindu that's fine. But do us all a favor and check it out. That candidate may have made reference to szindu based upon a staff prepared speech and otherwise wouldn't know what kind of broad-leafed weed that might be. Check if other candidates espouse szindu.

For goodness sake, don't choose the dimpled chinned yachtboy turned serious crusader because he's got beautiful blue eyes. Of course you wouldn't. But add up enough of these incidental 'likes and dislikes' and you have a predisposition.

When it comes to the 'warm and fuzzy' approach to selecting a president, I try to imagine the candidate, sitting in a conference room deep beneath some granite mountain before a keyboard and a screen that says

Click Here to start global nuclear apocalypse.
Chasque aquí para comenzar apocalypse nuclear global.

I favor a bill that restricts voting in an election to those who can reasonably answer correctly a quiz on the educational qualifications of each candidate. High School, college, major study.

Which candidate was educated and practiced as a gynecologist?

Sitting between the outspread legs of women all day hardly compares to staring into a computer screen prepared to launch nuclear missiles at the touch of a mouse click...no matter how often you do it in either case. So what are the qualifications? Sparse guidance is given by our forefathers.

What qualifies a person to serve as president to a nation such as ours in these times and conditions?

Ask those questions!

I Would Lie Down

Walking upon dried leaves their edges ragged to decay
In browns, yellows and red, still they show what once they were
Through the forest limbs they fall in brittle cackle
Sunshine embers glow on those few that hang on.

Shuffling in a wishing walk the leaves shush me to quiet
Look down! something says, and capped acorns wink back.
Leaves everywhere clapping along a ground breeze
That I would lie down among them and dream.

Fred Thompson quoted Burke

18th century Irish political philosopher Edmund Burke: “Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion.”

That's what Fred said when a constituent complained about a vote on a controversial issue in which his vote was contrary to popular opinion.

A consummate actor, Fred knows how to deliver his lines. Nonetheless, the "powers that be (PTB)" supporting Fred are getting some political room in which to work. In this case it may be only to offset the mix of the group. However, each candidate has an agenda, much like a television script, from which to read...delicately prioritized, guided and constructed by a PTB or two. The question becomes, not that an action would be dictated by a PTB or whether their candidate is truly expressing the desired opinion of a PTB that you've become comfortable with (under the guise of whatever candidate you select). The question is, when a matter is significant requiring action which opposes the view of the populace as well as the PTB, will the candidate have the judgement and conviction to do what is best.

If the image portrayed by a PTB is pleasing to your opinions...

is it because you know and agree with them
OR
is it because the PTB knows the right buttons to push and you have not questioned the implications or details?
IF the same viewpoints expressed by the PTB's candidate, were expressed by say a Don Knotts, would you find it equally pleasing?

Maybe we should change our electoral college system, to be selected well before campaigns begin with the agreement enforced that they would not VIEW any candidate in any medium during the process but would thoroughly study,read and listen to the candidates...and strongly consider public opinion as fickle, ignorant, apathetic and easily manipulated.

Hmmmm. As I study the candidates' views on major issues I wonder just what qualifications and experience the candidates truly have to resolve issues that have yet to arrive...even the priorities of PTB's change. The more I study the more I am amazed to discover I seem to agree most with a candidate who also has the best credentials, from another party...who is ugly and hasn't a chance. Based on my current assessment...he would make the best president. And since I have revealed exclusion of one candidate simply because I said HE. So in fairness I will exclude Fred Thompson as well.

But I could be wrong.

Let me begin by denoting this is an "American/English" biased issue that might well apply to other peoples and should be considered in that fashion. Just substitute your own nation/language(s) into the logic.

I stumbled upon the DoNotCall register regarding the FTC's online process and registered my phone with the government's program. While there, I noted a special section for those who required their information En Español.

Although I have no negative feelings about Spanish or those who speak it, I am gobsmacked by the lack of equal opportunity. Here's what I think:

For those of you who do not speak English or Spanish, PLEASE complain to your congressman that you are not receiving equal opportunity as the English/Spanish speaking and want all government communication presented in your language of choice as well. Since there are over 750 languages in daily use, you can imagine the instruction "press 749 for Aragonese." Since Aragonese is spoken in Aragon Spain, not even all Spanish peoples are satisfied with "press 2 for Spanish."

