Author: David

by David T. Bruce

Recently, my wife’s sister decided to compel her school-age children to regularly attend church, and she wrote about this new practice and the motivation for doing so on the blog they host together. It was a bit of a revelation in itself; neither my wife nor her sister ever attended church as children. When I first read this article, I brought my own bias that renounces organized religions and the implication that if a person or a culture does not subscribe to the idea of a singular faith, then that person is of questionable character. After reading this article to its conclusion, I found my bias to be unfounded.

Faith by definition suggests that we believe in something without substantial proof that it is real. Spirituality asks us to submit to the possibility that what defines mankind is not necessarily of a physical nature. These two concepts are frequently used in tandem to imply that the only way to understand their meaning is by being of a particular faith or being spiritual; in other words, a person must be religious and go to church to understand.

Exploring faith and spirituality is laudable, and the journey is always a personal one. Society in general, however, places emphasis on organized religion. If a person does not go to church, that person is typically considered godless and immoral. As Tiana discusses in her article, we do need to give direction to and instill faith in our children. This does not necessarily have to happen under a steeple. If this works for the individual or the family unit, no one has the right to speak against them. Of course, being a part of the majority, the choice of the individual to attend a church typically goes uncontested. Those that opt to worship in their own way or choose not to worship at all are sometimes silently and often publicly condemned by society – sometimes by those same people who claim the cloak of faith and spirituality.

None of us are immune to religious prejudice. We may giggle in regards to a particular idiosyncrasy of a given faith we find absurd. Many of us, me included, did more than raise an eyebrow in respect to the recent announcement of the end of the world. If we take a critical look at ourselves, however, it’s easy to see that our approach to the fringe sector of society that embraces Rapture is no more productive than when the majority of society perceives atheists as sacrilegious. What harm would come to pass if each of us let one another live by the principles of their faiths, stipulating that we do not go out of our way to injure one another?

Above all else, I have faith in the belief that all of us as individuals inherently love our families and neighbors. I have faith that we emotionally and physically cringe when others are hurt. Reflexively, we want to help when people are suffering due to acts of violence or as a result of a natural disaster. The awareness of the difference between good and evil is intrinsic among all cultures.

This faith in the good of man is what we should bring to our children and those around us. This faith is what we must foster. Whether we choose to adopt a religious practice or frequent a church to foster this inherent sense of compassion is, as I say, a personal choice. In the end, how we choose to communicate this sense of compassion does not matter, as all religious faiths ultimately seek and speak to this common moral value.

Whether a person is an atheist, agnostic, or of a Jewish, Christian, Hindu, or Muslim faith (or a denominational fragment thereof) is, on a global scale, insignificant. What our hearts and minds commit to in terms of our inherent love for one another is what binds us together culturally and spiritually. We can affirm this faith by attending church if we choose, but a daily belief in and understanding of other forms of belief and other ways of exploring spirituality is paramount in realizing what it truly means to coexist.

We must all explore our faiths in the way that each of us finds most agreeable, while letting others do the same – even, and perhaps especially, when their ways differ radically from ours.

We can instill this same sense of compassion and understanding in our children, and this is a journey we can all embark on and benefit from. We do not need to force our religious principles upon others, for we are all on the same journey. Not one of us is spiritually better than another, and if there is an end, we will all meet whatever, wherever and whenever that end may be.

Big Oil Subsidies Squeeze the Middle Class

David

Budget Economy 1 Comment

by David T. Bruce

In a recent Congressional debate, the majority of Republicans argued that the five largest oil companies were entitled to a $2 billion annual subsidy to offset the $35 billion they earned (?) in the first quarter of 2011. One particular senator sarcastically stated that making money in America must now be unacceptable, specifically targeting the Democrats’ proposal to eliminate these subsidies.

According to a recent article in The Washington Times, wages in America are up 1.7%, whereas the rate of inflation is up 2%. Statistically, households with the lowest income in the United States spend approximately twice as much on food, relatively speaking, as households with the highest income. Obviously, the dramatic increase in the cost of fuel limits the spending power of the average American. It is estimated that the tax cuts recently approved by Congress will be absorbed by the increased cost of gasoline. Yes, apparently making money in America is indeed no longer acceptable . . . unless you live and work on Capitol Hill or unless you are a CEO or COO of the aforementioned oil companies.

