Todays News Media

This is probably too big of a subject for a blog, but I want to get a FEW things off my chest about the news media, especially the USA version thereof.

From my last blog about my changing views on climate change and its affects on the environment, one friend of mine points out how tyrannical can it be NOT to have CBS, ABC, NBC or any of the "liberal" news agencies covering "Climategate". Apart from the "conservative" FOX network, the BBC and a number of online news companies...there is a deathly silence from mainstream news including CNN on this item which in many ways is a much BIGGER deal than "Watergate" was...for sure as it pertains to our global future. This "newsbuster" blog points this out quite poetically...

For me this is just the climax of a long history of observed decimation of the USA news media's ethics and integrity. It is becoming quite obvious to me that USA media companies are a huge factor in the dumbing down of, and control of, the American citizen and world perceptions of what America is all about. Yet, it is more complicated than it first appears to me. It is somewhat of a paradox for which it is hard to point to a core cause and affect for this phenomenon. Some would claim that media is just a pawn for government and corporate concerns to control the electorate's views on daily world happenings and government actions/decisions. Yet, there is enough significantly critical material against our government and leaders that it would be hard to imaging their having control on those media. Lets just say they are significant "players" in the battle over control of content in the media.

My current guess on why Climategate has not had airplay on much of the mainstream USA media is because of the significant leanings of the liberal owners of those media, many of whom have been significant spokesmen for the "Global Warming" cause. Also perhaps many of their key advertisers or even board members have jointly been working behind the scenes to "manipulate" this story "once they have determined which way the wind is blowing in public opinion". Many of the anti-global warming sources I have been reading this week quite believe these forces are "Fascists" on this subject. If you examine the meaning and history of Fascmism in the world, one begins to think this accusation is not far off the mark.

"In the economic sphere, many fascist leaders have claimed to support a "Third Way" in economic policy, which they believed superior to both the rampant individualism of unrestrained capitalism and the severe control of state socialism. This was to be achieved by establishing significant government control over business and labor."

From this one can easily contemplate the mentality behind world governments coming together such as in the upcoming "Copenhagen" meeting and using Climate Change as the unifier and igniter of a global re-order and for redistribution of wealth based on something other than pure capitalism or even socialism. These "leaders" seem to now be using this theme for renewed controls of the world economic order and increased GLOBAL taxation. I had read some of these accusations before this last week and had thought them to be extreme. Now...I find myself sadly agreeing this could indeed be the "hidden agenda" of these government bodies. They truly are not giving any credence to "Climategate".

All I can say is...thank God for the internet! While these powers are also trying in many ways to "control" and manipulate the "information highway"...so far we still have the freedom to write and access OUR choice of information. Those days may be limited my friends, but for now let us use our freedom to choose carefully what we read and listen too and make sure we INDEPENDENTLY interpret all that is out there. Unfortunately, there is never enough time for most of us who have jobs, pressures, kids to raise and bills to pay to independently study all these things. The sinister forces behind all this count on that reality that is yours. But as more of us WAKE UP as I did this week and realize how we are being manipulated, maybe more of us will prioritize better what we do with our time and attention. If we don't honestly evaluate and act on some of these huge issues, we will soon find ourselves living under some form of worldwide Fascism that will be a much bigger crisis than Nazi Germany or Mussolini ever dreamed of creating.

Of course, the biggest question on this theme to me is one of "cause and effect". Is the media a simple reflection of where public opinion wants to go, or are they leading public opinion? You could argue both sides of that coin. It is probably a scary combination of both. I see people blindly quote and believe in any sensationalist report that the media spews forth...especially IF it is aligned with their previous views. We all have a tendency to do that...but based on what I have been through on the Climategate issue these past years, I heartily suggest that we don't jump to any conclusions on any subject we do not know first hand until ALL the evidence is in and voices have been heard. Lets remember it took more than 100 years for most of humanity to accept that the world is not flat even once it was proven to them scientifically.

