Political

I subscribe to several political candidates’ email newsletters - for the sake of being as balanced as possible.

Ron Paul’s camp just blitzed this notice across my bow:

Yesterday was a remarkable day for Ron Paul, and it wouldn’t have happened without you. For those of you who haven’t yet heard, Ron Paul took over 10% in yesterday’s Iowa caucus, handily beating Rudy Giuliani and finishing right behind both Fred Thompson and John McCain. This despite that Rudy Giuliani made more visits to Iowa than Ron Paul. And, entrance polls showed that Ron Paul took first place (29%) among independent Republicans!

I’m certainly a happy camper; hitting double digits in Iowa is nothing to sneeze at. Conversely, I’m happy to see that Obama came out ahead on the Dem side.

Add to iTunes | Add to YouTube | Add to Google | RSS Feed

I can’t believe that everyone in the chat room right now wanted me to record this video. I know it is likely to tick some people off, but so be it. My purpose is not to sway your vote. My purpose is to GET you to vote… to think… to make your OWN decision.

I believe in a lot of things, yet I don’t label myself as a Democrat, or Republican. I label myself as an American. I label myself as someone who lives in a free society, which has the potential to create positive change in our country. To that end, I want you to vote. I don’t really care who you vote for, believe it or not. I couldn’t care less if you vote for who I choose to give my support to. This isn’t a political ad, some campaign material, nor a plea for any certain candidate. I simply want you to get out there and vote come Election Day. I care that you vote… and that you think very carefully about who you vote for, and WHY you are voting for that particular person.

America isn’t run by politicians. It’s run by people who put the money in the politicians’ pockets. When I was younger, I didn’t follow politics at all really, nor did I vote. I felt as though it didn’t really matter, and that I couldn’t really make a damn bit of difference. I mean look at it this way: when you have companies who fund a particular politician AND his / her competition, something is seriously wrong. Now you don’t have a two-party system. You have one party. Follow the money trail. Special interest groups RUN this country. Cut. Print. Period.

I know you’re sitting there saying to yourself “Well, politicians have to get their money from somewhere”. Yes, they do. But here’s a novel idea. What about getting their money from US. Remember us? You know… the citizens these politicians are supposedly elected to represent. Yeah. Isn’t that just a crazy little idea, to have the American people decide who their money should go to, who they should support, and why? Imagine being that excited by a candidate that you would give them some of your hard-earned money? We all know money isn’t easy to come by. I automatically dismiss any candidate who accepts the majority of their money from corporations and special interest groups.

If they don’t have money, they don’t get elected? By today’s rules, by today’s media rate card. All that is about to change - and you have the power to change it.

I want to see more people apply critical thinking skills… not just to who they vote for, but in every aspect of their life. You are not in control, but… and here’s the kicker… you have the chance to be in control if you want to be. In order to do that, you have to STOP OUTSOURCING YOUR THINKING. Don’t just listen to me, or some newspaper, tv show, or even your own mother. Listen to yourself. Do your research. Open your mind!!! You have to see other perspectives in order to gain perspective. That is how you grow. If you only choose to listen to people you agree with, you’re living in an echo chamber.

Have we not clearly established that groupthink iS BAD?!

If you vote for someone because you think they are (or have a chance to be) a winner, you aren’t doing yourself or this country any favors. You vote for someone because you believe in them. What’s that? Just like you marry someone because you love them and believe in them - you vote for someone because you BELIEVE IN THEM. I’m tired of cookie-cutter politicians who spout the same tired things, changing their story and hiding their real relationships on a whim. The funny thing is you know you’re being lied to! Yet, you vote for them anyway - because you want to back a “winner.” Well, why not take a step back, and figure out exactly what a winner is?

Only you can decide that… for yourself.

