Posts
I am not quite sure why or how a person's level of patriotism came to be measured by whether or not that person served his country in the military. Making such a judgment, for centuries, has concluded that on the basis of military service alone, men are therefore more patriotic than women. I am not sure I agree with that, nor am I certain that military service should be the only requirement to join the club.
There was a time, in this country, when young men were drafted into military service whether they wanted to serve their country or not. Forced patriotism, so to speak, begs the question, if you force someone to be patriotic, are they really patriotic?
There was also a time in this country, when the judicial system offered four years of military service in lieu of jail time. Now, I am not in favor of bringing back the draft. I am, however, in favor of bringing back the military option for first time non-violent criminals, like illegal aliens.
There is a difference between forcing a person to serve in the military and offering them the option of serving in the military in lieu of something else. Critics will say what they have always said, the U.S. will end up with nothing more than an army made up of illegal aliens and other various and asundry criminals.
Those critics better watch out. Iraq and Afghanistan have proven, if nothing else, that the good old U.S. of A. still produces some mighty fine patriots, home grown, good citizens, top of the line patriots, who are fully capable of showing those who are less patriotic, exactly how it's done.
Copyright © 2009 Annette Fortunato
This content may not be copied or reproduced in any way without the express written permission of the author. You are welcome to link to or bookmark this page, but please contact the author via E-Mail if you wish to reproduce this article in whole or in part.
Friday, July 31, 2009
Monday, June 8, 2009
Anarchy
By definition, anarchy is not chaos, but rather a lack of leadership. People who are not in favor of anarchy tend to believe that anarchy will lead to chaos.
It is an unfortunate truth that in every society there is a criminal element. It is the criminal element that necessitates a form of government. Somebody has to deal with the murderers and rapists. Not everyone is capable of defending themselves. Think about the elderly and the handicapped.
If anarchists were to compromise by admitting their position is unrealistic, they might make good Republicans. After all, the Republican Party traditionally stands for less government and lower taxes.
There is a way to accomplish the common goals of both the Anarchists and the Republicans. It's called voting and it starts on the local level. If you truly want less government in your life, then you have to keep up with the government in your town. Laws vary from city to city and state to state and the reason for that is because of people who vote in their local elections. That is why some cities allow the sale of alcohol and some don't.
Whether you are for or against anything, if it is an issue in your community, the first thing you have to do is know about it. It is your responsibility to know when your local elections are held and what items are on the agenda. If there is nothing on the agenda you care about then fine, don't vote. If, however, there is anything on the agenda you are either for or against, then let your voice be heard where it matters, at the polls.
Now I've hesrd a lot of people say one vote doesn't matter. Well guess what, when thousands of people, who each have one vote, believe one vote doesn't matter, then you have thousands of votes and thousands of votes do matter!
For those of you who vote in your local elections regularly and still don't believe your vote matters, then perhaps it is time for you to step up to the plate and be a community organizer. Help get out the vote in your town. Find those other voices that are just like yours on your block or in your neighborhood. Maybe someone simply needs a ride or a voters registration card.
If you vote, you have the right to complain, however, complaining won't really change anything. If you truly believe in what you say believe in, then do something to promote your agenda besides complaining.
One person can make a difference, but of course, to be that person, you can't be lazy.
Copyright © 2009 Annette Fortunato
This content may not be copied or reproduced in any way without the express written permission of the author. You are welcome to link to or bookmark this page, but please contact the author via E-Mail if you wish to reproduce this article in whole or in part.
It is an unfortunate truth that in every society there is a criminal element. It is the criminal element that necessitates a form of government. Somebody has to deal with the murderers and rapists. Not everyone is capable of defending themselves. Think about the elderly and the handicapped.
If anarchists were to compromise by admitting their position is unrealistic, they might make good Republicans. After all, the Republican Party traditionally stands for less government and lower taxes.
There is a way to accomplish the common goals of both the Anarchists and the Republicans. It's called voting and it starts on the local level. If you truly want less government in your life, then you have to keep up with the government in your town. Laws vary from city to city and state to state and the reason for that is because of people who vote in their local elections. That is why some cities allow the sale of alcohol and some don't.
