"I'm mad as Hell and I'm not going to take it anymore!" (From the movie NETWORK).The following questions are questions that need answering. Are there answers to them? We must remain optimistic and vigilant if there are to be. These are just a few topics.
There are many more, some more important and some less, based on a person's beliefs and attitudes. I present them, as a reference and a starting point for discussion.If religion is based on the word of God, then why are most wars religion-based? What ever happened to 'live and let live?' Why do different religions and different societies hate each other? Is it modern-day 'survival of the fittest?' Are we following His teachings? Or, are we a world uncivilized, with countries sending their children to fight and die in wars? Isn't it all just a chess game, with the winner being the country which kills the most people? Doesn't it all sound a bit childish and unproductive? Doesn't it sound like the rich and powerful ordering the young and poor to go kill for them so they can have more power? Doesn't it sound like the rich and powerful want a new democratic nation, oil-laden, where they can bring American modernism; hence, their businesses, and make mountains of money? Didn't we do this once before? To the Indians?.Why do we still allow our politicians to vote their conscious rather than the will of their constituents? Why have so many been caught in illegal activities? If we stop PACs and outrageous and imbalanced sums of money to be spent on political campaigns, with, equal maximum spending per candidate, paid by a $20 person tax each year by the people, will our elected officials be more honest and better represent us? Will it rid us of the power-mongers who are in it just to get what they can out of it? Doesn't a flat tax make more sense, with everyone paying the same percentage, based on gross salary? Isn't it the right of the American people to elect their president? If so, how come for only two terms? If a president is a great one, who is leading our country toward a bright future, shouldn't we have the right to elect him/her again? Shouldn't we vote out our bad legislators and keep the good ones who are making a positive contribution? And, as our children pay taxes on the salaries they earn, wouldn't allowing 16-year-olds to vote make them feel less alienated, less pessimistic, and less apathetic about their future? Would most people agree that today's sixteen-year-old is worldlier than eighteen-year-olds were twenty years ago? Since 16-year-olds pay tax on their income, doesn't our constitution say that taxation without representation is illegal?.Why is there a provision in our laws that says a child can quit school at the age of sixteen? If it is to help support their family, doesn't it do irreparable damage to the future of that child, perpetuating the cycle of poverty? If there is mandatory graduation from public school, or a trade school, wouldn't there be more (and better paying) jobs, less crime, less entitlements, and more taxes being paid in higher paying jobs? Is there any logical reason why our government doesn't change the law that 'no child will be left behind' because they must all graduate high school? Will we ever have a real 'education' president who understands that education is the most important foundation for every country's success and survival?.
If most people hate bipartisan politics, then why do we have political parties? Wouldn't it be preferential if people didn't have to be labeled? That way, wouldn't a person vote for a person rather than a party? Wouldn't most people agree that they like some things about each candidate, each party? Wouldn't it be common sense and be politically correct if there were no parties? Wouldn't it be the logical way to pick our leaders if we voted for the (wo)man and his/her beliefs, and what they will do, and then the final two (after a primary) meet in the election? Wouldn't that be the end to party politics, and allow real voting in Congress rather than Senators and Congress (wo)men being afraid of voting against their party? Isn't the classification of people what causes the separation of people, which leads to negativity and animosity toward those who are different than the majority? Shouldn't negative advertising during political campaigns be stopped? Shouldn't any mention of a political opponent, found to be misleading an/or slanderous, be illegal? How will American jurisprudence deal with this First Amendment issue? Shouldn't the Supreme Court define for us, once and for all, what 'freedom of speech' really means? For society's sake, and for a civil future, is there anything wrong with censoring our media, people like Robert Novak who feloniously broadcast the identity of a CIA agent? Isn't this all about right versus wrong, not freedom of speech?.To survive in the best of all possible worlds we must all work together as one family. If we want to change and be a better people, a far better world, we must first be willing to change and act upon it..[Bruce Schwartz is the author of the #1 bestselling novel THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY (http://www.
thetwentyfirstcentury.com), which deals with race relations in America. He is presently working on the movie version of his novel.
By: Bruce Schwartz