Jeremy’s Take: 5 Steps to a Better America
Have something to say? ADD A NEW POST!
If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to the newsletter or RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
It’s hard to argue that America isn’t in a bad place right now - our economy is in a constant state of instability, rising and falling with each passing event. Our president has, without a doubt, overextended the powers granted him by the Constitution and has engulfed America in a quagmire of a war. Wait, make that two wars. Whatever credibility American foreign policy had in the Middle-East was flushed down the toilet when President Bush declared a “Crusade” against terrorism. All this while our most basic rights are being trampled by a pragmatic, fear-mongering government that seeks control, presumably in order to preserve safety.
However, I contend that there is still time - and it is running out - to set America back on course and allow her to return to the vision our Founding Fathers had. The following are five steps that may not reverse the damage that has been done, but may do well to curb any further degradation of our great nation.
- Nullify and make illegal all past, present, and future executive orders. The Presidency is called the “executive” office because it exists to faithfully execute the laws and Constitution of the United States - nowhere in the Constitution is the president given the authority to create laws, a responsibility left to the legislative branch alone. So, with every executive order revoked, the President will be left with the daunting task of actually doing his or her job - standing as the head of our military and the executive of our laws. Oh, and while we’re at it, revoke the War Powers Act as unconstitutional. A standing military, if it must exist, should be used to defense only, not as a method of preemption or aggression. Reserve the right to make war, as per the Constitution, for Congress.
- Dismantle and deem unconstitutional the Federal Reserve. Most Americans, surprisingly, don’t realize that the Fed is actually a private corporation, mandated illegally by Congress to do its job: print and regulate money and money markets. Much can be said (and has been) about the damage the Fed has done to our country in the near-decade it has been in existence, and it is time to act against these people who have been raping our nation and destroying all of the integrity in our brand of capitalism. Power should be returned to Congress to print and regulate money, as per the Constitution.
- Remove all troops from abroad, return our standing military to defensive posture. This is one area where Bush seems to have his head in the right place - all military bases outside of the United States should be closed down, the land returned to the sovereign nations in which they were built, and all active US soldiers should return home to protect our borders. Our founding fathers feared a standing army and believed in a civil militia, rather than a State-sponsored army, and this is a good step in returning America to that ideal.
- Resign from the United Nations. I imagine it is this concept that will gain this argument’s most harsh criticism, but hear me out. The United Nations has one underlying goal, and that is the usurpation of national sovereignty. It seeks a new world government by consensus and political correctness, and while allowing genocide and totalitarian rule, prevents free people from acting against those evils. The United States is a great nation, which deserves to celebrate and exercise its inherent right to sovereignty. Resigning from the UN is a step away from world government and a return to the ideals expressed in the Constitution.
- Vote. Voter apathy is ridiculously high, which is the root of many of America’s problems right now. Vote out of office any official who meets with special interest groups. Vote them out if they take campaign funds from major corporation or uses your tax dollars to fund their campaign. Vote them out if they express ideals against sovereignty, capitalism, liberty, and other concepts that makes America a free nation. Vote them out if they pass another PATRIOT Act, another War Powers Act, another Federal Reserve act, another Sedition act. Voting is that Jeffersonian ideal of a revolution ever 2-4 years, where we dismantle our government and make those who serve us fear our power to removed them from government.
And lastly, I know this is supposed to be 5 steps, but it’s my plan, so I can do what I want:
[Edited by site admin for religious discusion. Reposted over at religious discussion site at http://religiondebates.blogspot.com/]
So what do you think, Idaho Falls?
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
Vote:
0 
0 I’d respond to the secular part but it would all be edited out anyway. So what’s the use?
Vote:
0 0 Hmmmmmmmm.
I shall take these points as you wrote them.
Point 1.
Brilliant. I not only agree wholehearedly, I think the way you stated it is fabulous. Thanks!
Point 2.
The Fed IS a rancid little virus in the body that is our country and I agree that ridding ourselves of it is a great plan. Again, thanks!
Point 3.
“Remove all troops from abroad”.
Yep.
Point 4.
Interesting - I’m going to think on this one. You may be onto something there. I’ve always felt that the UN is a “double edged sword”, but without really comprehending WHY. You might have helped me to start figuring it out. Thanks.
Point 5.
And by “vote” that means NOT for who’s going to win on “American Idol”. Well, vote for that if you really want - but please remember that “we the people” cannot exist without us - the people. Unless you want your country run like by corporations (who focus on the quarterly earnings - not on the PEOPLE) VOTE. VOTE VOTE VOTE. Even if you vote the opposite of me - VOTE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
That’s all I’ll say on that - since we aren’t supposed to discuss matters of religion on this forum and I do want to respect that.
Good points Jeremy!
Vote:
0 0 Edited the secular part. I appreciate those refraining from taking Jeremy’s bait. Jeremy, please take that religious bait to the new site.
How about this, from now on when I have to edit religious discussion, I’ll just go post it myself at that new site:
Vote:
0 0 Joe -
That new site doesn’t work (@ least not for me).
How might a computer imbecile (like me) get it to work?
Vote:
0 0 I put your comment over there, also btw.
Does the site not load up when you click the link? Do you not see anything there (or are you at work and your firewall blocks it)?
Do you not see the comments link there? If this is it, look at the bottom of each post, you’ll see:
Posted by false prophet at 8:46 PM 1 comments
click the “# comments” link and you’ll be able to post anonymously.
Did the posting not work for you? You need to enter the weird looking captcha letters for it to go.
Or something else? Please describe and I’m glad to assist!
Vote:
0 0 Joe -
I don’t remember what it did - I haven’t been there since the first three times I tried the VERY first day you put it up.