For those of you who think the idea of the U.S. Government trying to speak in tongues...(as if they weren't incomprehensible already) is a silly irony...but see a need for translation at times, let me introduce you to a free online translator of text and even websites:

http://babelfish.altavista.com/

Try it! Also if you didn't know AltaVista, just know that AltaVista developed the first search able, full-text database on the World Wide Web in 1995 and was THE search engine of its day. (otherwise you'd have no search capability via Yahoo, Google, AskJeeves, AllTheWeb, etc.)
Gemmelsmerch!

And for those of you who are innovative, imagine that instead of spending millions reproducing information in Spanish (and whatever language comes after that ad infinitum) , our government instead funded a project to build a universal translator for the world...much like GPS serves the world.

Oh, one more thing. Spanish speaking people have some of the richest cultures on this planet and their inclusion is essential.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The rant is finished :
se acaba el rant; rant is beëindigd; le rant est fini; das rant wird beendet; το rant είναι τελειωμένο; il rant è rifinito; o rant é terminado ; rant закончено ; oh the heck with this - where is that universal translator. Just searching the options to find your language is exhausting.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.

A Crucial Time

Never before has their been such a need for advanced citizenship in the United States directed towards our political system and the selection of leaders.
Please go here and become knowlegable:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21116732/

Remember to consult the enternet for what 'real people' think versus what the media tells us what we think. The source above is a media center but the video clips are "straight from the horse's mouth."

What issues do Americans say will be most important

What issues do Americans say will be most important to their vote for Congress?

Right now, there isn't one issue that clearly outdistances the others in recent polls.

According to some polls priority of issues are : the economy (16 percent) and gas prices (15 percent) edge out Iraq (13 percent), followed by immigration (12 percent), health care (11percent), and terrorism (10 percent). Two issues that are often included fail to make it into the double-digits are ethics in Washington (9 percent) and Social Security (7 percent).

* * * * * *
You don't need to search for another indicator that "US" Americans are ignorant, apathetic, and oblivious to reality.
***********

Here is the relative priority I would have listed these issues, including why and what I suggest might help.

1. National Defense - Accomplishing goals in our international involvements to include the "war on terrorism, Iraq, etc."
a. No other level of our social structure can address this scope and it isn't free, cheap or avoidable.
b. The need for comprehensive citizen contribution-respect is apparent - everyone should be required to personally do "service to country" for a period of time, full time - "draft" all who don't volunteer a designated period of their life by age thirty and extend "service to country" to non-combat needs. People don't appreciate what they get for free.

2. Immigration control - an enforceable and enforced solution. Immigration is not a right of entitlement - it is a plea for inclusion. There is a price of inclusion which your grandfather and father paid for you to have the advantages.
a. To be included does not mean an expectation for the populace to change according to your personal language, cultural or religious needs.
The cost to bend society to immigrant "rights" has us overextended financially, if not morally or legally. The resources of our country are becoming insufficient to it's current citizenry, so we must not add to the population and must regulate what access to our resources we permit...to our best interest. We must deny the expectation of immigrants to enjoy the benefits of citizenry until they can meet our immigration laws. There is a limit to the number who may safely get on board a ship in shark infested waters...and be responsible to those who maintain the ship and the offspring of those who built it.

3. Energy - Gas prices are an indicator of energy supplies and how they affect every aspect of our lives on a nationwide basis. We must seek solutions to the upcoming real energy crisis. No other level of our social structure can address a nationwide need for secure and reasonably plentiful energy. Carbon based energy sources have limits and their end is surprisingly close.

4. International relations - Only a national entity can fend for us in this arena. The issues within are vigilance, contribution, involvement, development and improvement on a nation to nation basis. It is a shame that the United Nations is primarily successful only in distribution of charities and almost impotent in the security of the earth and its inhabitants.
____________________________________________________
The above are what we need in national perspective from a Federal Government...things that we cannot do otherwise. To what remains of "national issues":

Ethics - like morality laws - impossible to enforce as a preventative measure...useful after the fact to punish offenders but often without restitution to the victims. Concentrate on advanced citizenship to be involved in candidates for office, voting and speaking out ... make unethical unsuccessful.