The biggest factor supporting a suppressed or manipulated media is the general antipathy of the market towards news topics of merit. The overall population is more interested in who won last nights "Dancing with the Stars", who is wearing what on the "red carpet" in Hollywood or the latest sensationalist rapist/serial killer than they are about observing the battle to control the Federal Reserve and money supply or price of gold versus the Dow Jones. There is no interest in "health-care" legislation until someone's "rights" to health-care are threatened. The average "Joe" does not care nor is really involved in markets and politics...so by default has left it in the secretive and manipulative hands of representative government. Only a very small percentage of our populations have enough money and education to really have a stake in what is going on in money supply or macro economics...and I am afraid our educational systems continue to foment that mentality. So to that end, capitalism and democratic government may not be very good bedfellows (oh oh...I think I have just incubated another blog topic).

My only solution for this media dilemma is to continue pursuing my "news and views" from a variety of independent and verifiable sources. I do most of my newspaper reading and even newscast viewing online now. Most of it is free and at my "fingertips" that way. I try and read or view material from a variety of leanings...left/right, republican/democrat, secular/non-secular...it all needs to be thrown into the mix over time to understand what makes up our complicated world affairs. Objectivity, wisdom and understanding takes a lifetime to accomplish...and hopefully I am only halfway through that process though I wish I was already smarter than I am.

Climategate...

(Part 2 of above interview...click here)

(This is about the most difficult blog I have written to date)

While I count myself an "environmentalist" and believe in green and clean energy for improving our health and future quality of life, that does not make me a typical "tree hugger" or green "activist" trying to make a religion or major political movement out of the issue of ecology and the environment. I now find myself in a major quandary as I try to sort out a variety of new information and voices coming out against the message of "Global Warming" and CO2 emissions as a primary cause of our polluted planet. Throughout my life I have tried to keep an open mind about most major issues or conflict of thought. I admit I have no science background in most anything though I do my best to read and understand those basic sciences that affect my life and well being. I also accept core scientific principles as being rational and full of "cause and effect".

This past week as has been widely publicized (see this article), the email database of perhaps the most prestigious Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in Britain was hacked. The hackers then released to the public over 1000 emails and 3000 documents detailing extreme conflicts between major proponents of climatic change over how to deal with or deny substantial new data that harpoons the now common perception that the polar icecaps are melting and CO2 emissions are leading us into a quick meltdown of our world as we know it. This is alarming to me primarily because I will be very disheartened to find out that these decades of alarm will have been a hoax and "much ado about nothing".

Until this news came to light, I had been giving short thrift to the naysayers and the seemingly minority who deny the level or danger of climatic change. On most themes in life I have tried not to be extremist on anything and like to take "the center" position until I am otherwise completely convinced on a debatable subject. Now that these emails and documents have hit the air, even if by underhanded, hacker oriented means...I find myself taking a big pause in my thinking before making blanket statements in a field I have little firsthand knowledge in. Is seems we are now in the middle of "infowars"...and those who came out against the UN climate report or Al Gore's campaign for the "Inconvenient Truth" are being heard from every side this week.

Added to that is a couple days of intense email conversation with a gentleman from Germany that I had seen posting on some blogs that I follow, and when I challenged him with a few of my presuppositions, he has come back at me with some pretty heavy information and resources that have to be considered in balance with all I have taken for granted until this time. In addition to the above video, here are a few links that he has sent me, and I welcome any of you interested or concerned for knowing the truth about this intense and infinitely important subject to check out these links and get back to me on how it affects YOUR thinking...

http://green-agenda.com/
Sea Ice Extend: http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm
Temperature records since 1958: http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
Must read: http://www.john-daly.com/polar/arctic.htm
Antarctic Ice extend this winter reached an all time record http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/NEWIMAGES/antarctic.seaice.color.000.png
http://wattsupwiththat.com/
http://www.surfacestations.org
www.icecap.us
www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com
http://www.infowars.com/
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/

It seems that most of the anti "climate change", hoax accusers basically believe that governments don't care if climate change claims are fraudulent or not...they just want the taxes, power and control that this global mania can bring to their doorstep for "saving the planet". Now that these emails and documents are "out of the bag" regarding all the conflicts between scientists, business and government leaders on this theme, it might certainly derail the current plans for the major "Global warming" summits planned in Copenhagen and elsewhere in the coming weeks and months.