I think it wouldn’t let me click on “comments”.
I do all this @ my home - no work internet stuff (our internet has been down for TWO months - none of us can figure out how to fix it). Other pages I try to load give me no trouble @ all.
Is there any way you can put the link in your next post and let me try it THAT way?
Thanks.
Gypsy
Vote:
0 0 I didn’t think there would be a problem with the last point - it was a political argument, not a religious or theocratic one. Should I assume that any mention of religion (any religion) is off-limits from now on? I though it concerned only debates on the nature of religion and the philosophical arguments.
X-Man - you could have refrained from reading, and used those 5 minutes to do something more constructive than hang out a website, come up with a screen name, and reply to a post that you believe wasted your time. Other than that, I got nothing for ya.
Vote:
0 0 “Should I assume that any mention of religion (any religion) is off-limits from now on? I though it concerned only debates on the nature of religion and the philosophical arguments.”
Unfortunately, yeah. I really hate to be fascist about it, but we’ve seen how even the slightest thing devolves.
Vote:
0 0 Jeremy,
This site has become way too sanitized for my tastes. When area politics, business and culture are so intertwined with religion, it is all but impossible not to mention same in any given topic, no matter how benign or vitriolic the rhetoric may become. Free speech…what’s that?
Vote:
0 0 I tend to agree that it IS difficult to seperate religious sentiment from MUCH of the community talk - especially in highly-religious cities like IF.
I respect Joe’s right to do as he deems best for his website, though I believe that if a topic devolves due to religious bickering - then LET it. Those who are offended can leave, the rest can have a fun little devolved talk - the kind of talk we CAN’T have @ work or in other public places.
I just can’t get that other page to work, so it really leaves me out totally.
Oh well, I still like this forum and plan to visit even if there is no religious discussion allowed. If I ever change my mind (feel like I’m having to self-censor too much) I’ll leave for more open pastures. But for now, I’m okay with the rule - it IS Joe’s site after all, his site, his rules.
I know what you guys are saying though - same old thing here as most places in Eastern Idaho. RESPECT the rights of those with religion by NEVER EVER debating it.
Sigh.
Vote:
0 0 I don’t vote. The Golden Rule is: do unto others as you would have others do unto you. I would that others, singly or collectively as a majority, not take my individual liberty. So I will not vote as it might result in others (the minority) losing their indvidual liberty.
My stance is not popular. It is an anathema to many that do vote. But consider the high percent that do not vote. It is not all apathy. For me, not voting is an act of respect for others.
Flame away…
Vote:
0 0 Anonymous - interesting concept, but I’m afraid I don’t see the logic - are you saying that you would rather be the oppressed than the oppressor, and since the majority vote is inherently oppressive to the minority, you don’t take part to avoid being the oppressor?
Maybe I’m reading too much into it.
All I have to respond to that is:
“Evil prevails when good men do nothing” - Winston Churchill
Vote:
0 0 Oh, and Meso - I think I’m beginning to agree with you, though it’s not hard to be too sanitized for my taste. I’m in favor of frank, open discussion where no feelings are on the line and political correctness is invited to please leave the room.
But, that’s just me.
Vote:
0 0 It’s Joe’s website, and he can do what he wants, but I believe that the suppression of free speech begins in small acts of well intended editing that eventually becomes a monster with no harness. Free speech (or lack thereof) can only be black & white. No grey areas.
Vote:
0 0 I don’t understand the “no voting” idea either. I respect anybody’s viewpoint to not vote. I know people who don’t vote on religious grounds - oops - I hope I was allowed to say that and I respect their choice to do things that way.
I, though, am a voter. Count me in. EVEN in a state that’s blood red and anti-most things I’m “for” (anti-environmental protection for one thing). Voting is a power move, it lets you speak your values. If enough people agree with you then your values become reflected in the leaders upon whom we all must rely to one level or another.
My values are certainly not being reflected in the war, so I will find the most un-war-happy candidate on the 08 ticket and probably vote for him / her.
Voting, in my opinion, gives us the liberty to express our own interests - a concept which I find very American.
JeremyPlo wrote -
I’m in favor of frank, open discussion
I write -
Me too, that’s one reason why I got excited when I found this forum a few months ago. I thought “FINALLY - after thirteen years I am going to be allowed to discuss MY viewpoints with others who live around me and they will ‘get’ what I’m experiencing”. I thought “I can finally talk to adults with adults and not have to mind my p’s and q’s like I would around children”.
I can’t speak for Joe, but I know he has mentioned that people who are from out of town come to this forum to check out possibilities for relocation. I think Joe maybe might be a bit afraid that some of the bulldoggish religious talk will scare some away. I understand that - if I had KNOWN this area was going to be so repressively tight that one has to censor oneself constantly so as not to offend the spiritual sensibilities, I’d have considered moving to Bozeman. It COULD be said that the religious talk might save a few unsuspecting victims from moving to an area where they are allowed free speech so long as it doesn’t upset somebody’s prevalent religion.
Like I said - it reminds me of being around little children. There are just “some things” one doesn’t discuss in their presence.
I hate to see this forum go that way (we can’t speak freely for fear of others devolving and WE get punished for it) - but I think by now all of us who live here are used to it. Indeed too - I will always maintain this opinion - Joe (or whoever owns any site) has the right to do with it as he pleases.
Vote:
0 0 Would I “rather be the oppressed than the oppressor”? Neither, but of the two my conscience prefers not to be the oppressor. So if that leaves just the ‘oppressed’, so be it.
As for the Churchill quote, I’m not so sure I’d put myself in the “good men” category (nor the ‘bad men’ category). Either way, I do not do nothing. But I don’t vote, if that’s what Churchill was referring to.