Health care - if you want medical care really screwed up, let bureaucratic federal government try to control, standardize, regulate etc. ad infinitum, this most personal issue.
a. Concentrate on the obstacles:
(1) Litigation that is unreasonable in value/cost added. Monetary awards in lawsuits do not enhance medical care - they give money to lawyers and individuals often beyond what is fair - and the cost is passed to the consumers (those that can pay). In the medical arena, the concern should be to address criminal transgressions. Malpractice suits, should result in other forms of resolution than money and should only address extremes in levels of risk in medical procedures (to expunge the clearly incompetent). Malpractise insurance should not be expensive, it should just be difficult to get and keep ... commensurate with a reasonable level of competence. A significant percentage of medical costs and obstacles would be reduced herein and thus more people could afford and benefit.
(2) Free health care (someone always pays) or impractical expectations to a degree of it. Health care is a supply and demand process...as an individual you must be responsible for you and yours to pay the price. Getting sick, having genetically predisposed illnesses, having accidents, disease...all these are adverse life issues which inevitably everyone encounters. Expecting others to pay for your personal survival is unreasonable and impractacle. Depending upon it is unwise. The federal government should not be responsibile for your personal health except when you are working fulltime and directly "in service to country." If, and I question the degree, there is a role for government in health, it should be towards education, disease prevention processes and research; and not personal individual-level health.

[NOTE: What is the true cost of medical care? Imagine government taking over the provision of all medical care, personnel, facilities, drugs or devices and making any private effort to do so illegal with extreme punishment for law breakers. The branches of government attention would be intense and eventually fair to all in cost. The black market would make it in the best interest of all to settle on what is reasonable. Oh yeah, and Federal taxes would increase.]

Economy - government entities have been charged with, taken credit/blame for and established controls affecting economy for centuries. Rarely has such involvement resolved inequities in the supply and demand process. When it has, it has often been at a cost to be paid at another time, place, group that resulted in even greater discomfort. A degree of international commerce regulation would appear reasonable in matters of defense, or nationwide scope.

Social security - the term suggests that society is responsible for your security, but that has been irresponsibly extended to your health, sustenance, burial, income, offspring and everything else that truly is your personal responsibility. Many people have wished for guarantees that they will not go wanting, expecting "the government" to do something - and have been sorely disappointed. There are no guarantees. Life is risk. Prepare and accept responsibility for yourself and your offspring. Your ancestors did - or you wouldn't be here. You pay social security tax - consider it forced charity for the deserving but don't expect your small insurance premium to cover all the risks and misfortunes in life for all people. If you never paid the premium, expect nothing.

Iraq (specifically) - Re-examine the goals and commit to a measureable accomplishment. War is certain hell and few want it. The degree to which people will accept the need for war is almost always a concern for personal loss or gain...and the number against it increases relative to those who have taken a personal loss. Many a soldier would have quit his post had it not been for a personal loss - his honor, his life, his freedom - as enforced by the powerful. Many a war would not have begun, had every citizen been required to enter into combat including both sides. So long as evil persons attain power enabled by an apathetic citizenry, war will exist. It is unfortunate, but necessary, that nations with deligent citizenry must eventually fight such evil. Nations, like individuals, must accept responsibility for their actions (or inaction) to include apathy and vigilence, to the degree that war becomes inevitable.

Gas prices (specifically) - Don't buy what you can't afford. Don't depend upon what you cannot obtain. The United States of America enjoys the least expensive petroleum and consumes the most petroleum (and its byproducts) per capita of any nation on earth. As a simple supply and demand perspective, its citizens should be thankful and concentrate intently on energy sources which are sustainable, financially practical and less subject to the interests of other countries. Do what needs be done and quit bitching. You aren't victims on gas prices except by your own avarice and greed.

I welcome additions and counter-perspectives as comments.

They come to America

Regarding illegal immigrants, their protests, and the expectation of United States of America citizens:

Immigration is not a right of entitlement...it is a plea for inclusion. To be included there is a price. Fortunately for those who are born citizens, someone in their ancestry paid that price and to them they should be thankful but the remainder of the price is working within the system to the pursuit of happiness.

People who enter the USA contrary to its laws of citizenship have no ancestry that paid for the right to live here and enjoy the advantages; and those that further seek to enjoy the advantages without paying the price are thieves.
Part of my motivation to work within the system, to serve in our military, to pay taxes, to vote for leaders and improvements in the law, to contribute to our society is to secure a future of these advantages for my children and my children's children.

