January/February 2001
Articles on the theme "Growing Young"
Learning & Play
by Bob Gonzalez
Maintaining the spirit of youth through
learning and play.
Conscious Dispute Resolution
by Constance M. Felos
An attorney's look at how resolving
legal disputes can help one grow young.
A State of Mind
by Audrey Craft Davis
Using the mind to reverse the biological
clock.
HGH (Human Growth Hormone)
by Maria Moraca
There are physical reasons for aging.
The role of HGH.
Reversing the Aging Process
by Jim Stuebe
New research links increased oxygen
to growing younger.
An Enthusiasm for Life
by Charles Larsen
Enhancing spiritual and psychological
youth.
Conscious Aging
by Rev. Pat Palmer
Learning to let go. Growing younger
through spiritual growth.
As Young as You Dare
by Patrick Plaskett
The effects of attitude on aging and
what we can do about it.
In Search of the Fountain
by Rev. Sue R. Griffin
The true fountain of youth - within
our own soul.
Never Too Old
by Marty Kliesh, Ph.D.
How nutrition as well as attitude can
affect aging.
Other Feature Articles
Natural Health Q & A
by Steve Shealy
Riding the dragon: the dance between
psychotherapy and meditation.
Health of the Nation
by David Findlay
What is... Aura Photography?
by Rev Marcie Louton
The relationship between energy and
the aura. How aura photography is done and the significance of the aura's
colors.
PeopleTalk
Readers' Open Forum
Minerals from Mother Earth
by Judy Power
Features stones for January& February.
Apache Gold and Crysoprase .
Health of the Nation
Amazingly at the time of writing this column (Sunday December 10) it is still not certain who the next president of the United States will be.
The commentary on TV and in the press has gone on endlessly. And will, no doubt, go on endlessly for a long, long time.
Life is not fair!
And politics certainly is not fair!
At the risk of beating a dead horse to death, I cannot resist throwing a few comments into the debate.
So let's take a deep breath; back off for a moment from the day-to-day melodrama; and attempt to take a longer-term view of what has been going on.
One thing that is obvious from the TV commentary is that 99% of it is partisan. It's either a Republican or a Democrat speaking and, once we know that, we know pretty much what they are going to say: a repetition of their party's mantra. "Every vote must count - we have to do a recount." "You cannot change the rules of the election after the election." And on, and on, and on
Whoever wins, the other side will say, "They stole the election!"
So did anyone steal the election?
Certainly! It was "stolen" before the election started!
It was stolen by the so-called two-party system which, as I have claimed in previous articles, is in reality a one-party system which I (half in jest) called the Neo Socialist Republicratic party.
Can anyone steal what was already stolen?
I guess they can but does it really make much difference?
The irony of the situation is that both Bush and Gore ran on practically identical platforms. The differences were so marginal that most people agreed it was a matter of personality rather than political platform. Should seniors have prescription drugs free? Both agree. The differences were minor. Look at their tax plans. For most people it wouldn't make more than a few hundred dollars difference a year which plan is accepted. And then one thing is having a plan. Quite another is getting it implemented. What Bush and Gore may say is almost irrelevant. Remember "Read my lips" and "I never had sex with that woman."
It would be easy to conclude that all politicians are corrupt and that the whole political system is corrupt.
This, I think, would be the wrong conclusion.
If we compare what is going on in America with what is going on, or has gone on, in most countries of the world, we are not in fact doing so badly. We do not have tanks in the street. There are no riots. There is minimal voter intimidation. People are free to say what they think without the fear of being thrown in jail. And life is continuing much as usual.
The threat of a recession is, by some, being blamed on the current political instability. This, however, is not the true reason. If you create "out of thin air" billions of dollars, as Greenspan and the Fed have been doing for years, you inevitably risk inflation. And we do have inflation. The government's Cost of Living Index is a doctored statistic. They think of an acceptable figure and then work backward to see how they can come up with that figure. Since fuel prices have gone up, for example, we do not of course include this as part of the Cost of Living - even though fuel prices affect just about every business and every person in the country!
It is interesting that Greenspan - possibly the most powerful man in the country - is not an elected official.
It is also interesting that the Supreme Court judges are not elected officials.
What we have is, as I have claimed before, a limited democracy. There are "some people" (the true Powers That Be) who are above the system.
Yes, every vote should count as long as you choose Swiss or Cheddar. What if you don't particularly like cheese, or if you prefer Stilton.
So, what should we do about it all?
What we should do and what we can do are two quite different matters.
Let me first throw in my two cents worth as to what we should do; then I'll attempt to tackle more pragmatically what we can do.
In my last "2000 & Beyond!" column, I suggested that the two main parties merge to become officially one party which is effectively what they are anyway.