This isn’t a “Blue” or “Red” issue. It’s not a “Democrat” or “Republican” issue. It’s an American issue. I hate when people spit out propoganda. It doesn’t matter if it’s slanted liberal or conservative… it’s still propoganda! I’m sure someone will watch this video and claim that I’m spreading propoganda… or that I’m a fool for beliving one thing over another. Yeah, well… at least I’m not telling you who to vote for. That’s totally up to you.

Just do your best to elect a person, not a company. Want to embed this video on your own site, blog, or forum? Use this code or download the video:

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/fLr1RnEn5W4"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/fLr1RnEn5W4" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object><br /><a href="http://chris.pirillo.com/">Chris</a> | <a href="http://live.pirillo.com/">Live Tech Support</a> | <a href="http://media.pirillo.com/">Video Help</a> | <a href="http://feeds.pirillo.com/ChrisPirilloShow">Add to iTunes</a>

Add to iTunes | Add to YouTube | Add to Google | RSS Feed

Allan’s friend Jake sent me an email to ask me to discuss the impact Social Networking and the Internet in general are having on the US Presidential campaign. The “now” of Politics is online… the future is a given.

I am a fierce Independent, so I have done a lot of research into the different candidates this year. The more I research, the more convinced I am that in the future, politics will be decided online in a large way. Let’s talk about Ron Paul. Before we do, let me say this is not an endorsement of him as a candidate, nor am I saying who I am voting for. To me, that is very personal, and not something I’m willing to share. However, I DO want to discuss his campaign thus far.

Ron Paul has a HUGE following online. The Internet is full of not just Geeks, but technically astute people who research for themselves. They don’t just go by what they heard and see on the tv, radio or newspaper. Generally what Ron Paul stands for is just that… those types of values and mindset that much of us online share.

As far as I’m concerned, everyone should be an “Independent”. Why blindly follow a party? Do you REALLY believe that just because someone is a Democrat or Republican they are the best candidate? Do you really truly agree with every single thing “your” party stands for? When the citizens of this country, and even this world, finally all start thinking for themselves, we will be in a much better situation. Heck, I’m not even just talking politics here. Be independent in ALL of your thinking… from your choice of Operating system, to what car you will drive, and yes… to who you should vote for.

All in all, I definitely feel that the Internet will be shaping political races in the future. Oh, wait. It’s shaping one now, isn’t it? The future is here, folks. Isn’t it time you joined it? Get online. Do your own research. Draw your own conclusions. Let’s bring this country back to where it should be, then help it move forward.

Want to embed this video on your own site, blog, or forum? Use this code or download the video:

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/1H8ZKWbqCZQ"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/1H8ZKWbqCZQ" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object><br /><a href="http://chris.pirillo.com/">Chris</a> | <a href="http://live.pirillo.com/">Live Tech Support</a> | <a href="http://media.pirillo.com/">Video Help</a> | <a href="http://feeds.pirillo.com/ChrisPirilloShow">Add to iTunes</a>

“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 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.”

Dissolve? Separation? Were the Founding Fathers not too happy with the government under which they lived? Guess so, otherwise this may have been called the Declaration of Complacency.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Liberty is awesome.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Abolish? Dude. That’s terrorism. Apparently, so is printing your own currency.

Democrats and Republicans are the same. They’re owners - and they most certainly don’t give a fzck about you, your life, your liberty, or enabling the pursuit of your own happiness. Wake up.

I don’t care who you vote for, just do your best to vote for someone who hasn’t taken campaign contributions from corporations - m’kay?

Ten quick steps to facism:

1. Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy
2. Create a gulag
3. Develop a thug caste
4. Set up an internal surveillance system
5. Harass citizens’ groups
6. Engage in arbitrary detention and release
7. Target key individuals
8. Control the press
9. Dissent equals treason
10. Suspend the rule of law

Thank goodness we live in America, where none of this could ever happen.