Whether you are for or against anything, if it is an issue in your community, the first thing you have to do is know about it. It is your responsibility to know when your local elections are held and what items are on the agenda. If there is nothing on the agenda you care about then fine, don't vote. If, however, there is anything on the agenda you are either for or against, then let your voice be heard where it matters, at the polls.
Now I've hesrd a lot of people say one vote doesn't matter. Well guess what, when thousands of people, who each have one vote, believe one vote doesn't matter, then you have thousands of votes and thousands of votes do matter!
For those of you who vote in your local elections regularly and still don't believe your vote matters, then perhaps it is time for you to step up to the plate and be a community organizer. Help get out the vote in your town. Find those other voices that are just like yours on your block or in your neighborhood. Maybe someone simply needs a ride or a voters registration card.
If you vote, you have the right to complain, however, complaining won't really change anything. If you truly believe in what you say believe in, then do something to promote your agenda besides complaining.
One person can make a difference, but of course, to be that person, you can't be lazy.
Copyright © 2009 Annette Fortunato
This content may not be copied or reproduced in any way without the express written permission of the author. You are welcome to link to or bookmark this page, but please contact the author via E-Mail if you wish to reproduce this article in whole or in part.
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Community Organizers
By definition, a community is a group of people that live in the same place, under the same laws. That would seem to suggest that the smallest community to organize is the family that lives under the same roof.
It takes a certain amount of skill to organize a family. There are work schedules and school schedules to balance, meals to prepare and eat, social activities and obligations to be met, bills to pay, errands to run, a household to manage. Parents are in fact community organizers of a sort.
To be an effective community organizer one must, therefore, keep up with what is going on in one's community. To be a good citizen one must also keep up with what is going on in one's community. To raise good citizens, parents have to help educate their children about their local government.
Community activities are a good place to start. I know there are only so many hours in a day and most of us are busy attending to the needs of our families, but attending local parades can be a form of cheap family entertainment.
People with internet access really have no excuse for not knowing what events are taking place in their communities and when because most communities have websites that announce such things.
It doesn't cost anything to take your children to a city council meeting and let them experience first hand how their local government operates. Of course, I'm not talking about infants or toddlers. Nor are you required to go to every city council meeting. But is one city council meeting per year really out of the question?
Yes, it does take a little effort to keep up with local elections, but knowing when they take place and taking children with you to vote is one way for parents to lead by example. After all, community organizers for Barack Obama focused their attention on getting people to vote and look what they helped accomplish.
Schools can educate students on the basics of how government works, but teachers cannot tell your children what you support or don't support or why. Only you can teach your children that.
Copyright © 2009 Annette Fortunato
This content may not be copied or reproduced in any way without the express written permission of the author. You are welcome to link to or bookmark this page, but please contact the author via E-Mail if you wish to reproduce this article in whole or in part.
a href="http://easyhitcounters.com/stats.php?site=valleyranchlady1" target="_top">
Free Counter
It takes a certain amount of skill to organize a family. There are work schedules and school schedules to balance, meals to prepare and eat, social activities and obligations to be met, bills to pay, errands to run, a household to manage. Parents are in fact community organizers of a sort.
To be an effective community organizer one must, therefore, keep up with what is going on in one's community. To be a good citizen one must also keep up with what is going on in one's community. To raise good citizens, parents have to help educate their children about their local government.
Community activities are a good place to start. I know there are only so many hours in a day and most of us are busy attending to the needs of our families, but attending local parades can be a form of cheap family entertainment.
People with internet access really have no excuse for not knowing what events are taking place in their communities and when because most communities have websites that announce such things.
It doesn't cost anything to take your children to a city council meeting and let them experience first hand how their local government operates. Of course, I'm not talking about infants or toddlers. Nor are you required to go to every city council meeting. But is one city council meeting per year really out of the question?
