Situation CRITICAL.

We, as a generic tradition, tend to make some kind of "defining" or "dividing" issue of January 1. And it occurred to me, today is January 1, so look what's changed. I'm back. Don't get excited (I should only wish ) but it won't be regularly.

First, Please..... all of you, deeply feel my warm thanks for your kind feedback and support when I was at a low and unpredictable period in my life. The cool thing is that I know you're the kind of people who know that your words make (and made) a difference . And you know that I know that. 'nuff said.

I'm back to doing a fair bit of TV gazing. And watching all the silly things about the hairstyle of the governor of illinois, and somehow why the string of letters n-e-g-r-o is offensive if written really close together like this---negro---(I wonder what makes a word "offensive"., and who gets to decide?), Sorta like drawing a cartoon of the Ahatollah, or stacking the Senate (we do it here in Canada, too, for any of my American friends who may read this...last week our Conservative Prime Minister appointed 18 Conservatives to fill empty seats (our senate is patronage appointments, purely the pm's decision...not elected like yours).

I could go on, but you all know the list. We're in deep dippy-do, and it's occured to me that we're all sorta sitting on the deck of the Titanic, watching this really cool piece of ice through our binoculars.

And so I thought, hmmmmmm.....

And then, yesterday I watched a bunch of the yakkinghead-experts shows summarizing the year for me.

And because the election was the big thing last year (Let Barack do the economy thing, OK) there was a lot of talk between party "strategists" and "advisors" about their strategies to win or lose or whatever.

And it just occured to me. We KNOW as a certainty that there is a very diverse difference of, allow me to call it "political views", throughout the country. That's a given, isn't it? We KNOW with equal certainty that in any confrontation of a win-lose scenario you will end up with a final solution that does not sit well with at least some of the people . So, there's something wrong with that solution, isn't there? There's still some level of dissatisfaction.

So my thinking went off in about 40 different directions, but eventually it all seemed to crystalize in "The man in the mirror". Why is so much energy, time, Television coverage (I could go on) spent on "Republican fighting Democrat". What;s the difference between 'em, anyway? Could I smell one if I passed him on the street. What difference does it make? Doesn't the label "American" sorta work as "one size fits all and we all have differing views to some degree". Then you could direct your energy to SOLVING the problems of those folks who said "Hey, what about us?", TAKING ADVANTAGE of the incredibly diverse views available to consider. The "best" solution is in there somewhere. I suppose in a way it's the old guns-vs-butter debate.

We always seem to be afraid of change. I know I was. Jesus, I was afraid to change my underwear in case someone saw me naked. Ok, so I exaggerate.

Let's think about this. Almost exactly half are currently "labelled" Democrat", and the other half, "Republican" (editorial subtle nested note # 1------and very soon there will be nearly 100% "Green" party).

So, why not have co-president's? One representing each point of view. Ya got EVERYONE covered. What if they can't agree, you ask? You're missing my point. They MUST agree. That's the job you've given them, and you are required to help solve the problems they are asked to face in your name.

And then I thought, no, we're still looking at it too shallowy. We're expecting gals and guys who are giving away 70 trillion dollars a couple times to companies making products that no one wants to buy to do things non-politically (they call it "in a bi-partisan way" in government speak) by POLITICIANS, fer gar's sake!.

AND THEN I HAD THE SOLUTION.

Just like big car automakers are wanted now as much as blacksmith's and wagon-wheel makers are in the transportation industry, let's just get rid of (bypass) politicians. Who decided they should get to be in charge. A bunch of guys 400 YEARS ago, people. What did they know about today, huh?. How can we LET them give $700 trillion unaccounted and then when asked, the company says they won't reveal how it was/will be spent. HELLO??

Am I suggesting anarchy here? Perhaps it could be interpreted that way. There was a show on not long ago about various people who someone had chosen to call "hero" for whatever reason. It was positive and uplifting. It was the solution.

Look DEEPLY AND HONESTLY AT YOURSELF. We are all witnesses to a massive train crash, and are taking movies of the gory parts. Isn't there just SOMETHING,......ANYTHING you can do. There have to be two-simultaneous movements started. And they have to work together BUT in different directions. (Think of it as "ye take the high road and I'll take the low road, and I'll be in Scotland afore thee) or something like that. We take different routes .... we get to the same place.

WE THE PEOPLE should...MUST .... be able to take $700 billion to feed, cloth, educate, house, people. ALL PEOPLE.

That's where we stumble. That's where we fall. That's where we simply stand by and don't TAKE ON OUR POLITICIANS. They're running OUR business, not theirs. It's OUR JOB to KEEP reminding them of that. CONSTANTLY.

That;s where we refuse to face the reality that this planet can no longer sustain the human species as it exits (that's not a spelling mistake!) and is directing itself. It's truly a beautiful iceberg, isn't it?

PEACE (and while you may be pondering all that trifling I've been doing, think of this:

New Year's Eve is celebrated by EVERYONE all around the world, and seems to show that at least there is the CAPACITY for unity on "something". (The fact that wars are also being fought on New Year's doesn't change the reality that there is some kind of universal "New Year's" acknowledgment, even though some, for instance celebrate on totally different days (the Chinese, for instance) That proves the possibility, yes/no .... at least the POSSIBILITY. The problem is simply finding the various solutions needed for other problems as they occur, big and small ... but ALL, that's the key .... ALL are important, equally. I'm still trying to remember what the original intention of the United Nations was, and , for instance, how effective it was back in the days of, oh say, the Cuban missile crisis.

Rick

.

Posted by Evydense on Thursday, January 01, 2009 at 6:38 p.m. | Permalink