The economic pundits are out in full force this week discussing subprime lending’s imminent (if not present) collapse. I’ve heard ‘em on ABC, NPR, Fox, CNN - they’re everywhere, and some of them are smart enough to realize that the problem stems from America being a host to the disease known as the Federal Reserve (read: we’re not controlled so much by government as we are by a central bank).

I wanted to call your attention to one person in particular. Catherine Austin Fitts:

Catherine Austin Fitts offers a unique perspective on the global financial system and on the political economy. Her background includes: Wall Street: Managing Director and member of the Board, Dillon Read & Co. Inc.; Government: Assistant Secretary of Housing - Federal Housing Commissioner; Entrepreneur: President and founder of Hamilton Securities investment bank. Catherine has designed and closed over $25 billion of transactions and investments to-date and has led portfolio strategy for $300 billion of financial assets and liabilities.

Okay, credibility established - right? I hope you’re sitting down. This is part of what she shared last night on the radio:

Fitts spoke on black budgets—money used by the federal government which is not reported in their financial statements—and how they are used to fund (on a non-transparent basis) corporations performing secret military and intelligence functions. She said the people who control these ‘covert’ cash flows end up manipulating the ‘overt’ world.

She described how money can be laundered through publicly traded companies, using the European Union’s lawsuit against RJR Nabisco as a case study. Fitts explained stock ‘pump and dump’ schemes, pointing out that not only can stocks be pumped up and dumped but so can real estate, countries (Iraq), and even the planet. Fitts noted problems with the central banking warfare model, which she said helped make America successful but is not sustainable and no longer works. She also explained what she calls the ‘tapeworm economy,’ in which a small group of insiders centralize political and economic power to make money in a way that actually destroys wealth.

Fitts discussed the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), which she said is being run as a “criminal enterprise.” According to Fitts, HUD reported $17 billion missing in fiscal 1998 as well as $59 billion in undocumented adjustments the following year. The HUD inspector general refused to produce financial statements, she said, noting that it is illegal to spend money that has not been appropriated by Congress. Fitts also talked about the last housing bubble, the current crisis in the housing and mortgage markets and how it was engineered.

I’m still trying to sift through Noam Chomsky’s latest: Failed States: The Abuse of Power and the Assault on Democracy. I’d imagine it’s right up Catherine’s alley, too. I’m sure the Ron Paul’ites will come out of the woodwork to state that he’s the only presidential candidate who wants to abolish the Fed - which may be true, but I’m more concerned about the other candidates who either (a) don’t have a clue, or (b) are a part of the problem.

[UPDATE: I was going to save this for a later post, but now's a good a time to link to it as any. Cameron Reilly had Noam on G'Day World a while ago, then had me on at a much later date to discuss similar matters. I returned the favor last night, although my video conference with Cam hasn't yet been posted.]

Okay, this article is just too timely: U.S. to Expand Domestic Use Of Spy Satellites. I wish I was making this up. I wish this wasn’t coming directly from the WSJ. I wish I didn’t see this as an extreme violation of my civil liberties as an American.

According to officials, one of the department’s first objectives will be to use the network to enhance border security, determine how best to secure critical infrastructure and help emergency responders after natural disasters. Sometime next year, officials will examine how the satellites can aid federal and local law-enforcement agencies, covering both criminal and civil law. The department is still working on determining how it will engage law enforcement officials and what kind of support it will give them.

So, it’s okay for them to spy on us - with closed intelligence - just so we might be able to stop criminals from doing the things they’re going to do anyway? Yeah, that’s a pretty big leap of faith, and I have absolutely no faith in this being a good thing. Is this 1984? Big Brother is finally peering into your living room.

Access to the high-tech surveillance tools would, for the first time, allow Homeland Security and law-enforcement officials to see real-time, high-resolution images and data, which would allow them, for example, to identify smuggler staging areas, a gang safehouse, or possibly even a building being used by would-be terrorists to manufacture chemical weapons.