Vote:
0 0 “Free speech (or lack thereof) can only be black & white. No grey areas.”
Absolutely!!!
Swearing: we tried just not allowing the seven deadly words, but enough people were then using those words with like a $ sign for an s or the phonetic spelling, and it just became a joke really. So we had to say no euphemisms because otherwise it’s saying the same thing and mocks the community guidelines. Either do it right or don’t at all, right?
We tried grey areas with the religious discussions. We tried restricting religious talk to certain threads so you could avoid those threads if you wanted, but it always spilled out into other threads. We tried shutting threads down for short times as cooling off periods, but it always devolved quickly again. We tried to keep it academic, but it always got to the point of putting down religions and offending people.
I agree, there is no grey area, we tried it and it can only be black and white. Maybe in a few months we’ll try it again, maybe we’ll think of a new way to go at it. In the meantime I’ve provided the other outlet.
Vote:
0 0 1. Nullify and make illegal all past, present, and future executive orders.
I think executive orders is kind of how the president is expected to do his job. I think what you mean is we need to clarify and probably restrict what can be done with an executive order.
I think you also might mean restrict those “signing statements” where Bush essentially says he reserves the right to do the exact opposite of what he is signing into law.
2. Dismantle and deem unconstitutional the Federal Reserve.
Have you looked at the jobs the Federal Reserve does? How would these jobs get done then? Doesn’t the Fed board steer our economy, such as with setting interest rates? How could we keep our economy from plunging into another great depression without the fed board?
3. Remove all troops from abroad, return our standing military to defensive posture.
I think Reagan and the first Bush had it right by using our military as a punch-force. Punch the enemy as hard as possible, achieve the goals that can be achieved within days or weeks, then pull back. If there’s further problems we can go back and punch again. None of this five-year occupying force while our boys get picked off daily nonsense.
4. Resign from the United Nations.
I can agree with this, so long as the U.S. develops ways to host other nations’ concerns ourselves. Essentially we would take on the UN role in giving court for other nations to air their grievances to us. I’m not saying we have to do anything they ask, but at least there is less expectation on us to do flips for other nations, and we give the appearance that we care (even if we really do not). Plus it would be cheaper for us.
5. Vote.
I think we should vote on a weekend over two days, not on a Tuesday.
Vote:
0 0 1. Nullify and make illegal all past, present, and future executive orders.
I think executive orders is kind of how the president is expected to do his job. I think what you mean is we need to clarify and probably restrict what can be done with an executive order.
I think you also might mean restrict those “signing statements†where Bush essentially says he reserves the right to do the exact opposite of what he is signing into law.
Nope, I mean executive orders. Executive orders themselves aren’t the big problem, it’s how they’ve come to be used in modern times. Generally, executive orders were used to direct the military in war times, to conduct domestic agendas, and coordinate foreign policy - but not anymore. Executive orders have become a new legislative system (Clinton used them like a son of a gun) and that legislative power is reserved for the legislative branch.
2. Dismantle and deem unconstitutional the Federal Reserve.
Have you looked at the jobs the Federal Reserve does? How would these jobs get done then? Doesn’t the Fed board steer our economy, such as with setting interest rates? How could we keep our economy from plunging into another great depression without the fed board?
It’s interesting you should mention the Depression - any economist will tell you that the Fed actually caused the Great Depression by sucking all of the money out of the system via the Fractional Reserve Banking System. I know what the Fed does, and it would be better done according to the Free Market System and by Congress - the Free Market regulate interest rates (not according to Fractional Reserve, by by Supply and Demand) and Congress prints money (as it did during the Civil War in the form of Greenbacks).
3. Remove all troops from abroad, return our standing military to defensive posture.
I think Reagan and the first Bush had it right by using our military as a punch-force. Punch the enemy as hard as possible, achieve the goals that can be achieved within days or weeks, then pull back. If there’s further problems we can go back and punch again. None of this five-year occupying force while our boys get picked off daily nonsense.
Since that worked so well in the epic conflict, Grenada 
Effective as it may be, it’s unconstitutional. Congress alone makes war.
4. Resign from the United Nations.
I can agree with this, so long as the U.S. develops ways to host other nations’ concerns ourselves. Essentially we would take on the UN role in giving court for other nations to air their grievances to us. I’m not saying we have to do anything they ask, but at least there is less expectation on us to do flips for other nations, and we give the appearance that we care (even if we really do not). Plus it would be cheaper for us.
Again, the Constitution allows for our governing body to make treaties, host nations, form alliances, etc. All without the okay from the Mommy World-State, the UN.
5. Vote.
I think we should vote on a weekend over two days, not on a Tuesday.
Agreed.
Vote:
0 0 Joe wrote -
In the meantime I’ve provided the other outlet.
I write -
Except for those of us who can’t GET that page to load.
I DO appreciate your going to the trouble though. It’s kind of you.
The rest of this IS on topic, but you might want to edit it out of into the ether after reading it because - gasp - I SHALL be mentioning religion.
Here’s the thing. I’m an adult, I want to be able to converse like one. That doesn’t mean I shall fling about “potty mouth” words or make crass stinky noises in public, but it DOES mean as an adult in the USA I feel it’s my right to speak freely about such topics as faith (I realize this forum is not a free speach forum - it’s a privately owned place).
It it true that most places I go to in the IF area (and north, where I live) is more than willing to accept me so long as I don’t DARE to mention religion.
…
So, I don’t know. I’ve enjoyed coming here to this forum but I don’t know that I shall enjoy censoring myself. I don’t bring up religion (normally) on a daily basis but by golly when I DO bring it up (or more likely - respond to somebody else who has) I don’t think I’ll like it being censored.