Yes, it does take a little effort to keep up with local elections, but knowing when they take place and taking children with you to vote is one way for parents to lead by example. After all, community organizers for Barack Obama focused their attention on getting people to vote and look what they helped accomplish.
Schools can educate students on the basics of how government works, but teachers cannot tell your children what you support or don't support or why. Only you can teach your children that.
Copyright © 2009 Annette Fortunato
This content may not be copied or reproduced in any way without the express written permission of the author. You are welcome to link to or bookmark this page, but please contact the author via E-Mail if you wish to reproduce this article in whole or in part.
a href="http://easyhitcounters.com/stats.php?site=valleyranchlady1" target="_top">
Free Counter
Thursday, May 28, 2009
California
It seems to me, after thoughtful reflection, that smokers have at least two things in common with gay people. Both groups pay higher taxes, smokers have an exorbitant sales tax on tobacco products, and gay people are denied marital options on their income tax. Smokers and gay people face similar discrimination when it comes to health insurance also.
On the political level gay rights are about money, and those issues should be addressed. It is an unfortunate truth, however, that there just isn't room for the gay marriage issue at the federal level at this point in time.
If you followed Barack Obama through his first 100 days, then you know he's a pretty busy guy. North Korea is being a pain and the Somali pirates have been upstaged by a Supreme Court Justice nomination. The auto industry problems are not helping Wall Street. I'm sorry gay people, but there is nothing wrong with gay marriage being decided on a State by State basis. Decisions are being made.
Compromises, however, still need to be negotiated. Perhaps states who vote against gay marriage should not be allowed to charge a state income tax. That would at least give gay people some tax relief, which is one of the things they are asking for. Sorry California.
There's a lot of talk right now about restructuring the way California operates. They might want to take a look at the money section I wrote earlier if they need a few ideas getting started, but California has a lot of creative people living there, surely they can come up with something better than another federal bailout.
I remember hearing about several states that turned down their portion of the recovery money. Perhaps we could use the money they rejected to help California. Perhaps California will legalize and tax marijuana.
Every state contributes to the federal process, but every state also has the right to it's own individuality. We don't all have to be alike. It's okay that we're different.
Gay people can get married in Vermont and Iowa and last time I checked we honor marriages from each other's states. I know that's not a perfect solution, but for right now, could we just be happy with it? Personally, I think gay people will win the battle if they simply get gay marriage to be legal in Vegas.
I will say that I do not support the issue of gay marriage on the federal level at any point in time, simply because it is not an issue that can separate church and state no matter how hard it tries. The money arguments are in fact a matter of civil rights, however, the marriage aspect is historically a religous sacrament instituted by churches. I do not believe any church should be forced or coerced into performing marriages that go against their church doctrine. You have to keep in mind that the U.S. of A. was founded on freedom of religion. The Mormons have a right to their beliefs, as do the Catholics, the Methodists, the Muslims and the Jews.
I realize some people believe being gay is a choice and some people believe being gay is matter of biology. It seems to me that being gay is much like being an alcoholic. Nobody chooses to be an alcoholic, however, a lot of people choose not to drink. Those who know they are alcoholics and choose to drink anyway suffer the consequences of their own actions.
I suppose it might be different if being gay were acceptable worldwide, but it isn't. In some countries being gay is punishable by death. Even the ancient Greeks who promoted homosexuality among men in order for older men to teach younger men about sex believed that after a certain age homosexuality was not acceptable, according to Plato's Republic. And just so we're clear, Plato's Republic was the first major work ever written on the subject of political philosophy some 2500 years ago, before the existence of Christianity.
I don't believe gay people should have to pay higher taxes, or face job discrimination, or be the victims of hate, but then I'm a smoker.
Copyright © 2009 Annette Fortunato
This content may not be copied or reproduced in any way without the express written permission of the author. You are welcome to link to or bookmark this page, but please contact the author via E-Mail if you wish to reproduce this article in whole or in part.
On the political level gay rights are about money, and those issues should be addressed. It is an unfortunate truth, however, that there just isn't room for the gay marriage issue at the federal level at this point in time.
