I wish I had a passion that could be more productive. Complaining of injustice, especially in a state like New Jersey that is run by the rich and the unions, doesn't get me very far. I wish I had gone into composing where, if you had a modicum of talent, you would be appreciated; or, at the very least, calm your own soul.

In this country, people, unless they are carrying automatic weapons in the Army and have been trained to obey blindly, will never fight a good fight. Against injustice all will rely on politicians to fix what's wrong. The people of my country are lazy and fearful of authority. Give them entertainment and inebriation and they are good to waste their lives away while hardly ever lifting a finger to help even their own progeny against future oppression. Are the genes of our founding fathers so damn rare? I mean--for God's sake--they were being overcharged on tea and they rose up in arms and said, "Not without representation, you don't." Today, ironically, we are given "representation" up our wazoos and that's where it ends up staying. Sure, we eliminate it every few years but, oh boy! While it's up there, what terrible gases!

The reason I don't fit in is not because I answer to a greater authority or that I think I'm better than the rest of Americans. That's not it. My problem is that I do not, for whatever nature/nurture reason you may choose to use, like to suck up to people. I've done it occasionally and it never works for me. There are too many sacrifices when personal principles are compromised.

There is a lot of talk about our nation of laws. Put me in charge, I'm ready to be the next Solomon. And before you think I have a large head, you just haven't looked too hard at the present laws and how they benefit only certain groups. Obama. I can only think that power corrupts absolutely or that, he is subject to political forces that would get him assassinated if he didn't play the game just right. Take, for instance, the hiring of more police. The only good I can see in that, if you can call it "good," is that the Government would have another source to tap when they ran out of enlistees for the next war. Yes, I like the sound of it. But, unlike the young Black or Latino, they have unions that simply wouldn't stand for it. It's just as well, you really don't want cops with post traumatic distress syndrome on the force, but what we do have are cops whose future salaries are put on the backs of municipal taxpapers. Obama hires for a year and the people pay for decades. Real smart!

Obama, the newbie, says that this is proof that his stimulus package can put people to work. Yea, but wouldn't you really want another teacher or graffiti eraser or, God forbid (I can hear them say), how about a town/state/federal ombudsman? Why did Ombudsmen fall out of favor? Who put the last nail in their coffin? It must have been the government bureaucrats that were falling behind in their work as a result of those nasty troublemakers. Getting back to the police, why do you hire people whose sole purpose in life is to oppress. Hey, if there is a guy going berserk and killing people, someone should restrain him. But, give me non-lethal tools and I'll volunteer to do so--for free. You don't need henchmen to keep people in check unless you fear a revolution. Come to think of it, what intelligent politician or rich man isn't aware of injustice and is ready to defend it against attack. An attack against injustice is an attack against the establishment (remember that one, boomers? Establishment? It didn't stick because the establishment was and is so much bigger than flowers. It refused to be named in any indictment by the people).

I can only hope that, through education, man is properly taught to stand up for his rights. Until then, my public lobbyist website will not see the light of day; rather, just its own reflection in my eyes. [oddly, I recently learned that the Republicans had set up a web site wherein the public can vote for spending cuts and the most popular ones are put up for voting by the House. A cool idea but guess who's not voting for most of the proposed cuts? The Dems are voting 'No' pretty much as one block. That is why any such web site should be independent of Congress. The Republicans had a good idea but they named it "RepublicanWhip." I guess their true aim was to show, rightly or not, that it's the Democrats who refuse to cut spending. the Democrats are falling into their trap by voting as a block without, I am sure, not even looking over the proposals with a critical eye.]

[this was published a while back but blogspot doesn't presently allow reverse chronological so I'm going to repeat it here]

It has always struck me as a very frustrating facet of modern democratic life that politicians make promises and then conveniently sidestep their promises.

The only way things get done are when ‘connected’ people propose things to the politicians. Essential legislation only gets passed when a fearless citizen/organization keeps up the crusade to implement change. But, for the most part, the people who are acknowledged to command the most influence on lawmakers are the lobbyists. This site hopes to emulate their actions via the Internet; we hope to be “thelobbyist” for the disenfranchised.

Forget letters to your elected officials. Forget public opinion polls; the fat cats cannot be trusted with our future. The only way to keep them honest is to keep them on their toes every step of the way. When this site is implemented, the politician will be guided to do our will, not his own. Notice that I said guided; the politician will always be allowed to vote his conscience.

Here’s how our web site will work:

From the very start the website must belong to all.
Ordinary people place issues on the website (absolutely without constraints of any kind); issues like these:
Eliminate additions to bills where the addition is not pertinent
Tell us everything you know about Roswell, NM in 1947. I'm not a conspiracy theorist but if this is what moves you, you can make it an issue and hope that fellow citizens agree with you.
Nationalize the health insurance industry.
ANYTHING else you could possibly take issue with. I hesitated to list exaples here because I feared that surfers who disagreed with me might think they were my agenda. They are not. They are only examples. But do keep in mind that although “anything goes,” not everything will reach general voting.
Ordinary people offer to join a committee to discuss, elaborate, and fine-tune the issue as first proposed (perhaps a WIKI could be used here). No member is refused membership in a committee but only a limited number of positions will be filled.
The refined/reformulated issue is posted on the web site for first round voting.This first round of voting determines whether there is enough interest. The issue goes to general voting if the first round shows that 5% (for example) of the members are in favor of a general vote. If so, all members are notified that an issue is up for general voting and that they should vote within one week (as an example. The actual deadline may be determined by the issue committe).
The results of the general vote are forwarded to elected officials.
The elected official now can either take action to give us what we want or ignore us because he has information that we don’t have or he really feels that it would be wrong for the country. This is fine.