I ALREADY censor the heck out of myself @ work and in most social forums - I don’t know that I care to do it HERE too.
…
… Mitt Romney is running on the REpublican ticket for President in 2008 - do we REALLY seriously think we’re EVER going to be able to discuss Mitt Romney without half of the topic being FAITH BASED?
…
I get that the talk becomes hostile @ times - but I also get that this is true all over the country (ever spend any time in Oklahoma?). I think discussing that which creates tension is - in the long run - better for the community. Relegating it to the “other” site is like saying “This topic is a no-no”. Many of us in the area get PLENTY of that relegation already.
If one of us mentions faith (as Jeremy did in the beginning of this thread) it is automatically sent “over there” - as if it doesn’t deserve the freedom to be discussed on the “main” site.
I think this is poor planning. I understand the hostility that ensues is probably highly annoying to the moderators of this site - but I also think that when you OPEN a forum like this in an area like ours where matters of religion play deeply into MANY things (for instance the “no nudes allowed” @ the art-in-the-park show) - avoiding religion is like stepping around that big elephant in the living room nobody wants to admit is there.
It’s unhealthy.
Thanks for reading this Joe, and it is cool with me if you choose to delete it - I rather wrote it just for your eyes anyways.
Vote:
0 0 I love reading honest outpourings like that, and I do not want to delete it. I’ll get told I’m running double-standards, I know.
Please just no more religious discussion for awhile at least.
Mitt Romney and that whole basket will be important discussion in a few months, depending on if he stays in the race, we’ll likely start a discussion on it when it gets closer and I cannot imagine being able to separate religious discussion out of that topic.
I’m just going to talk about other things for now.
*** *** ***
Jeremy, executive orders?
Maybe I do not know enough about government, but if the president cannot issue executive orders, isn’t he then just a figurehead?
As I understand it, most of those executive orders are to run the mundane aspects of our government, like a Mayor does for a city. It’s like .005% of those orders that have any controversy attached to them?
As I understand our government, the congress sets the strategy, the president implements it tactically, and the courts review both against our overall philosophy (the constitution, bill of rights, case law, etc.)
So wouldn’t restricting executive orders cut the president’s ability to implement our national strategies?
Maybe I don’t understand the process well enough.
Vote:
0 0 You’re right Joe. Mitt Romney could be out of the race in a few months.
A girl like me can always hope anyways!
Thanks for giving me something nice to consider.
Vote:
0 0 Well….what to say, what to say…Jeremy made a good post with some valid points, but believe me when I say, you’re not the first one to have these thoughts & ideas. The main problem being, “we the people” really DON’T have a say in the matter. Aside from banning together and marching on Capital Hill in protest like we used to do in the 60’s & 70’s, nothing will ever change.
I partially agree with your “vote” statement, but that only works in local government. And even then votes are bought and paid for all the time.
How can we make a difference when the Presidental vote is determined by the electoral college? Until “we the people” stand up and DEMAND the end of the electoral college and choose a popular vote to appoint our President, nothing is going to change here.
You seem like a smart young man, you really do. But you really have no clue about how this country is really run. Its all about money, and money equals power. Why do you think Mr.V gets to celebrate a national holiday like the 4th of July on the day HE chooses? One word…MONEY. And as sad as it is, that’s the way this country is run.
We are a nation in debt up to our eyeballs and why? All because we’ve been programmed to “keep up with the Jones’”. Consume consume consume! That’s the name of the game. How many people do you know that have no debt whatsoever? I bet it’s not that many.
“We the people” have let our government take control over so much of our lives, there’s really not much we can do about it now. I still can’t believe people have not stood up and demanded the end to the Patriot Act. That act has infringed on our rights and freedoms more than ANY other act and/or law passed in history, yet nobody seems to care. “Oh…the President say’s it’s to keep us safe from terrorists, so it must be ok”.
You have good ideas Jeremy, but in my opinion a little naive’ as to think we can do anything to change the state we’re in. I was just like you when I was your age, thinking I could change the world! And 50+ years later this country has steadily declined and has become the laughing stock to the rest of the world.
Land of the free you say? “Ha!” I say. What freedoms? We’ve got so many rules and regulations in this country you can hardly fart in the breeze without getting thrown in jail! We’ve got drug addicts spending 30+ years in jail and murderer’s like OJ Simpson walking free. You tell me what’s wrong with this picture?
We’ve been fed so much propaganda by our government, we’ve turned into a nation of people who are afraid of everything. They’ve turned us into a country of fat lazy whiners who are afraid to come out of our houses or step away from our tv’s for more then 5 minutes. They’ve made us believe that unless we’re not spending money on materialistic crap that nobody needs, that we’re just not living the “American Dream”. People are more worried about their 15 minutes of fame then who is representing OUR country. I bet most of us don’t even know who our next door neighbors are, aside from saying “hi” or “bye” as we walk in or out of our front doors. Thank our government for making us so afraid to make eye contact with anybody walking down the street.
You’ve got good “ideas” Jeremy. But that’s all they are. Nothing will ever come of them until people actually get off their butts and decide they’ve had enough. And I don’t see that happening anytime soon.
All the “talk” in the world won’t do a damn thing to solve this nations problems. But go ahead….carry on.
I’m done.
Vote:
0 0 SlimPickens: So what are you doing about it? It sounds like you have already given up.
In Jeremy’s defense, he may still be learning (aren’t we all?), but at least he IS doing something about it. Words are his weapon and the more people that read about this stuff the more people will be spurred on to find out the truth. The weapon of those that have taken over this country has been ignorance and deception and they have preyed on our apathy and defeatism.