Recent polls show that public opinion in favor of Congress is significantly low. According to recent Gallup polls, Congress has achieved an approval rating as low as 13% over the past year. If this is indeed the case, then perhaps as a society, we should consider placing more emphasis on the state representatives we elect and less emphasis on the executive office that is often provided with speed bumps and road blocks by the opposing party anyway. We must give careful consideration and close scrutiny to those people we elect at the state level, who are charged to represent the interest of their constituents. Right now, many representatives seem to represent only the interests of the oil companies (and other major industries) and by extension their own individual interests, forsaking the interests of those that elected them to office. For example: the only three Democrats to side with the Republicans in the Oil Subsidy vote were from Louisiana, Nebraska, and Alaska, all big oil states.

The greater majority of the voting public has not made a substantial living in years. While our government bails out the banking industry and subsidizes the oil industry, that which is left of the middle class struggles daily to raise a family and support their communities, as they slowly merge with the lower class. How can the majority of Republicans dare to compare the plight of the average American with that of the incomparable benefits that the corporate giants enjoy with the blessings of Congress?

In fairness to Congress, we as a society share a measure of responsibility in creating this dependence on fuel. Many Americans insist on the value of SUVs, 4X4 pickup trucks, and similar gas-guzzling automotive apparatuses. We are not sending the message that we care about fuel consumption, fuel waste, or the environment. We continue to put money into the coffers of the oil industry instead of alternative energy sources. We continue to pursue off-shore drilling instead of cultivating wind farms or solar power. We can respond to the oil companies by supporting alternate energy options, and we can respond to our representatives by sending them home. Maybe then they will understand what it really means to not make money in America.

Make Every Day an International Day of Compassion

David

Compassion Peace No Comments

by David T. Bruce

Inspired by Dr. Patch Adams, today has been set aside for bloggers to unite for compassion, with the hope of eclipsing the pervasive global violence that has become a staple of our collective cultures. Following in the footsteps of the Dalai Lama, the impetus for this movement is to encourage each person to show compassion for another. The Dalai Lama said that “true compassion is not just an emotional response but a firm commitment founded on reason.” He also said that “our prime purpose in this life is to help others, and if you can’t help them, at least don’t hurt them.” If we are to learn anything from this movement, it should be that if we embrace this sentiment, we can all show compassion, at least passively.

Much of the momentum behind the writing in Ethical Revolutionist is a response against the aforementioned violence that is most often justified by religious or corporate dogma. Our various cultures (the United States included) strike or condemn in the name of God (or other deity); we colonize other lands under the guise of guardian; we extract and extort from one another to acquire various resources. These are not compassionate behaviors.

Without argument, our society has been wronged. We have been unfairly attacked and judged. We have responded accordingly, understandably with a combined measure of arrogance and dignity. I do not suggest that we should turn the other cheek, nor should any society that has been unjustly mistreated. Justice demands to be served, and honor needs to be satisfied. Such is our nature. At the same time, we must choose at some point to embrace other cultures, setting aside our differences, allowing others to live their lives as they choose. And if we cannot embrace them, at least we should not deface them. This is compassion.

If we cannot walk outside of our homes and help one person with an act of compassion for whatever reason, we can choose to not hurt a person. This is compassion. “If you can’t help them, at least don’t hurt them.” Yes, we are currently locked in a dogmatic, moralistic confrontation with various political and societal constituents of the Middle East. At one point, however, do either of our cultures or both of our cultures make the choice to leave the other to live as they choose, keeping our opinions and our ways of lives to ourselves? When and how do we decide to stop? Such a choice is a show of compassion. We will truly follow in the footsteps of Dr. Patch Adams and the Dalai Lama when we choose every day, not just today, to at least not hate if we cannot love.

The late Leo Buscaglia, a professor at the University of Southern California, once said:

I believe that you can control your destiny, that you can be what you want to be. You can also stop and say, No, I won’t do it, I won’t behave his way any more. I’m lonely and I need people around me, maybe I have to change my methods of behaving and then you do it.

We cannot control the destiny of another; we can only control our own destiny. Compassion starts with each of us. Today is a good day to start.

An Unrealistic Vision of Reality

David

Politics 1 Comment

by David T. Bruce

As on the day that al-Qaeda terrorists took over 3,000 lives, my heart today – the day that Osama Bin Laden, the founder and leader of the al-Qaeda was assassinated in response to these attacks – goes out to the family members who mourned the loss of those they were close to. Maybe today they will find some peace of mind, some peace within. I truly hope they do. For the rest of us, I worry.

