but i’d like to posit a probably positive possibility:

maybe there put the right people in charge of the wrong problem

let me explain

bernanke’s idea was just to drop money on the problem, to soak up the debt

and BP used some research chemical to hope to perform a “Top Kill”

perhaps we shoulda let bernanke deal with the oil spill, i mean hey, money soaks up oil as well as debt right? ^.~

and we could’ve let BP spray a toxic chemical into the federal reserve, performing a successful “Top Kill”, i mean it kills fraudulent bankers as well as oil right? ^.~

<sigh> obviously the over dramatization is for effect. But i must beg the question: In this case might a switch of tactics be in order?

everyone enters this world at once a citizen with rights, duties and such as well as obligations to the state and the parents.  There’s no choice in the matter though let’s be clear.  There’s not some magic fairy that shows up in the womb and gives you and accurate unbiased description of each country state or republic and then provides you the option to come into the world already aligned with a place and people of our choosing.  We all just have to hit the ground running.  And no time is wasted in providing mandated education paid for by the state.  And while that is a right nice gift, but if the that education is so hampered by agenda and fear of unemployment that the faculty dare not impart any useful wisdom at all, then it can be somewhat self defeating.  but no worries by the age of 5, sometimes earlier by choice, you’ll be put into public schools most likely.   Oh yes one can choose to homeschool, but let’s face it… how many parents have that time? much less the patience, skill, and will to do it… i think a survey of how many more children enter public school vs. homeschoolers can answer that, as if we don’t know already.  Many people become indignant when ideas like this are presented.  ”Well if you don’t like it here go somewhere else!” is a pretty common retort with about as much logic as it has compassion.  These are the people who fail to realize the obvious point that the wish or will alone isn’t enough.  And as fair as they’d like to make everything in this candy cane world to seem, no one provides you with a way to opt out of a system that you never signed into.  A system you were signed into…at birth.  Then pushed through 13 years of established educational rhetoric sanitized by years of fear on the part of faculty trying to come to grips with what was ok and what wasn’t to teach/say/discuss/etc.  This isn’t preparing you to make a choice at the moment you turn 18 to say “ok i like this” or “no thanks let me try another country”.  Nor will you ever be prompted with such an offer.

i’m rambling i see…

and that’s to be expected

i haven’t the time and neither have you

to sit down

and have me show you everything i’ve seen/read/heard/experienced

and without that it’s difficult to gain an accurate conception of the why questions.

why i think what i think

why what i’ve experienced means what it means to me

this is the handicap from the beginning

and many times becomes the  impasse in the end

further still some are more than willing to verbalize their lack of interest or curiosity about my reasons for what i think

and many will tout it as their innate right

well in response i believe it to be fair play if they would accept my right to have nothing to do with them.

this world is complex enough without having to deal with people bent on wielding their individual rights as weapons in staunch defense of the world they create by reveling in their escapism and entertainment and filtering out anything that threatens their comfort without discretion.  Though i’ve yet to  find a “right to ignorance” or “right to avoidance” in the bill of rights, it’s a pretty common tactic of survival at this point for many people.

If it’s all well and good to avoid things they don’t like or would otherwise frustrate them, should i not also be able to do the same.

because i mean really, if you can only speak to me about things that don’t pose the threat of making living in a bubble of self imposed ignorance impossible, then i’m probably not going to be able to say much. I mean how am i to know what’s “ok” to say and what’s not? It’s  ludicrous to attempt to communicate while awkwardly feeling out what’s ok and what’s not.

So if all that is in the acceptable column is random chit chat that doesn’t have the remote possibility of leading to conflicting opinion or stance, i’d just as soon take a play from your book and opt out.  How the weather is, your status on FB, who’s falling on their ass in this season of Dancing with the Stars are about as  appetizing a subject to me, as an open debate on politics or religion is to most people.  that being said, if you wish to reserve full rights to avoid talking to people about certain topics, simply be prepared to avoided in kind.  Again i’m finding difficulty locating the “right to live in your own world”, but i’m sure it’s in there though right?  But if you’re busy defending your rigid stance and i’m busy trying to evolve my perspective, then why are we trying to do this complicated dance? Aren’t there other things we should each be doing? …

because really, at that rate….

i don’t have the time, and neither do you.

we need a new party

the NoThankYou Party

to consist of people who do NOT share ties with the current agenda

of the powers that were

i’m voting NoThankYou, are you?

the downing street memo

dennis kucinich

alan GRAYSON!

bernie sanders vs. alan greenspan

(though i’m dismayed that bernard sanders watered down the legislature set to audit the federal reserve. shame on you bernie. )

methane hydrates vs. oil

check on the gulf BP oil spill and read between the lines

5 corporations own the video media

6 banks own the monetary media

go do yourself a favor and look into this