Truth, knowledge, courage, and something else that can’t be mentioned on this site will be what helps us take it back.
I know Jeremy ,and he as well as myself and others, will carry on. We are not done.
Vote:
0 0 Pessimism from reality or optimism from ideals? I’ll take optimism from ideals any day.
We need solutions. These may not be the right solutions, but we won’t find them until we cross a lot of terrain.
Vote:
0 0 A comment on executive orders:
Yes, the president really is supposed to be a figure head that oversees the execution of the laws. This whole executive order business has created a strange loophole for excessive, centralized, law creating power. The reason why they are not readily USED is because it would give the impression of a dictatorial position (and rightly so). They are more subtle than that, and a good many of the executive orders are “back up” plans in case of martial law or some sort of emergency. IF you go and read through the list, it becomes clear that if something major happens to this country, our federal government will essentially be dictated by one person. Bet you didn’t hear that on FOX News.
Response to #26:
Spreading the truth and encouraging people to get educated is the best solution we have right now.
Vote:
0 0 How can we talk about Hillary Clinton with out half the discussion being about her religion? Obama we would have to spend 1/4 time talking about his religion. SO lets return religous discussion when we are talking presidential hopefuls. I cant wait to dig into to John McCains religion.
Vote:
0 0 Davin: What are YOU doing about it? “Talking” about it? Do you honestly think that is “doing something”?? Don’t bet on it! My friends and I were “talking about it”, 50 someodd years ago and nothing happened. The ONLY time anything happened is when we protested the Vietnam war. But I don’t see any of you organizing anything like that. So what else you got? You’re telling people something they already know and obviously noone cares!
Vote:
0 0 So should we have a good old fashioned war protest in Idaho Falls?
Where would you do it, or where would you start and end a protest march?
What would you encourage other war protesters to bring? Flags? Yellow ribbons? Anti-Bush images?
Does one need a permit to have a war protest or march in Idaho Falls?
Vote:
0 0 A good example as to how a conservative and a liberal can work together to get things done was the recent debate on April 10th between Newt Gingrich and John Kerry discussing global climate change. C-Span ran the debate from N.Y.U.’s John Brademus Center under the heading, “Legislating for the Future”. It can be seen in its entirety compliments of the Blue Mass. Group. I wish I knew how to link their site.
Gingrich and Kerry started out in classic debate mode but midway through it they seemed to be in agreement as to the urgency of our plight with only slightly differing corrective steps necessary for a solution to our climate predicament.
I ended up thinking what a great third party ticked those two would make in 2008. Wouldn’t that be something to see two guys, from opposite camps, get together to solve what may just be the biggest dilemma facing our country and the world? Oh well, just a thought.
We will continue to live with this blood bath in the Middle East until we can free ourselves from our oil addiction. Lee Iococa, on NPR this morning, said it may take a Manhattan style project to make it happen. He made a great case for plug-in hybrid cars…this coming from a man who introduced us to gas guzzling SUVs not that long ago.
Jeremy, I would have to add this to your list of priorities. I can’t think of any issue more pressing to this generation of Americans than solving our energy crisis, and bringing our young men and women (who are keeping that oil spigot open) home safely.
Vote:
0 0 A permit is not required for a protest. Your right to protest is protected by our constitution. Many of the freedoms we enjoy today are possible because people got off their butts and went out into the streets and protested.
Here are just a few links in regards to planning a protest. However the internet abounds with sites such as these.
http://www.nlg-la.org/righttoprotest.htm
A lot of good information on the ACLU’s website: http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/protest/index.html
http://www.thesite.org/homelawandmoney/law/yourrights/yourrighttoprotest
Vote:
0 0 I don’t see us freeing ourselves from our oil addiction anytime soon. People love their cars too much to give them up overnite, let alone in the next decade or two.
We need to just swallow our pride, cut out losses and get out NOW. Just like we did in Vietnam, Somalia, the Gulf War, etc.
The world already thinks the U.S. is a big bully who only wants to police the world. What difference does it make if we leave now or in 3 years? It’s not going to change anything over there. (except the bodycount of our troops!)
Vote:
0 0 I have to agree with Slim on this one. Words have no effect on our population anymore. It goes in one ear and out the other. Action is what is needed, not more “talking”. We’ve got enough talk show hosts on network and cable tv! Action is what is needed…I agree with the idea of a protest or two!
Vote:
0 0 And protests have an impact where reason doesn’t? There have been literally hundreds of protests since the beginning of this war, all over the world, and they haven’t done the job yet.
Words matter in the long run. It is language and ideas that form a public imagination and consciousness, and by putting our words out into the universe, we are helping to form an environment of change.
Take the French Revolution, for example. Yes, it was fueled mainly by the mass starvation of the French people, but in the early days of the overthrow, there was a man by the name of Robespierre who really formed the ideals behind the war - in fact, we was one of the first people to use the concepts of Nationalism to instill a duty to revolt in his country (similar to the tactics used in Common Sense to fuel the American Revolution!)
So you have to believe that words matter. You have to - or life is hopeless.
Vote:
0 0 I disagree. There may have been little protests here or there, and larger ones in other countries. But we have yet to have a major protest of a million or more people on the steps of the white house regarding this war! And that is what it’s going to take. There have been no protests in this country for the Iraq war, like the ones that stopped the Vietnam war. “We’ve” been talking about this needless war for 2+ years now and nothing is being done. A couple large scale protests is what it’s going to take. Remember our government represents US…”the people”. And unless we stand together united and march into Washington, nothing is going to happen.
Vote:
0 0 Has there ever been a war protest in Idaho Falls?
Vote:
0 0 Hey Joe, maybe you could set up a way for a vote on whether religion should be allowed on the site. This would be a good poll question too?