It may be unfortunate for some to be born of a family in a impoverished country. However, the great majority of mankind is so born. However, there is still an opportunity to join another country and live according to that society's laws and expectations...and many do so to enter the United States of America. It may be that this is an extension of the "survival of the most fit" among societies. The genetic offspring of those willing to work to succeed, would seem best to begin their lives as members of their society.

It is within this framework that I ask those who steal from my ancestors, why they cannot work to succeed within their own country and pass down to their children the resulting advantages. It is within this framework that I ask those who take from this society, why they do not contribute to the welfare of all within it.

Remember the USA was also a colony. It was not a land of great wealth, advanced medical care, or advantages equal to the society from which colonists left. The majority of citizens of this colony did not return to their native country to spend their earnings and support their families there. They did invest themselves and their earnings in improving this society; they did fight tyrants to secure and maintain this country; and they did welcome others who wished to do the same for their lives and a future for their children. Other countries in the Americas began much the same. Why are they not equal to the US in advantage to their citizens?

At this point in history, there are other countries in the Americas with great resources, who could develop within their societies much improved lives for themselves and their offspring.

Herein I have asked many questions. All men are not born equal, nor do they have equal opportunity and it is merely a romantic notion to think otherwise. I do not advocate that all mankind should propagate. I do advocate that the survival of mankind depends upon the advance of the brightest, the best and the most capable willing to work for the survival of those societies that have evolved successfully. Let those who can do this in the United States of America live here and come here. Let others fend for themselves in their society.

My concern is that the USA is not fending for itself when it advances the less than bright, welcomes the less than best, supports too many less capable and sustains those unwilling to work in contribution.

New Orleans : How did we get here?

I received this in an email and checked the authenticity of the author and this article - and it is valid.
I add my comment at the end.

Moral poverty cost blacks in New Orleans

Posted: September 21, 2005

1:00 a.m.Eastern

REV Jesse Lee Peterson


Say a hurricane is about to destroy the city you live in. Two questions:

What would you do?

What would you do if you were black?

Sadly, the two questions don't have the same answer.

To the first: Most of us would take our families out of that city quickly to protect them from danger.


Then, able-bodied men would return to help others in need, as wives and others cared for children, elderly, infirm and the like.
For better or worse, Hurricane Katrina has told us the answer to the second question. If you're black and a hurricane is about to destroy your city, you'll probably wait for the government to save you.
This was not always the case. Prior to 40 years ago, such a pathetic performance by the black community in a time of crisis would have been inconceivable. The first response would have come from black men. They would take care of their families, bring them to safety, and then help the rest of the community. Then local government would come in.
No longer. When 75 percent of New Orleans residents had left the city, it was primarily immoral, welfare-pampered blacks that stayed behind and waited for the government to bail them out.
This, as we know, did not turn out good results.

Enter Jesse Jackson and Louis Farrakhan. Jackson and Farrakhan laid blame on "racist" President Bush. Farrakhan actually proposed the idea that the government blew up a levee so as to kill blacks and save whites. The two demanded massive governmental spending to rebuild New Orleans, above and beyond the federal government's proposed $60 billion. Not only that these two were positioning themselves as the gatekeepers to supervise the dispersion of funds. ?/FONT≈ap;a?p;g;
Perfect: Two of the most dishonest elite blacks in America, "overseeing" billions of dollars. I wonder where that money will end up.
Of course, if these two were really serious about laying blame on government, they should blame the local one. Responsibility to perform ? legally and practically ? fell first on the mayor of New Orleans.
We are now all familiar with Mayor Ray Nagin ? the black Democrat who likes to yell at President Bush for failing to do Nagin's job. The facts, unfortunately, do not support Nagin's wailing. As the Washington Times puts it, "recent reports show [Nagin] failed to follow through on his own city's emergency-response plan, which acknowledged that thousands of the city's poorest residents would have no way to evacuate the city."
One wonders how there was "no way" for these people to evacuate the city. We have photographic evidence telling us otherwise. You've probably seen it by now ? the photo showing 2,000 parked school buses, unused and underwater. How much planning does it require to put people on a bus and leave town, Mayor Nagin?
Instead of doing the obvious, Mayor Nagin (with no positive contribution from Democratic Gov. Kathleen Blanco, the other major leader vested with responsibility to address the hurricane disaster) loaded remaining New Orleans residents into the Superdome and the city's convention center.
We know how that plan turned out.