While I am still trying to grapple with the reasons why global government purveyors would see "global warming" or climate change as THE way to overcome the sovereign individuality of world powers...it is not implausible to me that there might be merit to that accusation. After all, we ARE seeing collusion between the G20 countries to eradicate tax competition in the world so they can snuff out small competitive tax regimes. I believe our own USA government has used the 9/11 hysteria in order to rush to war, limit its citizens privacy and core legal freedoms...a la the "Patriot Act". History has shown that if you give governments an inch, they will take a mile...and we are seeing this happen both within the superpower governments of the world and also attempts at consolidation of powers in the UN and other international bodies of trade and governance. You connect media outlets with this triumvirate of global powers, you have huge control over mass mind-share, even in these days of the internet.

In this age of the super-sized corporate industrial complex, super-sized governments, and super-sized banking powers behind all of that...it is obviously not an advantageous time to be an independent "little guy"...or even "little country". The powers that are amassing have huge sway over "the system", and it makes one more understanding of the extremists both in Leftist governments and the "Jihadists" who maybe have reasons for their strange and aggressive behaviors. I'm not saying they are "right" in their actions...but their "zaniness" might be understandable as a survival tactic against such odds of power and money over-running their choices in life.

I'm afraid our world is further on the edge of major revolt and conflict...primarily between the haves and the "have nots". This "climategate" could be just one more significant domino that falls into the cause and effect factors of global conflict and even war. It is VERY scary to carry some of these thought processes to their ultimate conclusion...and we need to be very careful and cautious before jumping on ANY bandwagons. It is a time for strong individualism and thought leadership...and I'm afraid I don't see or hear much of that in the leading media or publications.

If this "Climategate" proves to be true as manipulation of the masses for power trips and controls, I will be very embarrassed for many things I have said and written on this subject. Yet, I would rather apologize and get it right than allow myself to be forever manipulated by powers that be into actions or INactions that are not justified. As my grandfather told me decades ago..."the most dangerous lie is that which is based on truth". I still believe we have huge environmental and climatic challenges to control and improve. I'm just not quite as sure of the causes or who is going to truly come to the rescue...but I am more and more convinced that it is not going to be governments that find the causes...or the solutions. Lets get back to private, market driven new studies and technologies that will solve our world's problems. Government bodies simply by their natures cannot be trusted. And we surely don't need to give them more of our money as fuel for THEIR fires. Let them manage with less just like the rest of us "average" global citizens.

Once again...who is and where is "John Galt"?

November 27th...

Here is another significant video link on this subject as produced in England. The evidence of deception continues mounting...

http://www.moviesfoundonline.com/great_global_warming_swindle.php

November 28

More effective links of interest...

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org
http://biggovernment.com/2009/11/27/cross-examining-the-climate-change-scammers
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/11/24/climategate-totally-ignored-tv-news-outlets-except-fox

November 29...new added links

http://www.prisonplanet.com/lord-monckton-end-the-un.html
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/markey_and_barton_letter.pdf
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMe5dOgbu40
http://online.wsj.com/video/copenhagen-collapse/C76E3358-3479-4455-98C2-FC99FF28E2DC.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703499404574559630382048494.html
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/the_warmist_pr_con_job.html
http://heliogenic.blogspot.com/

November 30
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202007/GWHoaxBorn.pdf
The Scientists Involved in Deliberately Deceiving the World on Climate

December 4
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/climategate.html
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Alaska_Climate.pdf