Good points Jeremy….I am not sure about pulling all US forces home though. Kind of polyanna and naive…but getting out of the UN RIGHT ON. We should have done that years ago!
Vote:
0 0 JeremyPlo wrote -
Words matter in the long run. It is language and ideas that form a public imagination and consciousness, and by putting our words out into the universe, we are helping to form an environment of change.
I write -
Jeremy may be young and lacking in worldly experience, but forty-two year old, jaded, road weary ME agrees with this. Haven’t any of you people read “The Secret” yet? Sheesh! Okay, either have I, but the point is - words DO inspire thinking, thinking inspires direction, direction inspires action, action brings more energy, gets somebody else using words, and the cycle starts right over again.
I AGREE with “Slim Pickens” (fabulous name by the way) who says we’re largely comprised as a country of lazy sloths who would rather show our passion for voting on American Idol than drag our butts out and protest - but there ARE some of us who do and have protested. I admit, I have lived in Idaho for thirteen years and never protested, but to put this in perspective I also never in thirteen years found a group who thought like I do (EVERY talk radio show I found was Limbaughesque in its point of view - I am NOT of that mindset.)
When I lived in Los Angeles I protested every freaking year. Malathion, Gulf War, Environment. My family member’s partner is Cesar Chavez’s nephew - I drove up to Fresno and protested for Hispanic Worker’s Rights (and yes, I’m not even hispanic).
It ALL started with words. I woke up one day when I was fourteen, heard some anarchist song on the radio (punk) and it made me start thinking. By the time I was in college I was calling talk shows, joining groups, and signing petitions.
I REALLY think if there was adequate interest in Eastern Idaho we could band together and protest for things like ending the war, decreasing the high odds of global warming, and so forth. I just get the feeling there AREN’T people who want to fight for that. I think there are MORE people who want to buy their plasma tvs, drive their gaspigs, and not have to take a stand.
Taking a stand is hard work. Too many people find it easier to plop down on the couch, watch the “FOX noise channel” and feel they have been “informed”.
If you can think it - you can speak it. If you can speak it - then maybe you’ve got passion enough to move a mountain (or @ least a white house’s stand).
Vote:
0 0 Amen.
Vote:
0 0 Gypsy,
You’re my kinda girl!
Vote:
0 0 Johnny and meso -
Thanks!
Do you two know others who would take a stand for progressive causes? I’m serious about this - if we could get enough people together, wouldn’t it be empowering to take a stand locally? So what if the majority population doesn’t agree with a particular message. If we can get just two people to re-think (or to begin to think) then it could easily lead to countless others.
Speaking of TV, I don’t know how old you people are but back in my day there was a TV ad for some kind of shampoo (I don’t remember what brand) but what I DO remember is that the actor held up a bottle of shampoo, declared “I told two friends, then they told two friends, then so on and so on” and every time she “told two friends” the screen split and there were two friends, then four friends, then sixteen friends (or is it thirty-two) - then - I honestly can’t count in my head beyond that - but you get the idea.
THAT’S why words hold power. Yes one may have to talk to a hundred people in order to get two who hear you - but then they’ll each get two (and so on).
So. Who’s up for taking a stand against the war or global warming or for the wolves or for health care? I’m up for all of those - and probably two or three dozen MORE ideas.
Vote:
0 0 But Gypsy….that’s tv. And if that were really the case, everybody and their grandma would have eventually be using that shampoo. Words just don’t work the way they used to. We can all talk about this needless war until we’re blue in the face, but until we actually start doing something BESIDES talking about it, the problem is NOT going to go away. We’ve been “talking” about it for 4 years now and instead of withdrawing our troops, we’re sending more. A good old fashioned protest on the lawn of the white house is what’s needed. Until GW see a few million protestors knocking on his front door, our government is not going to do anything.
It’s as simple as that.
Vote:
0 0 Homeslice,
What you are suggesting is TV…the complexity of Iraq and it’s necessity to the security of the United States has been put in place by men and women long before George W. Bush. He is merely a keeper of the flame that was burst open decades ago. People can hate Bush all they want…If Bill Clinton were in office he would have to act in a similar manner.
Until the national security interest of the United States is not wrapped up in oil from the Middle East we will be there either by land, air, and/or sea to keep the oil pumping and the economy humming. Democrats and Republicans alike are too lazy and in some cases ideologically driven to look at other sources of energy like nuclear, or implementing efficiency standards for gas mileage that would significantly reduce our need for foreign oil.Instead, we get the promise of ethanol..too bad it takes almost as much to produce it as it makes. Once again, we are left with slogans by the elites from both parties. If we pulled out of Iraq tommorrow our commitment to the region would not change markedly. In fact, we would probably be on even more dangerous footing…especially if the Iranian Shia’s took over the oil fields in Western Iraq while the Iraqi’s killed each other. From there it is a short drive past Kuwait and into Saudi Arabia’s oil fields.
If you want to protest, make sure you cover your bases and hit the Democratic Congress too. Iraq is turning into another abortion debate put together by politicians who want to distract us from policy choices that truly matter to the surivial of this country both short and long term. They keep us busy with debating the war while they are screwing us (and the USA) in other ways that line their pockets and keep us from focusing on the kinds of changes that will keep us from repeating another Iraq situation in the first place.
Vote:
0 0 Clinton would not have gone after Hussein in the first place. Otherwise he would have done it while he was in office. I believe he would have taken us into Afganistan after 9/11 like GW, but he wouldn’t have been stupid enough to concoct a story about WMD’s to invade Iraq and then stay there for 4 years while our men and women die needlessly all the while accomplishing nothing!
Bush is an idiot!
But that’s just MY opinion.