About five years ago, in a debate before the National Association of Black Journalists, I stated that if whites were to just leave the United States and let blacks run the country, they would turn America into a ghetto within 10 years. The audience, shall we say, disagreed with me strongly. Now I have to disagree with me. I gave blacks too much credit. It took a mere three days for blacks to turn the Superdome and the convention center into ghettos, rampant with theft, rape and murder.
President Bush is not to blame for the rampant immorality of blacks. Had New Orleans ' black community taken action, most would have been out of harm's way. But most were too lazy, immoral and trifling to do anything productive for themselves.
All Americans must tell blacks this truth. It was blacks' moral poverty ? not their material poverty ? that cost them dearly in New Orleans.
Farrakhan, Jackson, and other race hustlers are to be repudiated ? they will only perpetuate this problem by stirring up hatred and applauding moral corruption.
New Orleans, to the extent it is to be rebuilt, should be remade into a dependency-free, morally strong city where corruption is opposed and success is applauded. Blacks are obligated to help themselves and not depend on the government to care for them. We are all obligated to tell them so.

---

The Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson is founder and president of BOND, the Brotherhood Organization of A New Destiny, and author of "Scam: How the Black Leadership Exploits Black America.
Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson is a black man.

---

Now let's take race out as the issue. Other races in New Orleans behaved poorly like this also, just as there were blacks who took responsibility for their own safety and that of their community. White or black isn't the issue. We have developed an attitude of "victim" for all things bad. We have enabled too many to depend upon the providence of government, society and charity for their lifelong sustenance. The result is we are victims of government, society and charities which thus are all bad.
I have been reminded that there is no biblical reference to support the idea that God helps those who help themselves, but I believe we should, and only help those who help themselves.


How did we get here? Irresponsible, missplaced and indulgent charity. The victim as excuse.


How do we get better? Remove the middleman in charity. Help your immediate neighbor up front and personally.

To be honest

P.S.
I've come to adopt a perspective now, with such religious conviction, that truly you cannot cheat an honest man...and that given time and opportunity, most people will do the right thing. It's a comforting feeling to know there is a protective God present at every human endeavor. I think you would agree.

However, I'm practical enough to know that doesn't mean one might consider having been cheated in an exchange, if you didn't at least receive an education and at least learn who not to associate with. But you know God promises to avenge our pain, that he will repay, and I shudder to realize the enormity of that. I cannot fathom what resources are available to an avenging God nor the extremes he is capable of...if they could but be measured. Nothing I could do as revenge could approach that rendered by God.

Just believing is what makes an honest man succeed. Learning that another cannot be trusted, early instead of later when the damage would be worse...improves his odds.

while we know "that not a sparrow falls to the earth...and unto the least of these" to be truths...no interpretation of those words excludes the "most and best", to share in his promise...and you are certainly that.

Advanced citizenship

You are warned.
What follows is a plethora of perspectives which originate from or are promulgated by one single person and his pursuit of the meaning of life. If there is one.

I decide.
I may include items which not only seem but are inconsistent with my views. Do not be alarmed, but do be aware, that in consulting other views one often finds answers or clarification in that other source’s pursuit. This then becomes a matter of interpretation, the lens through which we view data to become “information” in a sense of factual analysis. I see no irony in the observation of police investigators that a crowd viewing a crime in progress later has a thousand variations of what occurred that they can recall and some in complete contrast. I am but one person in the crowd.

I am arrogant in this effort.
I decide what to present as though my perceptions are better than others. I want to think by the inclusion of “materials inconsistent with my analysis” I gain a high degree of accuracy, because I can steer this pursuit against the flow by examining any differences between what I see against what another sees. I can change course based upon the best analysis even if not my own.

So I decide and I am arrogant. It is possible that I offer value in my pursuit. If so, it is logical to assume that some other mind’s pursuit will view my perspectives in equal manner and also achieve a higher degree of accuracy.

I am also kind hearted.
I share what I see with any who finds it of value…even…perhaps specially so, those who disagree and will present it as example of inaccuracy. That is another person in the crowd. He is also fallible. However, I must grant the possibility their analysis is accurate and mine is not. Therefore you are warned.