If you followed Barack Obama through his first 100 days, then you know he's a pretty busy guy. North Korea is being a pain and the Somali pirates have been upstaged by a Supreme Court Justice nomination. The auto industry problems are not helping Wall Street. I'm sorry gay people, but there is nothing wrong with gay marriage being decided on a State by State basis. Decisions are being made.
Compromises, however, still need to be negotiated. Perhaps states who vote against gay marriage should not be allowed to charge a state income tax. That would at least give gay people some tax relief, which is one of the things they are asking for. Sorry California.
There's a lot of talk right now about restructuring the way California operates. They might want to take a look at the money section I wrote earlier if they need a few ideas getting started, but California has a lot of creative people living there, surely they can come up with something better than another federal bailout.
I remember hearing about several states that turned down their portion of the recovery money. Perhaps we could use the money they rejected to help California. Perhaps California will legalize and tax marijuana.
Every state contributes to the federal process, but every state also has the right to it's own individuality. We don't all have to be alike. It's okay that we're different.
Gay people can get married in Vermont and Iowa and last time I checked we honor marriages from each other's states. I know that's not a perfect solution, but for right now, could we just be happy with it? Personally, I think gay people will win the battle if they simply get gay marriage to be legal in Vegas.
I will say that I do not support the issue of gay marriage on the federal level at any point in time, simply because it is not an issue that can separate church and state no matter how hard it tries. The money arguments are in fact a matter of civil rights, however, the marriage aspect is historically a religous sacrament instituted by churches. I do not believe any church should be forced or coerced into performing marriages that go against their church doctrine. You have to keep in mind that the U.S. of A. was founded on freedom of religion. The Mormons have a right to their beliefs, as do the Catholics, the Methodists, the Muslims and the Jews.
I realize some people believe being gay is a choice and some people believe being gay is matter of biology. It seems to me that being gay is much like being an alcoholic. Nobody chooses to be an alcoholic, however, a lot of people choose not to drink. Those who know they are alcoholics and choose to drink anyway suffer the consequences of their own actions.
I suppose it might be different if being gay were acceptable worldwide, but it isn't. In some countries being gay is punishable by death. Even the ancient Greeks who promoted homosexuality among men in order for older men to teach younger men about sex believed that after a certain age homosexuality was not acceptable, according to Plato's Republic. And just so we're clear, Plato's Republic was the first major work ever written on the subject of political philosophy some 2500 years ago, before the existence of Christianity.
I don't believe gay people should have to pay higher taxes, or face job discrimination, or be the victims of hate, but then I'm a smoker.
Copyright © 2009 Annette Fortunato
This content may not be copied or reproduced in any way without the express written permission of the author. You are welcome to link to or bookmark this page, but please contact the author via E-Mail if you wish to reproduce this article in whole or in part.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Security
When 9/11 proved that our national security was an illusion, we began to work harder to achieve as much security as we could for our country. It is much wiser to be cautious and safe, than to panic and live in fear, however, being cautious does not necessarily mean we have to be paranoid.
I don't believe many will argue that the whole Guantanamo Bay situation is a mess from start to finish, however, I also believe that all sides are to blame for the mess. An investigation, at this point, would be a waste of time and money. I blame the Bush administration for not being more discreet and promoting fear. I blame the Obama administration for making things worse by releasing memos that only prove transparency in government is a useful tool to distract the masses when you don't want them watching what you are doing, and I blame the media for having bad taste in promoting the whole sordid mess. I sincerely hope the courts have the good sense not to make pictures available to the public. No good can come from doing such a thing.
As much as I don't like the whole issue of waterboarding, the fact of the matter is that Al Jazeera, our enemies television station, broadcasts the beheading of their prisoners. I think we are by far the more civilized people and I find it very doubtful they don't already know we use waterboarding. Releasing the memos wasn't a matter of national security, it was simply a matter of poor taste.
The primary question we have to ask ourselves is do we want to wait for terrorists to come to us, or do we want to hunt them down?
If we wait for them to come to us, then we have a lot of work to do securing our borders. Just because one exercises patience doesn't mean they have a death wish. We already know what their intention is. It's up to us to prepare ourselves for their return.