This is your government, folks. What if they thought you were a terrorist because you tried to bring toothpaste onto an airplane without first placing it safely inside a baggie?! Okay, so maybe that’s a bit extreme - but so is their unchallenged ability to WATCH EVERY DAMN MOVE YOU MAKE based on suspicions and no due process.

Unlike electronic eavesdropping, which is subject to legislative and some judicial control, this use of spy satellites is largely uncharted territory. Although the courts have permitted warrantless aerial searches of private property by law-enforcement aircraft, there are no cases involving the use of satellite technology.

More loopholes! w00t!

“This all has to be vetted through a legal process,” he says. “We have to get this right because we don’t want civil-rights and civil-liberties advocates to have concerns that this is being misused in ways which were not intended.”

Sure, because government officials can never be corrupted - nor can they be purchased by any special interest group at any price. I’m sorry, I just don’t buy it. I put my own life online because I choose to do that - but what about people who value their privacy? I mean, is that something we should so willingly suspend in the hopes that this “intelligence” and technology can help us make this world a safer place?

Then again, does spying make the world a better place?

Your privacy is constantly in jeopardy. It’s not just about blocking third-party cookies, comrades. Just how much of yourself do you no longer own? How much of yourself are you willing to give over to these various online social networks? How much of yourself are you willing to expose to the globe, to nameless / faceless people on the other end of the lens?

This deserves much, MUCH more thought…

Apparently, there are conversations about this blog happening on StumbleUpon every day (cool, but I really wish I would be notified in some way - possibly through a trackback to the comment, or in being able to have those external comments show up as comments in my own threads). Regardless, “Ultimate Josh” had posted a response to a response that I thought was valid enough to be given its own post.

This is another perspective on Ron Paul (not one I necessarily agree with, mind you):

I’d like to skip your comments about being propagandized because I think I clearly explained myself in the blog, but to be frank, if Outfoxed influenced you, yes, you’ve been propagandized. It should not have taken a film to catalog all of the problems with FOX news since the discrepancies between it and traditional journalism are so blatantly obvious, and if you made up your mind from a hit piece instead of actually watching FOX for yourself, then congratulations, you are a dumb American. Please enjoy the NASCAR races, celebrity gossip and the always low prices.

A clear review of history will not yield such ferocious indictment of the selling of the Iraq War, the corrosion of the constitution, or the history of US intervention, but it will also not defend, support or exonerate it. Objectivity can teach you more than anger and emotion. I have no problem with watching these films for entertainment, I’ve seen all of the films on your list myself actually, but I do warn against giving them “influence” over you. It’s a disservice to your own cognizant abilities and a disservice to the causes you may claim to support.

As for Ron Paul, I have numerous problems with him.

First of all, his claims of a long US history of peaceful intentions and amicable non-intervention is absolute bullshit. Out first overseas military commitment was in 1806. End of story. Given the weight of the subject matter, to me, this goes beyond a simple campaign fallacy and into the point of being dangerously out of touch.

Second, he is a Libertarian. Libertarians interpret the constitution as deriving all rights from property, including the property of your physical self. Therefore, committing murder would be an unconstitutional violation against someones right to property of life. Sounds good, except that’s not exactly what the Libertarians had in mind, when they came together and formed their party. What were they thinking? Well, given that life is property, and one has a human right to own private property…Oops! Slavery. That’s right, Libertarianism is simply the flashy, sexy politically correct new label for the Confederates of the 19th century (not to be confused with the Anti-Federalists of the 18th).

So, do I think this means Ron Paul will restart slavery? Absolutely not in a million years. It’s simply to illustrate the true ugliness of libertarianism, as it is too easily swept away in pro-abortion, pro-drug, pro-gun euphoria.

Slavery is one piece of danger, but along with confederate liberty comes hyperconservatism at the national level. While this is sold to you as saving you tax dollars, in reality it would almost entirely privatize our national infrastructure. That’s everything from the Interstate system to the CIA, the Air Force to the FCC. It even includes our government agencies responsible for maintaining and developing our nuclear arsenal.