Those families who lost loved ones sought justice, at least in an honorable sense. I struggle within myself as to what the rest of us America sought. Is our pride so easily wounded? Our response to the successful attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon (and the failed attack on the White House) was a knee-jerk reaction. Up until the terrorist attacks on our country, we lived behind a veil, submersing ourselves in “reality” shows, living a fantasy funded by credit and caprice. Al-Qaeda opened our eyes to true reality. This reality, however, is not one that can be turned off or pre-empted.

While we can enjoy a measure of success and comfort in at least incapacitating the Al-Qaeda by permanently removing Bin Laden as the head of the terrorist organization, we are foolish to believe that we have stopped al-Qaeda or any other extremist group. Like the multi-headed Hydra, a new leader for al-Qaeda will replace Bin Laden, and the cycle of events pitting one ideology against another will begin anew.

We must ask ourselves “what have we gained by assassinating Bin Laden?” Outside the Capitol, citizens chanted “USA, USA,” reacting to the news they had heard about the death of Bin Laden. How is this different from the throngs of people in the Middle East who cheered at the collapse of the World Trade Center towers? Do our different ideologies, religions, skin color, or clothes make us all that different? We are all still human, and the taking of any life diminishes us as humans. The celebration of taking a life strips us of our souls.

Hypocritically, to some extent, I do feel a sense of relief that this chapter has come to an end. Almost ten years to the day that Americans were reminded that they were a part of a larger community, we may enjoy some closure. At the same time, I feel a sense of apprehension that we will again become complacent, retreating into our “reality.” Will we learn from this chain of events?

The al-Qaeda will not turn the other cheek, and their convictions will carry them into the future. We must adapt to this reality, not necessarily fighting a war that we cannot win by conventional means, but instead living cautiously, with our eyes wide open instead of wide shut. We do not need to remain on the offensive to remain safe; we do have to safeguard our home by adopting a lifestyle and strategy that deters future terrorist attacks. We have Guard and Reserve units who may best serve their country at home, not in the Middle East. By conducting ourselves proactively instead of reactively, we stand the best chance of winning the war against terrorism every day.

Domestic Nonlethal Assistance Repealed

David

Health Care Politics No Comments

by David T. Bruce

discretionary-spending-2011 — Source: Mother Jones

As a society, we may have become numb to the reality that we have spent almost ten years in the Middle East, engaged in conflicts with Afghanistan and Iraq. Now we find that we are compelled to join NATO in support of Libyan rebels. To support our troops (an admirable incentive) and our habit, billions of dollars must be allocated for defense.

According to information provided by the National Journal, the Pentagon has requested $708.3 billion for this year, including $159.3 billion to continue our campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan. During the first day of operation in Libya, the United States spent approximately $100 million. Following the initial attacks on the forces of Colonel Gaddifi, we have recently pledged additional military assistance by sending armed drone aircraft into Libya. This amounts to an additional $25 million of “nonlethal” [really?] military assistance.

At the same time, our representatives want to eliminate $1 trillion from the Medicaid program over the next ten years, or $84 billion a year. This suggests that much of the money once used for healthcare in the United States is to be reallocated to support the habits of the Pentagon.

We have money enough to send “nonlethal” assistance to foreign countries, while we simultaneously propose cutbacks in what our representatives call “entitlements.” The result of denying the disabled, elderly, and low-income citizens of America from having these “entitlements” is indeed lethal. Apparently, saving lives of citizens in other countries is humane, while saving the lives of Americans at home is an entitlement. Yes, we need to make changes to the Medicaid (and Medicare) programs, but perhaps the fault of the misuse or abuse is less of an indictment against the patients.

It is remarkable and yet interesting to journey down Constitution Avenue in Washington D. C. Observe and take note of the buildings that line either side of the street: the Federal Trade Commission, the National Archives, the Department of Justice, the National Museum of Natural History, the Internal Revenue Service, the Department of Commerce, the National Aquarium, the Federal Reserve, the Albert Einstein Memorial, and . . . the American Pharmaceutical Association? . . . yes, the American Pharmaceutical Association.

Is it possible that the problem is not abuse of the system by the patients and more of an abuse of the system by providers and pharmaceutical companies? Many incidents may be cited in which service was provided for no reason other than the bill was covered by Medicaid. The cost of medication is on the rise, and I question whether or not pressure is being put on the pharmaceutical companies to keep their costs down. Instead, patients are targeted. At some point, voters must realize that our elected representatives lobby for large businesses when they should be lobbying for their constituents.