If we hunt them down, then the second question becomes, what do we do with them when we catch them? The assumption is that we're hunting them, so we can find Osama Bin Laden, therefore, we kind of need to ask them what they know about him. We have to have someplace to ask our questions. Since it's not likely they want to talk to us, they might have to be our guests for awhile, unless of course we simply want to have a polite conversation and let them go on their merry way when they don't answer any of our questions or give us any useful information.
Now I admit, I'm not certain exactly what all the legal ramifications and responsibilities are in this situation, but I am fairly certain that we do have laws that only allow people in this country to be detained for questioning for a certain number of hours or days. These laws make it impossible for us to keep suspected terrorists in our police stations for any length of time, but I don't know if these laws necessarily have to apply to any of our military bases. I believe a military base of some kind is the appropriate place to put the people we catch. It isn't right to put anyone in prison that hasn't been convicted of a crime. I also think it wouldn't be a bad idea for the military to conduct terrorist trials. We all know how backed up our public courts already are. I don't believe the military has that problem.
As for which military base, I don't know. I'll leave that up to my elected officials, at least for now. I'm not sure there are many Americans who live on military bases that want the terrorists on their base, but I could be wrong. I know we have military bases in other countries, but I don't know if other countries will let us take our detainees there.
Yes, it is politically correct to use the term detainees, but the people we catch are really prisoners of war. We declared war on terrorism. We are fighting an army of terrorists. Did you really think we wouldn't take any prisoners? Do you really think using nicer words will make war more tolerable? Waterboarding may not be pretty, but think about what they do to their prisoners of war. I am by no means suggesting we stoop to their level. War will always be ugly. Deal with it. People choose to give up their civil/human rights when they choose to fly planes into buildings full of other people.
Copyright © 2009 Annette Fortunato
This content may not be copied or reproduced in any way without the express written permission of the author. You are welcome to link to or bookmark this page, but please contact the author via E-Mail if you wish to reproduce this article in whole or in part.
I don't believe many will argue that the whole Guantanamo Bay situation is a mess from start to finish, however, I also believe that all sides are to blame for the mess. An investigation, at this point, would be a waste of time and money. I blame the Bush administration for not being more discreet and promoting fear. I blame the Obama administration for making things worse by releasing memos that only prove transparency in government is a useful tool to distract the masses when you don't want them watching what you are doing, and I blame the media for having bad taste in promoting the whole sordid mess. I sincerely hope the courts have the good sense not to make pictures available to the public. No good can come from doing such a thing.
As much as I don't like the whole issue of waterboarding, the fact of the matter is that Al Jazeera, our enemies television station, broadcasts the beheading of their prisoners. I think we are by far the more civilized people and I find it very doubtful they don't already know we use waterboarding. Releasing the memos wasn't a matter of national security, it was simply a matter of poor taste.
The primary question we have to ask ourselves is do we want to wait for terrorists to come to us, or do we want to hunt them down?
If we wait for them to come to us, then we have a lot of work to do securing our borders. Just because one exercises patience doesn't mean they have a death wish. We already know what their intention is. It's up to us to prepare ourselves for their return.
If we hunt them down, then the second question becomes, what do we do with them when we catch them? The assumption is that we're hunting them, so we can find Osama Bin Laden, therefore, we kind of need to ask them what they know about him. We have to have someplace to ask our questions. Since it's not likely they want to talk to us, they might have to be our guests for awhile, unless of course we simply want to have a polite conversation and let them go on their merry way when they don't answer any of our questions or give us any useful information.
Now I admit, I'm not certain exactly what all the legal ramifications and responsibilities are in this situation, but I am fairly certain that we do have laws that only allow people in this country to be detained for questioning for a certain number of hours or days. These laws make it impossible for us to keep suspected terrorists in our police stations for any length of time, but I don't know if these laws necessarily have to apply to any of our military bases. I believe a military base of some kind is the appropriate place to put the people we catch. It isn't right to put anyone in prison that hasn't been convicted of a crime. I also think it wouldn't be a bad idea for the military to conduct terrorist trials. We all know how backed up our public courts already are. I don't believe the military has that problem.