Now, you may ask, aren’t we back to where we started? The answer is a resounding NO because he/she risks losing the next election by showing utter disregard for our wishes. If we voted 5 million to one million on an issue, our elected officials better provide us with a good reason why they chose to ignore us. Their actions/inactions on our issues will be sent to all our members.

Some may argue: Aren’t politicians professionals who have our best interests at heart? Yes but, so what, nothing gets done anyway with the present system. Nothing, that is, unless big business and their lobbyists give it their blessing.

But what about rule by the masses? Don’t the politicians tend to be more level-headed? Yes but our website will, because of its success, attract the best minds in the country who will provide quidance to our committees; probably joining the committees (alas, even lobbyists will be allowed to join. In fact, I would like every single blessed resident of our great country to join us.

The most important thing about the website is this: THE WAY THE WEBSITE LOOKS AND FUNCTIONS WILL BE DETERMINED BY ITS MEMBERS AND WILL NEVER BE AS HARD TO CHANGE AS THE CONSTITUTION IS NOW. But if it ever were to become as respectable and as useful as the constitution, perhaps it should be made hard to change; but never impossible.

I am asking for help in putting together something functional and . . . let’s play with it for a while . . . all the time building it up to a force that must be reckoned with! I have no personal agenda other than to make our country a true democracy with a government responsive to our needs. Any ideas put forth on the thelobbyist.ortholex.com subdomain are my own and are hereby made part of the public domain; if you want to start your own movement with my ideas, please do so. I will help in any way I can. I am tired of feeling frustrated and disenfranchised; I know that, unless you are one of the wealthy or politically connected, you probably are too .

To make this idea come alive, we need some web designers/developers to volunteer their time. We need idea people who could help in overcoming some hurdles. Specifically and, most important, we need to establish a means of ensuring “one member, one vote.”

Perhaps more than anything, we need discourse. Please e-mail me with your thoughts pro or con. Thelobbyist@gmail.com

I voted for the man whom I considered to have higher ideals. The thought of no lobbyists on parade really got my interest. I even went to Easton, PA to campaign for him in the streets of Bangor.

Now, I hear that former lobbyists have been enlisted to work for him. There goes the honeymoon with Mr. Obama; but hey, the best politicians need to be able to tell lies at one point or another--don't they? Perhaps, but was it really necessary to hire former lobbyists? I'm a firm believer in the smoke/fire connection and Mr. Obama is presently tainted.

Let us hope that his lies remain minimal.

I asked my son, a 30 odd year history major teaching in Venezuela, what he thought of John McCain being that I remembered he had expressed interest in JM's candidacy.

This is what he said, "8 years ago I was actually quite fond of him as a candidate. I still think he's more honest than the average politician, and I do admire how he takes important stands on some unpopular issues in which I strongly agree with him (immigration, challenging earmarks, working with Democrats when Republicans controlled everything, etc.)

However, I feel he has pandered too much to the right wing nut jobs this election, he's backed off of fiscal responsibility vis a vis Bush's tax cuts, and, of course, his Iraq war position (though I do believe in his heart he means well) is intolerable - I believe the ghosts of his Vietnam war days are clouding his judgement. So, while I believe he would have been a much better president than Bush if he was elected in 2000, I feel his time is passed and Obama is the go to guy. And you?
"
I answered, "Yes;" but that I wished Obama would clarify what he meant by increasing the public's participation in government. Please see my blog on publicly-defined plebiscites.

Both McCain and Clinton have latched onto Obama's lack of details. This will be his downfall unless he starts cracking. Sure he's got great personality and, it has been said, a silver tongue but JFK never gave us anything but trouble (Vietnam, Bay of Pigs, infidelity). His one shining legacy--putting a man on the moon--was something that had to be done if we were to stay ahead of the Russians.

Obama, we, the baby boomers, want substance. We will not vote for you on your similarities to JFK because, once bitten, twice smitten.

I'm sorry, it just goes to show you how women vote with their emotions and not with logic. They voted Kennedy in based on looks and they voted Clinton in based on a pre-election faltering voice which we all know was as bogus as it gets. Speaking of bogus, did anyone else note how Obama sounded like MLK during his concession speech?

When are we going to get some substance?

I watched the New Hampshire debates and it was great to have one party follow the other. I wish I could pick someone to support, though. As it is, I'm in limbo. Those whom I think are intelligent and creative enough to hold presidential office are not charismatic or presidential enough and would never get elected (i.e., Richardson, Paul, Giuliani). Those who come across as presidential (i.e., Obama, Clinton, Romney, Huckabee, McCain) do not propose any great ideas. Huckabee does support the FairTax but whom is he kidding? That one will die a thousand deaths in committee. Thompson isn't courageous enough to effect change--he's a status quo kind of guy. That leaves Edwards and his $200 cut. If I can only get past that contradiction, he might be the man. May be if his wife came forth and said that she put him up to it. Romney, by the way, lost points with me when the NYT published a picture of him in his car. He had his suit jacket draped across the back of the driver's seat. If he treats his driver like a coat hanger what will he hang on us?

It's the little things that warn us--what the spinners could never orchestrate.