Apple and others leaving American Chamber of Commerce

http://industry.bnet.com/energy/10002233/five-and-counting-apple-quits-chamber-of-commerce/?tag=content;top-active#comments

Sorry for this redundant subject this week, but I can't help but comment and give kudos to Apple, three utility companies, and Nike for resigning their memberships in the American Chamber of Commerce over the chamber's negative support of clean, green energy pursuits and legislation. It will be increasingly important to take moral stands on this subject that literally threatens mankind's existence. The need for clean energy and solutions to our polluted world and changing climates is so extreme that it might take a different kind of revolution in order to turn things around and give clean energy the priority it demands.

While I hate to see the politicization of such an important pursuit, it obviously requires support of the major world governments in order to turn this bus around. The corporate industrial complex has too many conflicts of interest to be the main thrusters of global change. It has become obvious that given the choice between short term profits or the long term survival of human existence as we know it...too many influential, powerful and moneyed interests prefer the short term windfall profits to long term quality of life for future generations.

It is unfortunate that many have pushed this agenda out of their minds or rationalized that it is all "natural" change and there is nothing we can do to affect our climate, the air we breathe or the water that we drink. I believe the mountain of evidence stresses otherwise, no matter what spokesman for the cause you have a problem with.

I applaud Apple and these other significant corporate leaders who have acknowledged the truth and demanded an honest approach to this global challenge from this important body of American corporate leaders. After all, it is mostly corporate concerns and profits that are perpetuating the annihilation of our world through pollution. It will take all of us caring humans to force them to turn this around...and it especially helps when some of these "big dogs" join the hunt for a better environment to live in. After all, what is money and profits if you have no health or freedom to enjoy them?

E.T. - Energy Technology

(Final paragraphs from Thomas Friedman's Op-Ed piece at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/18/opinion/18friedman.html?_r=1&em )

"The world keeps getting flatter — more and more people can now see how we live, aspire to our lifestyle and even take our jobs so they can live how we live. So not only are we adding 2.5 billion people by 2050, but many more will live like “Americans” — with American-size homes, American-size cars, eating American-size Big Macs.

“What happens when developing nations with soaring vehicle populations get tens of millions of petroleum-powered cars at the same time as the global economy recovers and there’s no large global oil supply overhang?” asks Felix Kramer, the electric car expert who advocates electrifying the U.S. auto fleet and increasingly powering it with renewable energy sources. What happens, of course, is that the price of oil goes through the roof — unless we develop alternatives. The petro-dictators in Iran, Venezuela and Russia hope we don’t. They would only get richer.

So either the opponents of a serious energy/climate bill with a price on carbon don’t care about our being addicted to oil and dependent on petro-dictators forever or they really believe that we will not be adding 2.5 billion more people who want to live like us, so the price of oil won’t go up very far and, therefore, we shouldn’t raise taxes to stimulate clean, renewable alternatives and energy efficiency.

Green hawks believe otherwise. We believe that in a world getting warmer and more crowded with more “Americans,” the next great global industry is going to be E.T., or energy technology based on clean power and energy efficiency. It has to be. And we believe that the country that invents and deploys the most E.T. will enjoy the most economic security, energy security, national security, innovative companies and global respect. And we believe that country must be America. If not, our children will never enjoy the standard of living we did. And we believe the best way to launch E.T. is to set a fixed, long-term price on carbon — combine it with the Obama team’s impressive stimulus for green-tech — and then let the free market and innovation do the rest.

So, as I said, you don’t believe in global warming? You’re wrong, but I’ll let you enjoy it until your beach house gets washed away. But if you also don’t believe the world is getting more crowded with more aspiring Americans — and that ignoring that will play to the strength of our worst enemies, while responding to it with clean energy will play to the strength of our best technologies — then you’re willfully blind, and you’re hurting America’s future to boot."