Vote:
0 0 Congratulations….we when all else fails call the person an idiot. That will certainly make everyone take you seriously….
Hey didn’t Slim Pickens ride the bomb in Dr. Strangelove at the end of the movie? lol
Vote:
0 0 Homeslice -
I DID use the shampoo. As a young impressionable kid I thought “Her hair is bouncey and shiney. I want MY hair to be that way.”
On my hair, the reverse happened. The shampoo made my hair flat and lifeless.
But - it still worked, I went out and bought the shampoo. And, I bet, plenty of people who don’t have naturally fine, blah, hair bought the ‘poo and were quite satisfied with the results.
So yes, words DO work, if you have ears to hear them. It’s just a matter of WHAT you’re hearing (or not).
Example.
How about Valentine’s Day when W. said “Money trumps peace sometimes”? I don’t think ANY local media has EVER to this day picked that one up and ran with it.
The absence of words are just as powerful as the USE of them, so keeping your mouth shut is a very bad idea in my opinion.
Then there are the words that do come out to play. We hear ALL kinds of “words”. Sometimes they have no effect because people have become numb to them, other times they are emblazed in our subconscious because we get over-assaulted with them (I know “I’m lovin it” - and I don’t even eat @ McDonalds).
Sometimes though, the best words speak to the very depth of a person, and that person feels a passion that can’t be buried, and that passion becomes the beginning of a change in that person, which then branches out and affects other people. Not ALL other people - but enough to start a movement if you’re lucky.
So yes, it DOES work that way. If it didn’t, advertising companies would not put such faith in it.
Vote:
0 0 That’s great Gypsy! Sorry the shampoo didn’t work for you though. Personally I’m not one to run out and buy everything I see advertised on tv.
And Mike: I didn’t call anyone here an idiot. I called GW an idiot! And if anyone thinks otherwise, obviously they haven’t seen him speak in public, and/or know what he got our country into by taking us to war for no reason other than his own personal vendetta!
Vote:
0 0 Homeslice -
You missed my point.
As an adult, I don’t buy everything that’s paraded in front of me on tv either - in fact, I daresay ad companies would hate me.
My POINT is - as a young person, that wasn’t true for me, NOR is it true for most young people (check out any kid’s tv show for evidence of that).
MOST kids who grow into adults do not learn to discern all that effectively - MOST adults buy KFC because the ad shows a happy, hurried family enjoying a trans-fat free meal of factory farmed (homrmone laden) chicken. MOST adults see the ad for a plasma tv, find out that high-def is the wave of the future, then NEED a plasma.
Okay, here’s a good one. Thirty years ago, WHO would have bought “microwave safe” dishware?
Not many - for there was no “need”.
Commercialism and society dictates our needs. If you really think to don’t “buy” based upon subtle messages you see and hear - then think long and hard on that idea. MOST people have been sold the need for losing that last ten pounds, the need for covering their gray, the need for retaining youthfulness, the need for “male enhancement”, the need for anti-perspirant that would keep you dry through a freaking ice storm.
Trust me, we ALL bow down to the “words” of others more than we would like to admit. We LIKE to kid ourselves into thinking we’re freethinkers, but by and large, we are not. We shop @ X store because we’re told it has the lowest price, we buy Y car because it is sold to us as the safest or the most comfy, or it has high performance, or because it has a certain image, we eat Z brand of food because we’ve been told it is convenient.
We listen to WORDS and we behave accordingly.
And we learn to do this unquestionably @ a VERY young age.
Vote:
0 0 Bush is a realist. “Money trumps peace” isn’t an awful thing to say - it’s an awful reality. In fact, had it been said by someone who didn’t, say, love money more than peace or use war as a means to create an atmosphere of fear in his country, then I’d have given him a standing ovation.
Money certainly does trump peace - always. This is a reality of our “civilized” culture.
Vote:
0 0 Jeremy -
It’s not a matter of whether it’s a “realistic thing to say”, it’s the point that the local news media did not pick it up because it’s a very irresponsible thing for a “wold leader” (who is not popular across the planet) to say, thus it makes him (us) look like he’s in it for the oil, not the PEACE - again - WHETHER OR NOT the statement is “realistic”.
Our local media did not pick up the story because it chose NOT to. Our local media (along with other local medias) are quick to pick up stories about who Nicole’s baby’s daddy is and who won American Idol, but many local markets will NOT pick up stories that make our leaders appear in a bad light.
On that note - did the story of Randal Tobias (the Deputy Sec. of State Bush hired to help keep underdeveloped nations “moral” if they want our medicinal assistance - who got busted for hiring “esorts” to come to his home and give him “massages”) make the local news? PLEASE tell me it did or I will lose all hope for “local coverage”.
Vote:
0 0 With all due respect, I don’t think it’s really the local media’s job to report on national news. That’s what the networks and news channels are for. I’m speaking of broadcast media. I think that the newspapers have more of a need to cover national news than the local broadcast media.
Now, I would like to see some of the local media look a little deeper into the story of the probation officer who got a gun from Kimball Mason and the serial number was filed off. I think that there’s more to this story than we have heard.
Vote:
0 0 With all due respect though - the local news gives us ALL kinds of national stories. I might be off a bit on the format for each individual news station, but I believe it goes something like this for most local news channels - Top Story / ies, National / International, Regional / Local - then onto sports, weather, channel bits, fluff, etc.
If somebody happens to think the local news ought not bother reporting what goes on all over the world, then it might be of no use for them to report what’s going on in Iraq.
I happen to believe it’s a matter of filtering - the “local news” used to be a PSA of sorts, way back in the day. Channel owners knew that as part of their “public service” they had to provide news. They did just that. But NOW - the news is just as profit driven as the rest of TV, so there you go - what we SEE is reflected in that profit market.