As for which military base, I don't know. I'll leave that up to my elected officials, at least for now. I'm not sure there are many Americans who live on military bases that want the terrorists on their base, but I could be wrong. I know we have military bases in other countries, but I don't know if other countries will let us take our detainees there.
Yes, it is politically correct to use the term detainees, but the people we catch are really prisoners of war. We declared war on terrorism. We are fighting an army of terrorists. Did you really think we wouldn't take any prisoners? Do you really think using nicer words will make war more tolerable? Waterboarding may not be pretty, but think about what they do to their prisoners of war. I am by no means suggesting we stoop to their level. War will always be ugly. Deal with it. People choose to give up their civil/human rights when they choose to fly planes into buildings full of other people.
Copyright © 2009 Annette Fortunato
This content may not be copied or reproduced in any way without the express written permission of the author. You are welcome to link to or bookmark this page, but please contact the author via E-Mail if you wish to reproduce this article in whole or in part.
Saturday, May 9, 2009
Government
The theory that supports the existence of all forms of government is that government exists in order to take care of the segment of the population over which it rules that cannot take care of themselves. Babies cannot take care of themselves. Therefore, government exists, at least in part, to take care of babies.
President Obama has proposed spending money to provide home visits to low-income, first-time parents by trained professionals.
I do not support this initiative. In the first place, this sounds to me like an increase of power for Child Protective Service agencies. They already have too much power to destroy families. The State of Texas proved that when more than 400 children were taken from their families over one phone call. If you want to arrest men for practicing polygamy because it is illegal in this country, then go for it, but do not traumatize the women and children who haven't done anything wrong. You don't have to agree with their beliefs any more than they have to agree with yours. But no one should have the right to traumatize countless families over one phone call. It's just not right.
If we want to make sure our babies are taken care of, then yes, we do need to make sure the parents have the necessary skills to accomplish this goal. I, however, believe that investing more money in public school education and community sponsored parenting classes is a better way. Keep CPS out of it.
I propose putting a daycare center in every high school and allowing students to learn first hand about child care from taking a class that will increase not only their knowledge, but their job skills. Who knows, an hour a day with real, crying, diaper changing needing babies might be a good way to help high school students decide getting pregnant isn't something they want to do while they're still in school. It's just a thought.
Copyright © 2009 Annette Fortunato
This content may not be copied or reproduced in any way without the express written permission of the author. You are welcome to link to or bookmark this page, but please contact the author via E-Mail if you wish to reproduce this article in whole or in part.
President Obama has proposed spending money to provide home visits to low-income, first-time parents by trained professionals.
I do not support this initiative. In the first place, this sounds to me like an increase of power for Child Protective Service agencies. They already have too much power to destroy families. The State of Texas proved that when more than 400 children were taken from their families over one phone call. If you want to arrest men for practicing polygamy because it is illegal in this country, then go for it, but do not traumatize the women and children who haven't done anything wrong. You don't have to agree with their beliefs any more than they have to agree with yours. But no one should have the right to traumatize countless families over one phone call. It's just not right.
If we want to make sure our babies are taken care of, then yes, we do need to make sure the parents have the necessary skills to accomplish this goal. I, however, believe that investing more money in public school education and community sponsored parenting classes is a better way. Keep CPS out of it.
I propose putting a daycare center in every high school and allowing students to learn first hand about child care from taking a class that will increase not only their knowledge, but their job skills. Who knows, an hour a day with real, crying, diaper changing needing babies might be a good way to help high school students decide getting pregnant isn't something they want to do while they're still in school. It's just a thought.
Copyright © 2009 Annette Fortunato
This content may not be copied or reproduced in any way without the express written permission of the author. You are welcome to link to or bookmark this page, but please contact the author via E-Mail if you wish to reproduce this article in whole or in part.