Do you like that every electrical device plugs into the same AC outlet everywhere in the country? Ron Paul doesn’t like that government oversight. Do you like that the secret service is working to ensure the credibility and legitimacy of our economy’s hard money supply? Ron Paul doesn’t. Do you like that someone loyal to the constitution regulates your air traffic, or would you rather have someone loyal to money? Ron Paul likes that privatized money.

But it goes far beyond that. Ron Paul’s vision of total private enterprise is also poisoned with anti-Globalization xenophobia. It’s true that he may prevent things like the Chinese poison pet food, but you’d have to stop playing your Sony Playstation, hang up your T-mobile phone, and spit out that coffee you’re drinking. Imagine 1000 years ago had the Dutch trader-barons returned to their King with news of the great Silk Road, and the King replied that no, their silk unfairly competed against Dutch blankets, their literature was decidedly un-Dutch, and their scientific advances would provoke a Mark and Sextant Gap! Not very realistic, not very wise.

And if there is one thing history teaches us unequivocally, it’s that Xenophobia kills. Ask a Jew. Or a Cherokee.

And there is just a few of my problems with Ron Paul. But let’s be honest, even if he was able to elevate himself above his fourth tier status and take the party nomination and win the popular vote and take the most electoral votes, absolutely none of what I said would come true.

Why? He would have absolutely no partisan support. The Republicans don’t like him and the Democrats don’t like him. Who would pass his bills? Who would confirm his nominees? Who would keep him in office? He’d be lucky to simply paralyze the American infrastructure for four years. At worse, he could cripple the constitution permanently and completely expose the United States to nihilist influence, domestic and abroad.

That’s ultimately why I mentioned him only in passing, instead of an indictment like this. He is simply not a threat. He could not be elected, and if he was, he could not enact his policies. Fortunately for the stability of the constitution, the majority of Americans are not free-market conservative libertarians, even though the rhetoric sounds so convincing.

Convincing like propaganda.

Assuming Dr. Paul’s supporters will come out of the woodwork to debunk Josh’s assertions, I… still can’t help but wonder if the world will ever understand “truth.” It’s all a matter of perspective, but how can we gain perspective when everybody’s perspective is completely different. In many cases, RADICALLY different. Yes, that was a sentence fragment - a fact I believe we can finally agree upon. Regardless…

Josh’s comment was left in a somewhat “private” social network (StumbleUpon, of which I am a HUGE supporter but not an active user). I don’t mind that conversations take place elsewhere on the Web, but I never would have known that there was a somewhat “private” thread based on my very public posts. I can’t really call them PRIVATE, but I’m certain that most people who read my site may not have known that the StumbleUpon thread existed around my original content (in context).

Dunno… just kinda weird to have that going on, especially with such dissenting viewpoints. How can the Web converse if half of these conversations and perspectives are behind walled gardens?

Even when evidence is planted directly beneath your nose from a well-known (albeit, heavily unbalanced) resource, you still want to believe that such a thing could never have happened in the first place. Certainly, prominent Americans would never have supported Hitler - right? I guess the Associated Press article titled Bush’s Grandfather Directed Bank Tied to Man Who Funded Hitler is a total fabrication, even with documents supporting the assertion that some of us have been asserting for some time now?

Prescott Bush was one of seven directors of Union Banking Corp., a New York investment bank owned by a bank controlled by the Thyssen family, according to recently declassified National Archives documents reviewed by The Associated Press. Fritz Thyssen was an early financial supporter of Hitler, whose Nazi party Thyssen believed was preferable to communism. The documents do not show any evidence Bush directly aided that effort. His position with Union Banking never was a political issue for Bush, who was elected to the Senate from Connecticut in 1952.