Tea Party Birther Plan: Democracy’s Future Stillborn

David

Politics Tea Party 5 Comments

by David T. Bruce

Information provided by The White House tells us that the Constitution lists only three qualifications for the Presidency — the President must be 35 years of age, be a natural born citizen, and must have lived in the United States for at least 14 years.

Our first seven presidents are:

George Washington – born 1732 – President 1789-1797

John Adams – born 1735 – President 1797-1801

Thomas Jefferson – born 1743 – President 1801-1809

James Madison – born 1751 – President 1809-1817

James Monroe – born 1758 – President 1817-1825

John Quincy Adams– born 1767 – President 1825-1829

Andrew Jackson – born 1767 – President 1829-1837

We could argue that these men, George Washington in particular, are not natural born citizens, Washington specifically being a British subject prior to the adoption of the U. S. Constitution. While we can agree that he was naturalized at the time the Constitution was ratified, he would still not necessarily qualify under the requirements written in Article II, Section 1. We could also argue that the caveat allowing for those people who became citizens at the time the Constitution was adopted was a way for Washington, Adams,Jefferson, et al would allow for said citizens to serve as president of their new nation, with the populace’s best interests at heart. We can also appreciate that these requirements were written with the intent to prevent a conflict of interest were candidates of foreign countries eligible to become President of the United States. The ongoing debate, however, regarding the eligibility of President Obama under this article of the Constitution is in no way reflective of any respect for the Constitution or the Executive Office.

The argument vehemently debated prior to the nomination and election of Obama is again taking center stage, just in time for the 2012 election campaigns. According to an article published in the Huffington Post, the Arizona Legislature approved a proposal requiring the current president and subsequent presidents to prove their citizenship prior to having their names placed on the Arizona state ballot. Carl Seel, Republican representative for the state of Arizona indicated that the bill was not about opposing Obama. Given the repetitive, vigorous political harassment of Obama since he assumed his position as President, Seel’s testimony is very difficult to believe.

The combined efforts of the Republican Party and the Tea Party have turned the past two and one half years into a partisan mêlée, in which little has been accomplished on behalf of American citizens. Candidates are no sooner elected then they begin campaigning, undermining the efforts of each other, all in hopes of maintaining a life-style they all enjoy at the sacrifice of the working-class people of the United States. The citizenship conspiracy theory is yet another political game being played by our elected representatives, in their efforts to take our attention away from the fact that they are poised to significantly diminish, if not eliminate, health benefits and food programs that help support elderly, disabled, and low-income Americans, while at the same time, they intend to extend or initiate tax cuts that benefit the wealthiest people and companies of this country, people and companies who already enjoy enough tax cuts and loop holes to pay virtually no taxes today.

If we can rationalize that George Washington was eligible to be president when the evidence was circumstantial, then we can certainly put to rest that Barack Obama is eligible to be president when sufficient proof has been repeatedly provided and courts have supported Obama’s eligibility. This latest gambit from the Republican – Tea Party tag-team has nothing to do with loyalty to the United States or support of the U. S. Constitution. This is yet more smoke screen and a method of maintaining the status quo that partners politics with capitalism, establishing a democratic government that works only for those who are educated, affluent, and high-ranking.

Your Health Insurance Policy Doesn’t Cover Broken Promises

David

Health Care Politics No Comments

by David Bruce

Two and one half years ago, we elected a man to the office of the President of the United States. Today, I am as disgusted with his job performance as I was elated that he was elected office in the first place. “Change,” a word often perceived as cliché, was a sigh of relief when President Obama took office. The citizens of our country had been manipulated by a man and his cabinet who lead us into two wars (one under false pretenses), eroded a federal surplus, destroyed an economy, and raised the unemployment rate to levels which have yet to see any significant improvement. President Obama boldly inherited a mess he vowed to clean up by uniting Republican and Democratic parties. We wanted to believe that Obama would kick some collective, conservative ass.

We should not blame President Obama necessarily for his failure to clean up the mess left by his predecessor, nor should we blame him for being unsuccessful in uniting the two parties, who rarely agree on any policies or ideals anyway. On the contrary, his efforts at the beginning of his term were admirable. What I do blame him for is his lack of ability to demand a consensus among our Representatives and Senators, and in lieu of that consensus, an ethical line should be drawn that does not get negotiated.