Another, and possibly more constructive, solution would be for the Republicans and Democrats to split into three parties. One would be a Republican/Democratic Coalition Party (there is already some talk between about 20 congressmen - a mixture of both parties - of forming a so-called "Center"). Then the Left Wing of the Democratic Party could become the Social Democrats (as in much of Europe). And the Right Wing of the Republican Party could become the Conservatives.
This would give voters a more real choice. Assuming, of course, that the politicians in their respective parties do what they actually say they will do.
There are other changes that should occur.
The mechanical system of registering votes should be overhauled and made standard - or at least minimum standards should be set - over the whole country. Fine that states have their say but a federal election is a federal election and standards should be set at a federal level. Exactly what system is the most accurate and fraud-free needs to be scientifically evaluated. And it needs to be in place by the 2002 elections. Of course, this will cost money, but surely it is better to upgrade things now rather than be the laughing stock of the world because some states and some counties are using antiquated punch-card equipment back from the 60s? As someone pointed out, if we can put a man on the moon, we should be able accurately to count votes!
The financing of elections needs to be overhauled. Let's eliminate soft money and PAC money and place a reasonable limit on what a party can spend on any election. It shouldn't be that one can buy an election. It should be that one wins an election on issues.
Now let's look at the media.
The media - especially TV - has too much power and influence. Effectively it has become the PR department of the one-party government. I don't believe in censorship but I do believe in some level of fairness and accuracy in news reporting. For example, the calling of the election for Gore before even the voters in the Panhandle had finished voting was, in my opinion, criminal. But I doubt if anyone will go to jail - this kind of criminality is too inbred throughout the whole media network.
The media uses the airwaves - which are, or should be, public property - for free. Whether this is right on wrong is an issue all in itself. However, wouldn't it be reasonable to insist that all channels give an agreed-upon amount of time for free to every party that stands a theoretical possibility of winning the election. The current system is so heavily weighted in favor of the two main parties that it is almost impossible for a third party to even get a foot in.
And then there's polls.
There are so many polls and so many standards. It is perfectly possible to work backwards from a desired result to questions and carefully selected demographic groups to achieve that result. The use of such polls is no doubt standard practice by both parties. Again, I don't believe in censorship of polls but shouldn't there be limits? How about banning the publication of poll results the last month before an election? How about insisting on clear labeling of a poll. Not only who it was done by but exactly how: what were the actual questions used and to whom. If the FDA labels foods, why shouldn't we label polls. And let's have a warning: "This poll is subject to inaccuracy and does not guarantee anything!" After all we put warnings on cigarette packets and mutual fund/investment promotion material.
All this is very desirable and necessary. However the chances are that few of these things will occur - at least not before the 2002 elections.
So let's take a practical look at what we can, as individuals, do.
The long-term answer to many of the above problems is third parties. It looks realistically as though it will take time for third parties to come to the fore. However, equally realistically, most of the reforms I have suggested (and others you may think of) will not - in fact cannot - take place from within the current two party system. It is much easier for the Powers That Be to control the two party system - by financing (buying) both - than for them to control four or five parties.
Therefore, anything one can do to support the third party of your choice is not wasted. It is helping to lay the groundwork for true reform.
There are many ways one can give support. Contributions of time or money. Letters to the Editor of your local papers. Help to educate people by talking to or e-mailing someone you know. I'm sure you can think of more.
If you don't want to get involved with a particular party, then get involved with a project you feel strongly about.
I can think of a number of worthwhile projects. For example
- Campaign Finance Reform.
- Helping inform people about what is going on with Geneti- cally Modified foods and the battle to get them correctly labeled.
- The promotion of alternative energy sources.
Sustainable agriculture.
The support of a true health-care system that puts so-called "alternative" practices and products on an even footing competition-wise with the established medical professions and the large pharmaceuticals. - The reform of our education system.
- Transparency in financial dealings of the government. In other words, demand an accurate accounting system (instead of their being allowed to project figures that have no connection with reality).
- Income Tax Reform.
- Sensible ways to fight crime and drugs.
And so on. I'm sure you have your own pet issue/s.
Remember, we don't only vote once every four years - a vote which may or may not count. We vote every day in our minds, and by our actions. These are the votes that really count.
Footnote:
As we go to press Gore has just conceded and Bush is now president elect.
In their speeches to the nation, both stress the importance now of working
to unify the nation. Let's hold them to this and, to the degree that we
can, help them achieve this goal. Enough of partisan bickering. Let's get
on with the job!
Copyright (c) 2001 Altnewtimes, Inc. All
rights reserved.
No part of this web site my be reproduced without written permission of Altnewtimes, Inc.
E-mail info@altnewtimes.com