Does it matter if he DIRECTLY did anything, though? Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists - right? Why isn’t the money trail important? Why would government-appointed commission after commission sweep facts like these aside as though they were… inconsequential? He traded evil for evil, for selfish motives - not for the good of his country.

No charges were brought against Union Banking’s American directors. The federal government was too busy trying to fight the war, said Donald Goldstein, a professor of public and international affairs at the University of Pittsburgh.

Right, because we had to make more money to give to a bank we have absolutely no control over. The world is filled with conspiracy theories. Sadly, however, most of them are accepted as gospel truth.

This link was passed to me by Gnomedex Keytone Robert Steele. Seems that we live a life of blogging luxury here in the U.S. - Arab bloggers pay toll for truth:

Not all bloggers in the Arab world are so dedicated in their use of this new freedom. Not all make the extra effort to search out and verify the news. Extremists of all sorts have embraced the internet to brag of their activities and recruit new members.

But a small number of online journalists are telling important truths, despite great obstacles, setbacks and flaws of their own.

Rather than hailing the Arab world’s catch-up with the internet revolution, however, some Arab regimes have done the opposite. They have blocked blogs, removed posts and arrested and detained bloggers or prohibited them from travelling, according to the Arabic Network for Human Rights Information, a Cairo-based group.

The Internet is a country without borders - and now we have to wait for political leaders and oppressive social institutions to embrace that irreversible, uncontrollable, undeniable flat fact.

You may have the right to vote, but you don’t have the ability to verify that your vote was counted. The entire process is needlessly cumbersome, which further impedes the average American’s willingness to cast their vote in the first place. There are solutions to be found in technology, but there’s one technology in particular that may provide a more complete electronic solution for us (certainly, far better than what’s in place now). Here’s something called Universal Ballot Sampling:

The UBS protocol is designed to restore voter confidence in the electoral system. It achieves this purpose by marshalling the power of very basic statistics and ensuring that humans participate only in ways in which their partisanship can have little or no impact on the verification decision. Thus, whatever specific parameters are ultimately chosen for the sampling protocol, the verification decision itself is dictated by a fixed, pre-selected standard rather than the discretionary opinion of election officials or political appointees, as provided for by such legislative proposals as HR 811, currently pending.

You should read more about HR 811… as well as the EFF’s analysis.

Via LibriVox, the complete audiobook for The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire is available for free. Text is also available through Gutenberg:

The principal conquests of the Romans were achieved under the republic; and the emperors, for the most part, were satisfied with preserving those dominions which had been acquired by the policy of the senate, the active emulations of the consuls, and the martial enthusiasm of the people. The seven first centuries were filled with a rapid succession of triumphs; but it was reserved for Augustus to relinquish the ambitious design of subduing the whole earth, and to introduce a spirit of moderation into the public councils. Inclined to peace by his temper and situation, it was easy for him to discover that Rome, in her present exalted situation, had much less to hope than to fear from the chance of arms; and that, in the prosecution of remote wars, the undertaking became every day more difficult, the event more doubtful, and the possession more precarious, and less beneficial.

Ouch. Sounds eerily familiar.

Geeks will appreciate the end of this post, I think. Michael Buckbee posted a link to an article by Malcolm Gladwell a couple of years ago on the pharmaceutical industry, which I found to be well-presented. An underlying theme seemed to be less about blaming the drug companies for high prices - and casting light on consumers for (a) not thinking for themselves, (b) yielding too much control and decision-making power to the media, (c) being equally a part of the problem.

The fact that volume matters more than price also means that the emphasis of the prescription-drug debate is all wrong. We’ve been focussed [sic] on the drug manufacturers. But decisions about prevalence, therapeutic mix, and intensity aren’t made by the producers of drugs. They’re made by the consumers of drugs.

Remember when gas was .99 a gallon here in the United States? Those were the days. Remember when that jumped to $1.50, and we swore we’d change our habits if it went any higher? Remember when we thought we’d do something different when it topped $3.00? Even when (not if) gasoline hits $5.00 per gallon, I’m certain we’ll still accept the price.