While I am not convinced Obama or US government "leaders" truly see or understand what is at stake in the energy game, it was at least nice to see President Obama make a stab at some sort of clean energy initiatives with China this past week. At least he admitted in the global news conference that without the USA and China agreeing to clean up the environment, nothing will get done since those two countries alone provide about 42% of the carbon emissions on the globe.

What I really like about Mr. Friedmans model on this subject is the idea that the next great economies will come from whoever and wherever they produce new and cleaner energy. New energy is the key to surviving the coming population boom and reshaping of global populations due to climate change, famines and devastation both natural and man-made.

My step dad suggested when I was 18 and clueless that "waste management" was going to be a great industry of the future. I don't think he intended me to be a "garbage man" running around in a truck, but I have since met some people who became very wealthy by finding solutions to the growing mountains of human waste. Wish I was 18 again and looking for a future career. Energy Technology would be it.

(Nov 19)
A small update on this theme I just have to add today. A news piece I read this morning reinforces to me the theme of this blog. Sorry this article is only in Spanish...but it basically points out the irony of the energy situation here in Latin America where "el Nino" weather patterns are causing drought in many countries. Most of these country's energy is hydro-electric dependent. Because of climate change, even during the current rainy season in the tropics many areas continue with drought conditions reducing water levels for energy production. There have been blackouts in Brazil and Venezuela. The article points out the almost funny suggestions of President Chavez of how to "conserve" energy during these times by using a flashlight instead of turning on the lights when they get up in the middle of the night to use the bathroom. A pathetic non-response to what will be an ongoing problem in Venezuela and the world. ALL of these countries are in dire need of new, sustainable energy sources that don't count on oil or hydro electric dams. Its time for them to add solar, wind and natural gas solutions to their energy equations.

Pornography

I'm getting into a strange habit of waking up dreaming topics of my next blog. Here's the latest...

Pornography is big business in the world and continues to be another area of "human behavior" that various governments and religions want to control or legislate. While anyone that is a parent or wants to protect children from adult themes is understandably supportive of controlling public content...it still is an area of behavior whose control needs to be in the hands of the local community more than a "nationalist" cause.

The first problem with pornography is how do you define it as a culture? The core dictionary definition is "material that depicts erotic behavior and is intended to cause sexual excitement". Of course the battle over that basic definition is who determines "intent" and what is "erotic" or not. Some would argue that the Bible has quite a bit of "erotic" content, especially in the writings of "Solomon" where there is much description of a man's attraction to a female's body and bold descriptions thereof. Is this "erotic" or pornographic? It could be to some...

Most government positions on pornography is "Pornographic material is protected expression unless it is determined to be obscene. However, child pornography is illegal under federal and state laws prohibiting the depiction of minors in sexual acts." Of course here the definition of "obscene" and age of majority are quite varied from country to country or culture to culture. Who is to finally determine the age of majority or what is obscene or not? The opinions can be as varied as the number of humans on a committee or government body. When pressed on this theme, I have heard or read many leaders say "I can't define obscenity in words...I just know it when I see it". Again, not very concrete terms under which to judge the legality of sexual content in media or the arts.

Some people think that any showing of genitalia, whether it is in a sex film or on an artistic statue or painting is "pornographic". Some view any nudity in films as "pornographic" while others think "anything goes" if a person chooses it, including bestiality, masochism/sadomasochism, gay sex or pedophilia. Some countries/cultures are very liberal and permissive of human sexuality and behavior choices while others continue with "Victorian" principles. Some countries like Denmark and The Netherlands have high degrees of tolerance while most Arab/Islam countries have heavy penalties even to capital punishment for involvement in pornography or forbidden sex. When you get down to a mixing bowl like the USA population, it seems a pretty tall order to make determinations for everyone on what the limits and definitions are.

We seem to be living in a world of EXTREMES when it comes to this subject. You have religions and cultures that demand the complete covering of every body part, especially for women. Then you also still have a few aboriginal tribes that live in tropical areas with total nudity. National Geographic used to focus a lot on these people when I was growing up and I think was used as initial sex education material by many more "prudish" sectors of society. Playboy was out, National Geographic "in".