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Reality
When looking at the big picture, reality is global. What we do will have an effect on other people in other countries. Our economic crisis proved that. What other people in other countries choose to do will have an effect on us. Cuba, Mexico, Pakistan, North Korea, China, all prove that. Still, no matter what does or doesn't happen, the worst thing we can do is panic. Swine Flu proved that.
So what do we do now? Well, first thing on my list, is pray. I pray to God, to the Universe, to whatever powers that be that might be listening. Hope requires faith of some kind and I have a lot of hope. Second thing on my list, is to take care of my own personal medical needs. If I want to be useful, then I have to be at least moderately healthy and moderately clean. What we all need to be doing now is paying attention to our own realities without fear.
I've noticed that the media uses fear to make money. I've stopped watching my local news. I don't think criminals deserve to have their names broadcast in my home. I don't want to be suportive of murderers and rapists. I don't want to be a part of their 15 minutes of fame. But that's just me. I still watch the world news. I want to keep up with what's going on in my country. But I have learned that there is such a thing as watching too much television news, so I limit myself to thirty minutes per day.
Reality is that I've got a guy that's getting paid to pay attention to the big picture for me and his name is Barack Obama. He doesn't look scared. Looks can be deceiving. That's why I keep an eye on him. He does, on occasion, get mildly annoyed with reporters. I guess that's one thing he and I have in common.
Reality's not as bad as it looks or seems. Not when you have hope, mixed with a little faith, and some self-respect thrown in for good measure. I hope I live long enough to watch my grandchildren grow up. I have faith that whatever is meant to be will be. I respect myself enough to not want to live my life in fear.
People who use fear to manipulate other people are by definition, terrorists. I don't want to be a terrorist and I don't want to know any terrorists. Just knowing that they exist inspires me to pray. People in other countries are not as fortunate as I am.
Reality is, no matter how bad things might be for people in our country, just about everybody here has it better than a lot of other people in several different countries. Reality is I live in America. I am very lucky. I just hope I remember everyday to be grateful for that.
Copyright © 2009 Annette Fortunato
This content may not be copied or reproduced in any way without the express written permission of the author. You are welcome to link to or bookmark this page, but please contact the author via E-Mail if you wish to reproduce this article in whole or in part.
So what do we do now? Well, first thing on my list, is pray. I pray to God, to the Universe, to whatever powers that be that might be listening. Hope requires faith of some kind and I have a lot of hope. Second thing on my list, is to take care of my own personal medical needs. If I want to be useful, then I have to be at least moderately healthy and moderately clean. What we all need to be doing now is paying attention to our own realities without fear.
I've noticed that the media uses fear to make money. I've stopped watching my local news. I don't think criminals deserve to have their names broadcast in my home. I don't want to be suportive of murderers and rapists. I don't want to be a part of their 15 minutes of fame. But that's just me. I still watch the world news. I want to keep up with what's going on in my country. But I have learned that there is such a thing as watching too much television news, so I limit myself to thirty minutes per day.
Reality is that I've got a guy that's getting paid to pay attention to the big picture for me and his name is Barack Obama. He doesn't look scared. Looks can be deceiving. That's why I keep an eye on him. He does, on occasion, get mildly annoyed with reporters. I guess that's one thing he and I have in common.
Reality's not as bad as it looks or seems. Not when you have hope, mixed with a little faith, and some self-respect thrown in for good measure. I hope I live long enough to watch my grandchildren grow up. I have faith that whatever is meant to be will be. I respect myself enough to not want to live my life in fear.
People who use fear to manipulate other people are by definition, terrorists. I don't want to be a terrorist and I don't want to know any terrorists. Just knowing that they exist inspires me to pray. People in other countries are not as fortunate as I am.
Reality is, no matter how bad things might be for people in our country, just about everybody here has it better than a lot of other people in several different countries. Reality is I live in America. I am very lucky. I just hope I remember everyday to be grateful for that.
Copyright © 2009 Annette Fortunato
This content may not be copied or reproduced in any way without the express written permission of the author. You are welcome to link to or bookmark this page, but please contact the author via E-Mail if you wish to reproduce this article in whole or in part.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