Addicts create demand, and drug pushers are more than happy to feed our addictions. An addict does not “get clean” by complaining about the drug or its supplier, nor does an addict seek salvation through the source of the drug.

To stop the problem (the drug, the price), you must stop supporting it. And yes, Oil is as much of a drug as any given pharmaceutical’s gelcap.

The core problem in bringing drug spending under control, in other words, is persuading the users and buyers and prescribers of drugs to behave rationally, and the reason we’re in the mess we’re in is that, so far, we simply haven’t done a very good job of that.

When members of society overwhelmingly maintain an external locus of control, this is the outcome. The doctors trust the FDA, the patients trust the doctors (and the media, who are OVERTLY supported by the pharmaceuticals), and the pharmaceuticals trust that nobody’s going to bother thinking for themselves. To this end, there is no end in sight for this pricing madness - and expecting the FDA to intervene in the matter is again reinforcing the dangers of maintaining an external locus of control.

We will continue swallowing our pills, paying any price for the “privilege.”

For sellers to behave responsibly, buyers must first behave intelligently. And if we want to create a system where millions of working and elderly Americans don’t have to struggle to pay for prescription drugs that’s also up to us. We could find it in our hearts to provide all Americans with adequate health insurance. It is only by the most spectacular feat of cynicism that our political system’s moral negligence has become the fault of the pharmaceutical industry.

I’d argue that the two are tied together: America’s political system and politicians (on all sides) and the pharmaceutical drug companies. Your beloved Hillary Clinton is as corrupt as your beloved Rudy Giuliani - as is every “leading” 2008 American presidential candidate. You’re an absolute moron to accept that as “just a fact of life” or to (worse yet) believe otherwise. If you want the drive-by version, there’s The Skeleton Closet. If you want a much better researched version, there’s the Special Interest Fact Sheet from Citizen.org.

While the following argument was not raised by Gladwell’s article, I believe it speaks to the dangers in blindly trusting the FDA (read: government) to make “health” decisions for us.

The government tells us is that it’s perfectly legal for manufactured drugs to be sold for public consumption at any price, but it’s absolutely illegal for organic drugs to be purchased and/or consumed by anybody for any reason. The war on drugs is more like a war on control - and seeking any kind of control is a tantamount to seeking illusion. One could argue that using marijuana for medicinal reasons is unjustified - but let he who hath not medicated cast the first pill.

And lest you throw the dangers of “illegal” drugs in anybody’s face, you might bother to read into the possible side effects from today’s “legal” drugs first. Thank you, I’ll take my chances with mother nature - and continue to point out America’s ongoing illogically-accepted hypocrisy.

Mind you, I’m not saying that prescription drugs are unwelcome - but I am saying that your stance on body-altering substances should either be all-in or all-out. Those who want to do something to their own body will find a way to do it at any price, and they shouldn’t be judged for that so long as that action does not directly impact another human being. If anything here is immoral, it’s the action of imposing your own (internal or external) locus of control upon others.

Trust yourself, and nobody else - and support like-minded individuals. If you’re tired of paying higher prices for anything, find alternative ways of achieving (roughly) the same outcome. This is what has motivated users to adopt open source software, what drove people to circumvent content delivery mechanisms that music labels and Hollywood officially delivered, and what will hopefully push citizens to understand that they can change this country’s direction by making “radical” decisions for themselves first.

Someone sent me a link to this story: Old-line Republican warns ’something’s in the works’ to trigger a police state. It grabbed my attention:

Thom Hartmann began his program on Thursday by reading from a new Executive Order which allows the government to seize the assets of anyone who interferes with its Iraq policies.