My first concept is that if such individual views and analysis were codified and linked via our existing means of communication medium, it would be possible to arrive at the best decisions of many persons. This concept suggests that it would be possible to not only achieve a government for the people, but a government of and by the people. I believe that the consensus of our personal beliefs and a decision process of our best minds in aggregate can achieve more (or less) in legislation than the representatives in our government houses; more justice in our courts; and much more oversight of the Executives we appoint.

If you can imagine the body politic as a human body, the concept becomes easier to understand.
We have sensors throughout our body that can instantly advise our brains via a nerve system.
Technology can provide a similar communication system that would enable each of us as sensors. My point is not that a majority rule can run our world quickly now. My concept is a system that can be capable of advanced consult with the best of us in making decisions for the public good and individual rights.

History has documented human behavior that government revolution arises eventually when the desires of the citizens are not in the rule of the country.

One argument is the degree and relative environment of dissent necessary to ignite the effort of change.

Another argument is that the means to present the desires of citizens is and has been too slow to effectively steer the course of government.

A third argument is that not every sensor in the body is capable of addressing the variety of input that is presented to our consciousness. Democracy is fine, but we don't seek the advice of every neighbor to determine a majority in making a medical diagnosis for surgery. However, in fact, a majority of some group does determine medical diagnosis and treatment. In fact a majority of some group does make the decisions. My thought is that whatever group that does it is often much less than the available intelligence for any specific discipline.

A fourth argument can be demonstrated as a desire to permit all persons to have their turn at being right - to decide what and how. Their sense of fairness suggests that out of every one hundred decisions, they get to make at least one with no other justification for their decision.
All decisions are arbitrary anyway, so why can't theirs be? Or why do all decisions have to be justified anyway, can't you have some made purely from sentiment, charity or mercy? Their decisions would not necessarily be in the best interest of all of the people.

A fifth argument is that the flaws of government merely reflect the flaws of humanity. This is my thought. The flaws of government are that the reflection of the governed seen by the governing, is a poor one. Further, even seen accurately, some of the governing choose to ignore what they don't want to see. sometimes even for personal gain. It would seem as though any human group is inevitably doomed to flawed government. My thought is that within any area of expertise there are large numbers of people who excel in one or more specific disciplines. Why is it that given a decision to be made, we can't get the best answer from the best mind available for that data analysis? None of us is perfect, yet the sum of our collective best decisions would enable a best of all worlds if not perfect progress in our pursuits.

This concept and details of topics could be expanded in many directions. It is a search or journey as you wish. If you have no interest or expertise in a topic I have presented, do not reply or comment...be quiet and learn. If you do have some degree of interest or expertise then I welcome your input. You extend your ability to form the sensors of government in my concept by the degree of attention or importance a pursuit should receive and provide the most informed decisions and thereafter monitored by everyone.

Although I said I would decide, eventually you decide. You who read these commentaries and post your thought and observations decide and so do I as just one in the crowd and perhaps a more attentive observer.

One of my mentors described systems as a balloon When you push your finger into the balloon in one place, the air just pushes out at another. The bigger the balloon the less effect of a single finger pushing will shape it. His point was that in resolving any specific problem, a resulting problem arises or is created.

What I see is another aspect. If the sum of the areas to be pushed can communicate and be collectively advised...the shape of the balloon will not necessarily be round. The analogy further portrays that while the shape achieved will not be exactly as intended, it will be as close as you could expect overall. In this fashion we could shape the governing and their reach and advantage into our lives.

All of this presupposes advanced citizenship - citizens who contribute their best answers in areas they have interest or expertise. To be unselfishly honest.

I imagine. If I have an automobile accident, I can reliably get the best advice from all those who reported having had an accident, and determine thereby what to do and who best to do it with.
Imagine knowing that you could trust what needed to be fixed was fairly fixed by a competent mechanic. ..because you elected to go in the direction experts advised if you wanted.
I imagine. When an individual asks you for the job as county commissioner you can get the knowledge of everyone who knows him well regarding his ability etc. Not the guy who looks good in a campaign or got the most money to advertise. Not a mouthpiece for one organization special interest group or another. Well, you might get a lot of honest genuinely good candidates who have the ability to do the job... Then you decide. If you have no interest or expertise don't vote. If you do and you've consulted the information of other experts in deciding, then vote.
I imagine. This system would invariably identify dishonesty...people who like sensors that consistently send false reports and thus are ignored. This system does the same regarding accuracy and excellence.