Point two. Local news isn’t the only outlet where “profits trump news”. I do not believe FOX news or CNN made mention of Bush’s statement either, though I could be wrong on that, being that I no longer bother watching either channel. I DID do several internet searches right after the quote made it onto a few local blogs, but nothing came up about FOX News or CNN reporting it.
Don’t kid yourselves - EVERYTHING is about the money, follow the freaking money, people, and THERE you will find your truth, either buried under a rock, or exploited to the maximum for impact and return.
THIS is why we hear plenty about Nicole’s baby - but not so much about the deplorable conditions @ Walter Reed VETERAN’S hospital.
Sell. Sell. Sell. Make the sponsors happy, which makes the sponsors OWNERS happy.
Vote:
0 0 Yes, the local news does give us some national stories. But they are stories regurgitated from the national news providers. Local stations are there to cover local news. They don’t have correspondents scattered around the country, at least not in this size market.
I just thought that local media were being unfairly singled out for not covering national news, and this story specifically. As an example, if a station has a 5pm and 6pm newscast, with a national network news in between them at 5:30, I would expect the local newscasts to give mainly local news. The network has a lot more resources to cover national stories, and it is an adjacent time slot. And they have the whole half hour to do it.
A 10pm news show is a little bit different than the 5 or 6pm show. It does not normally run right after a national news program, so there is usually a small segment of the newscast devoted to the top national stories of the day, since you didn’t just hear about them on the previous show. Does that make sense? In order to cover all of the local stories (more important than national IMO) and get to the weather report by 10:15 or so, there isn’t more than a few minutes left for national news. But there are countless sources for national news available. CNN doesn’t cover Idaho Falls, and Idaho Falls stations don’t cover Washington, D.C.
One more thing, the accusation that local news content is driven by profits is not true in my experience, which is considerable. Ratings are very important as are profits, but I have personally seen MANY cases of loyal station clients wanting news coverage and being denied.
One more thing, maybe I lead a sheltered life but what is this about Nicole’s baby? I haven’t heard a thing. Nicole Richie? Nicole Kidman?
Vote:
0 0 Somebody’s been livin under a rock! I hardly watch any tv at all and even I know about the Anna Nicole baby story. (waste of coverage that its been)
But I digress
Vote:
0 0 Ahhhhhhh……Anna Nicole! I was trying to think of some Nicole that I was supposed to have heard of. Of course I heard about Anna Nicole. Waaaayyy too much. I wish I had been living under a rock!
Vote:
0 0 LOL! Got that right!
Vote:
0 0 I am simply saying that the NEWS (whether it be local or national) does not so much reflect “news” as it does “stories of local interest”.
And yes, the news IS pretty much profit driven. If it wasn’t, how many ALL NEWS channels do you think we’d have?
ANNA Nicole. Oops. I’m sorry guys! I thought her first name was Nicole. I guess that shows you how much I’ve listened to the story - all I know is that some hot celebrity blonde woman died and there was aa huge rukus about who the daddy of her new baby was.
I thought her name was Nicole - but it IS in fact “Anna Nicole Smith”. I admit I tune out when stuff like that is given airplay on any news vendor (FOX was big on playing this one - I saw a full fifteen minutes of it while eating lunch @ Gandolfo’s).
Vote:
0 0 What’s that about walking a mile in someone’s shoes?
I imagine local news agencies and reporters would love to profile heart-pounding stories that keep you on the edge of your seats. I’m sure they would rather expose scandals, meaningful information, and gripping interviews with the most famous people.
Unfortunately or fortunately, there are some days where not much happens. They cannot manufacture exciting news.
Don’t blame the media because they profiled someone’s turtle walking around the block, we don’t know what other worse stories they killed to air those boring feature stories.
My philosophy is that people are generally going to try doing the best job they can. It’s easy to call them lazy or misinformed, but we don’t see the other sides of it.
Vote:
0 0 Gypsy,
I heard about Bush’s comment in February on Fox News when he was in the Rose Garden making a speech. They played the entire clip! I also saw the story on the disgraced ex-official who resigned over being implicated in hiring escorts…on Fox News too. The coverage is out there if you look for it in the right places….but not everybody…including local news can carry every story…besides they have to leave room for Anna Nicole Smith and her ilk on Geraldo.
Vote:
0 0 I’m glad FOX did show that clip - in its entirety even!
Too bad we can’t get more of THAT and less of Anna Nicole though - I couldn’t get away from that sotry for a week but never once encountered the “money trumps peace” clip.
Nobody will ever convince me that the broadcasting system is mostly made up of a “liberal” media.
Clear Channel is hardly liberally owned and run!
I think people who don’t pay attention to this kind of stuff just don’t notice it - but - if a person has a desire to REALLY know what they’re being exposed to, they could do it.
Leave Your Comment
Our Community's Comment Guidelines:- Please stay polite and on topic.
- Your email will never be published.
- No profanity or euphemisms for profanity.
- No personal attacks, name-calls, put-downs, or baiting other guests, races, genders, or religions.
- Express opinions, facts, logic, and reasoning; just don’t argue for argument’s sake.
- No commercial links (unless absolutely relevant to the discussion) and no religious proselytizing.
- No religious discussions (for or against). Go to http://religion.idahofallstoday.com for religious discussions.
- Use the "I" word as much as possible to demonstrate responsibility.
- Limit yourself to using one name per thread to demonstrate responsibility.
- If you think a comment is inappropriate, ask Joe to review it.
Loading ...
Vote:
After reading this article I have one question. Who can I talk to about getting the last 5 minutes of my life back?