I find it quite impacting how "liberal" western civilization's media has become on sexual themes. Whether things are "pornographic" or not seems to be a very subjective thing depending on who you talk to. Things that used to be very private and hardly ever talked about are now on all the major networks...and the "MTV generation" has long been exposed to sexually explicit content with even a large amount of gay depictions on programs geared to minors. While on one hand I think it healthy for teens to get education on human sexuality and feel good about their sexuality in a responsible manner...I think many media shows have gone way too far too soon in presenting some of these themes to minors who spend most of their free time watching these shows instead of reading or other more productive activities. The biggest problem with this is that parents or other significant adults are usually totally out of the loop in presenting or discussing these sexual themes with their dependents. One might ask if hetero sexual photos in Playboy or Penthouse or in the case of women, "Playgirl", are any more pornographic than an MTV show that depicts teens of the same sex kissing and fondling on International TV?

Cause and effect of this topic is interesting. Are young people more promiscuous than they were 30-40 years ago? Some of the studies I have seen would suggest that they are less active than those of us who grew up in the 60s and 70s. Personally I am not sure that more exposure to "porn" leads to more promiscuity as I think more liberal, educated young people are less "titillated" by pornographic content than those who were protected from it and then exposed at a later point in life. We see some of the most extreme sexual predators coming out of religions and cultures that were very legalistic or Victorian in nature. It is as if by forbidding the fruit of this material, we make it that much more appealing...much like the forbidden apple in the story of Adam and Eve. If you tell someone they CAN'T have or see something...human nature seems to crave it that much more.

This topic presents a "Catch 22" to me. I believe the human mind can be exposed to a lot of things of this nature without necessarily being affected permanently or negatively by it. Yet, obviously kids at an early age are susceptible to coercion and manipulation by adults and by adult media when it comes to their sexuality. It's one thing if a person finds themselves prone to homosexuality or other "non-traditional" forms of sexual behaviors...it is another thing to try and convince a young life to question their natural tendencies. On this theme I have grown to be sensitive to those who grow up with gay tendencies and having everyone try to guilt trip them about their nature. On the other hand, I find it unconscionable to allow adults to prey sexually on minors, whether it be hetero or homo. I've seen this way too close in my life and will swiftly come to the support of anyone who is experiencing this kind of pressure, especially a minor.

So, back to the core issue of pornography...what is and what isn't? I think it is a very personal thing. For people to deny their sexuality or curiosity about it is not natural or healthy in my opinion. The sooner we realize that humans developed with very strong sexual drives and curiosities...the better, more adjusted humans we will be. I have seen very rigid, conservatively raised people grow up to be sexually addicted in various ways...and I have seen completely liberal, unrestricted people grow up to be very responsible and monogamous partners in a relationship. There is no guarantee from either background of being "sexually adjusted".

The only restrictions I feel should be strongly imparted by a culture is the protection of their children from adult predators. To that end I support limiting exposure to minors of certain materials that would commonly and obviously be labeled "adult" or pornographic. As a parent, Uncle, or responsible adult...I think it important to protect our children as long as we can, yet there comes a time where we should be prepared to discuss with them anything they want to discuss related to sexuality or pornography...however it is defined. If we are too prudish or protective ourselves, it might be a bit difficult to have a knowledgeable and fair conversation with those under our charge or help them grow into adjusted and prepared adults for the big bad world out there.

The government's role is to protect us...

(Click here to see the video)

"The government's role is to protect "us"..."
Reverend Al Sharpton, on "This Week" news show, Nov 1, 2009

As I usually do on Sunday mornings, today I watched the key Sunday morning weekly news shows like "Face the Nation" and "This Week". I find this exercise helps me keep track of the political pulse in the USA in the shortest amount of time and with greatest impact. The panel discussions on "This Week" are usually most intriguing to me as a microcosm of debate between liberal, centrist, and conservative "talking heads" as they battle out their positions in short debate form. It is one of the few programs which feature simultaneously the likes of George Will and the "Reverend" Al Sharpton in discussion of the key issues of the week. This week the key discussions were on the upcoming local and state level elections, defining the major battles and issues...and of course a lot is made of the weeks latest polls on everything from health-care to the popularity of President Obama.