Yikes. So, am I a terrorist for even thinking that if the war in Iraq was a Silicon Valley startup, they’d have been laughed out of every VC’s office and never been funded in the first place? Certainly, conservatives are stepping up to defend the new order:

He then introduced old-line conservative Paul Craig Roberts — a former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under Reagan who has recently become known for his strong opposition to the Bush administration and the Iraq War — by quoting the “strong words” which open Roberts’ latest column: “Unless Congress immediately impeaches Bush and Cheney, a year from now the US could be a dictatorial police state at war with Iran.”

Oh, snap! Noam Chomsky must be grinning from ear to ear right now.

“I don’t actually think they’re very strong,” said Roberts of his words. “I get a lot of flak that they’re understated and the situation is worse than I say. … When Bush exercises this authority [under the new Executive Order] … there’s no check to it. It doesn’t have to be ratified by Congress. The people who bear the brunt of these dictatorial police state actions have no recourse to the judiciary. So it really is a form of total, absolute, one-man rule. … The American people don’t really understand the danger that they face.”

Some Americans understand full well what’s been going on - and this problem didn’t start with the Bush administration (and it likely won’t end there, either). This is not a partisan snag - the problem is much, much, MUCH bigger. The Democrats / liberals aren’t going to save your bacon, my friends…

I don’t hate media for what it is - but for what it pretends to be, and what for people believe it is.

They’re fighting for attention, and mislead the viewer into believing that they can be the single source for all information. Problem is: we’re a microwave society, fully trained to expect that staged “debates” and sound bytes will give us everything we want to know about everything. We align ourselves with people who think like us, or who we believe think like us.

People don’t want to think for themselves anymore. Worse yet, they take mob mentality to a completely new level when combined with the instapublishing power of the Internet. Emotion clouds judgment – and we are a species ruled on emotion and judgmental behaviors. When you throw faith into the mix, you’ve got a mental Molotov cocktail on your hands. “Hate them because they hate us” is not logical, nor is it going to propel the human race any further than the nearest warmonger hellbent on ensuring the survival of his or her culture over all others.

We teach our kids not to hate, yet all they see on the news is how our leaders are breeding hatred around the world – all in the name of peace, which is nothing more than propaganda designed to excuse our hateful actions. We teach our kids not to do drugs, yet all they can see in between the news reports is how pharmaceuticals have made our lives easier with drugs (including protecting us from “restless leg syndrome”). We teach our kids to treat everyone else with respect, yet… the adults around them continue to act as though those rules apply to everyone else. We are supposed to teach our children tolerance, yet they see intolerance happening even within their own culture every single day. People don’t want to lead by their own example, and they don’t want to hear that what they’re doing is completely self and/or culturally destructive.

Our “free press” is controlled by advertising and/or funding. That, ipso facto, is not a free press. A completely objective eye is what’s necessary, but “nobody” wants that – and nobody has that. One must take it upon his or herself to digest more than what’s presented to them in microchunks from a single source or sources of a single mindset. Personal belief structures and agendas completely impede a person’s ability to digest information in a benign fashion. This problem is compounded with groupthink, which is even further compounded with propaganda meant to justify “I agree, therefore I’m right” behaviors.

There’s only so much time in the day, right? This issue only underscores my assertion that we have all become slaves. We are slaves to ourselves, but we assume that this is just the way it is and always has been. Historically speaking, that’s quite accurate. Tell the average American that they’re a slave, pointing out coherent and applicable examples, and they’re likely to agree with your assessment – believing that salvation always lies in an external locus of control.

“The media will tell me everything I need to know.”

I guess I can’t dislike the media for the way they operate - but I can very much dislike, dispell, and diminish the illusion that media creates for people, and that people accept this illusion “the media” creates as truth. I’m fighting cultural inaccuracies more than I’m rallying against the power of the press. I wish more people would consume outside their own comfort zone, outside their echo chamber, outside their own culture, outside their own doctrine, outside their own country, outside their own “truths.”

People need to decide for themselves to start thinking for themselves.