The most recent compromise made by the President has permitted extensions of tax cuts awarded by former President George W. Bush and the erosion of Medicaid and Medicare benefits for the poorest of America’s populace. Instead of summarily rejecting the 2012 budget proposal, President Obama gave in on the threat of a government shut down. President Obama is demonstrating that he is still running for office instead of fighting on behalf of the people that elected him to office on the promise of “change.” This is not change; this is business as usual.

The time for compromise is over, and time wasted holding out for a consensus is over. This is clearly a case of knowing what is right and what is wrong. Additional tax beaks for companies that already benefit from a plethora of tax loop holes are wrong. Risking the health coverage for elderly and disabled Americans is wrong. Yes, tough decisions need to be made. Taxes need to be raised. We can afford an increase in taxes. We have found a way to live with exorbitant gas prices, and we can do the same for health care.

Of course, our representatives will promise us that taxes should not and will not be raised; they want their jobs. At the same time, these are the same representatives that categorically state that there is no free ride. Well, there is if you are an American company with lobbyists and votes to spare. Let the government shut down. The government is broken, and isn’t doing anyone (but the wealthy) a damn bit of good.

Si j’étais Président… (If I were President)

Even if it requires an across the board tax increase, you do what you have to do to take care of the people. Of course, if we would stop launching Tomahawk missiles that cost $1.41 million into foreign soil to protect our oil interests, we wouldn’t even have to worry about the state of our social programs. It’s time to focus our resources on the home front.

America – A Dream to Some, A Nightmare to Others

David

Health Care Politics Religion 2 Comments

by David T. Bruce

My family and I just returned to our small village after spending four days visiting Washington D.C. During our visit, we enjoyed the exhibits of a few Smithsonian museums, and we toured the obligatory streets and malls of the district in which resided the various presidential monuments and federal buildings, to include the Capitol and the White House.

Admittedly, I felt a sense of awe as we entered the District of Columbia via the George Washington Memorial Parkway and saw the Washington Monument behind a screen of haze and setting sun.

During our stay, I rekindled fond memories of the Apollo lunar program, satisfied the child within by exploring decades-old pop culture artifacts, and explored the history of the area that is our nation’s capital.

As a parent, I patted myself on the back for fostering the development of my children, introducing them to a history they had only skimmed in a text book or glimpsed in a Hollywood movie. At the same time, as a citizen, I became more cynical as each day passed.

While the architecture is beautiful, the streets are clean and well cared for, and the transportation system is exceptional, I became increasingly sensitive to the disparity between what the District of Columbia represented versus what the reality of America is for the better share of the population of this country. While our family toured a region of America symbolic of freedom and democracy, our Representatives and Senators, perpetually embroiled in a debate over how to spend tax payer dollars, were gridlocked to the point in which the government is at risk of being shut down.

As I conclude this writing, the two disparate halves of our government have somehow come to a consensus that allowed for the budget to be passed and the federal government to continue doing business. Of highest concern, however, are those items that contributed to the heated debate: budget cuts that most affected elderly, disabled, and low-income Americans. At the same time I and my family contribute tourist dollars to the District of Columbia economy, as our elected representatives and their families enjoyed the luxury of private schools, exceptional transportation, and an environment in which money is obviously no object, at least half of our nations representatives had the impudence to propose cuts to Medicaid, Medicare, and Planned Parenthood programs, directly affecting those who have little or no means to help themselves.

While the federal government proposes that funds be cut from the budget that, funds that support the elderly, disabled, and low-income citizens of America, and as the federal government proposes that states and the private industry (entities who are already in financial distress and have shown themselves to be incapable of providing adequate, affordable services) take over programs for the same, our government has exhibited little or no concern for these that have, as I say, no means to help themselves. Those representatives that have raised their hand in support of such measure should be ashamed.

As an American and a father, I too feel shame, as I lead my children around a part of American they should be proud of. Instead, these monuments and museums become mere shadows of what was and what could have been. Today, there is to evident truth that all citizens are created equal. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are for those fortunate enough to be young, healthy, and God-fearing. As a nation, we must come to grips with the reality that we will not survive as a nation divided. At some point in time, we must all realize that “live and let live” means we must embrace our neighbors and offer a helping hand regardless of where they come from or where they are born. Our government must begin to set the example by cutting the budget for everyone, by living within their means (as families do across the country), and by showing compassion for those who do not enjoy a fraction of the American dream that they do. If America can spend in excess of $100 billion per year to take away lives in Afghanistan and Iraq, then perhaps they can spend at least that amount to help promote the health and welfare of America’s elderly, disabled, and low-income families. The American dream is becoming a nightmare for many.