The core debate currently in the political arena at a macro level is defining the role of government in a democracy. Towards the end of the program "This Week", I felt Mr. Sharpton and Mr. Will summarized the core philosophical difference between liberal and conservative political views succinctly when Al Sharpton said vehemently that "the role of government is to protect us" to which George Will replied "I thought the role of government was to protect OUR RIGHTS...even from government itself". This struck me as the heart of the matter for so MANY issues our country is facing right now.

While the Democrats and President Obama continue to have the power and influence from the last election cycle to have their way for now, there is obviously a strong back lash against many of the big government plans and controls the administration and congress together are pushing forward. As someone else on the program said, "with this health-care bill, the Democrats are pushing the shopping cart down the aisle as fast as they can and filling it with as much control and power items that they can get passed in short order".

In reaction to this, the Republican party leadership is pushing the party further to the extreme "right", and it seems we are seeing a number of people leave both parties to pursue more INDEPENDENT or centrist pursuits. Unfortunately, panel members from each party persuasion castigate "independents" as being "Perot extremists"...as if independents all line up behind the ideologies of this independent figurehead of over 20 years ago who hasn't been heard from in the political arena in a long time. They seem to be afraid to bring up current independent thinkers like Congressman Ron Paul or Mayor Bloomberg of New York City. Joe Lieberman is the other "poster child" of independent politicians and he was interviewed briefly on "Face the Nation" today...but the media gives very short shift to the independent movement and loves to continue the battle between two parties that in my view both represent "big government" programs even if from different applications thereof.

While I find it somewhat nauseating to have people like Al Sharpton (I would personally never call him "Reverend" and I don't know why the media continues to do so since he is now more a full time political pundit than a "reverend") be the best they can find to represent the mainstream liberal Democratic cause (what happened to Donna Brazile who is a much smoother, more intelligent representative of the liberal democrat agenda?). Yet, the scary part is that Al Sharpton probably better represents the mindset and attitude of that sector's voting public. Simplistic, fear-mongering, banner waving hype on "equal rights" and the poor masses that need big government protection has over run more intelligent, objective and rational debates. Where are the intelligent, better educated leaders that used to lead that democratic charge? Why can't we see more debates and interviews by intelligent minority leaders like Thomas Sowell, Clarence Thomas, or even Jesse Jackson Jr. who would arguably be a better image and mouthpiece for minority and liberal causes than Sharpton.

But, more important then personality or image issues, it is the content of thought and reason that worries me and I think many more like me. Since when did the constitution change so much as to make the government guarantors of so many social benefits? When did the constitution change to allow for so much taxation without representation? When did the switch happen from the purpose of protecting individual rights and our borders to government's current mandate of controlling markets, currencies, health-care, unemployment benefits, arts endowments, foreign nation building, and the right to go to war without Congress declaring war?

If government's role is first and foremost to protect "us" versus protecting our rights and freedoms, then I am afraid our democracy is doomed to the realities of this...my favorite quote on democracy from the late 1700s...

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess of the public treasury. From that time on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the results that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's great civilizations has been 200 years.

These nations have progressed through this sequence:from bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to great courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance;from abundance to selfishness; from selfishness to complacency;from complacency to apathy; from apathy to dependency; from dependency back again to bondage.
--Sir Alex Fraser Tytler (1742-1813) Scottish jurist and historian

A couple bonus quotes on this theme...

Democracy does not guarantee equality of conditions - it only guarantees equality of opportunity.
Irving Kristol

“The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.” -- Thomas Jefferson