Students not a Collective Bargaining Right

David

Education NCLB No Comments

by David Bruce

The recession that the United States is not in, according to government and business officials who want to keep their jobs, is forcing the hand of Wisconsin officials in respect to budget cuts for the coming fiscal year. These budget cuts, among other details, eliminate collective bargaining rights for many state employees, teachers among them. This particular event adds fuel to the debate of whether or not teachers are paid what they are worth.

This argument can be levied against any career. Certainly those people who work any hours and many hours for retail operations would say that they are not paid what they are worth, and many would argue that sports and entertainment icons are paid far more than they are worth. The issue in the instance of educators and in respect to the profession of teaching in general is in regards to the quality of education that we should be giving to our children and how we may accomplish that task.

Most teachers may argue in favor of labor unions to promote competitive pay and benefits and to secure their jobs. If this is the impetus for teaching, then why teach? The students are the focus. No, services should not come for free. Teachers provide a service than can never be measured in pay stubs and benefits, and teachers that perform admirably as measured by their superiors should be compensated accordingly. Unions, however, are another level of bureaucracy that benefits those at the top more than those people that they were originally chartered to protect.

Unions are another layer of government and business that takes the focus away from the students. Eliminate unions. Eliminate tenure. Resources may then be used to hire and promote teachers who do want to teach, and those that teach well should be paid their worth and prosper. Those that do not teach well can learn something new. This approach is not fool proof. Administrators have been known to take advantage of employees, but a level of trust must be established for the best interests of all parties.

Ultimately, the goal is to promote learning. The best teachers are a product of education and an innate desire to engage with students. This is not necessarily accomplished or fostered by labor union and government intervention, as is evident by the failure of No Child Left Behind and the ongoing feud between school districts and teacher unions. Students who learn, regardless of demographic, are good for and to themselves, their communities, and or country.

The Reality of Change

David

Politics 4 Comments

by David Bruce

Citizens of Egypt asked for change and then demanded change. When change did not come, the citizens of Egypt forced change and forced former President Muhammad Hosni Mubarek from office. In turn, and almost in unison, other countries in the Middle East and northern Africa demanded likewise of their leaders. Protestors in Libya seek to remove Colonel Muammar el-Qaddafi from power, opponents of Yemen President Ali Abdullah Saleh are demanding that the leader relinquish his power, and thousands of protesters march in Jordan to affect political and economic change long planned for and summarily forgotten.

Meanwhile back in the United States, the Democratic and Republican parties continue their ongoing political sparring at the expense of the American people. Current legislation threatens to eliminate funding that will ultimately lead to the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs. Proposed cuts threaten job training for unemployed workers, teacher training, community health centers, and assistance for low-income families and children. The billions of dollars saved are coincidentally offset by the extension of the Bush Administration tax cuts.

Across the states, the impact of government intervention, spending (or lack thereof), and legislation affects citizens to one extent or another. People are still losing jobs, homes are still being foreclosed on, and food and fuel prices continue to rise. At the same time, the government is proposing cuts that will threaten those least likely to compensate for the rising prices. The changes proposed by the Obama Administration over two years ago have not come to pass, either as a result of political obstruction or executive incompetence is immaterial. The end result is the same and affects the lower- and middle-class citizens of the United States adversely and often irreparably.

At what point do we get so fed up with the dogmatic assurances of change and the continued erosion of hope for a future that at least allows for the average American to maintain an unpretentious existence that we march in the streets in front of our state capitals, demanding from our governors and representatives a true change that works in favor of the citizens of the country and not the political and business empire that dominates our nation?

We have become so focused on reality shows that we have overlooked the reality outside of our homes. We have become so enraptured with the latest electronic toys that we forgotten what the idea of freedom is, having become slaves to advertisements, big screens, and bright lights. We are mesmerized and hypnotized, becoming blind to what our leaders are doing. Will we wake up when it is too late, or will we take a page from the book of those peoples in Egypt, Yemen, and Jordan who have said enough is enough. The change must come from us, or change will not come at all.

Coexistence Requires a Leap of Faith

Big Oil Subsidies Squeeze the Middle Class

Make Every Day an International Day of Compassion

An Unrealistic Vision of Reality

Domestic Nonlethal Assistance Repealed

Tea Party Birther Plan: Democracy’s Future Stillborn

Your Health Insurance Policy Doesn’t Cover Broken Promises

Students not a Collective Bargaining Right

The Reality of Change

Navigation