As an active member of a peace & social justice group, it probably will shock some that I am interested in, and look forward to "Dexter"--a rather bloodthirsty display of one tortured man's attempts to come to terms with his predilection for killing. Michael C. Hall's "Dexter" resonates with even the most deeply committed peacemakers among us, precisely because the show does not shy away from asking questions most of us would rather not face.

If we posit that the majority of the USA never protests man-made, oxymoronic laws like the "death penalty"(condemning someone to death who has committed murder, in order to teach them--and society--that killing is wrong(!)), and we consider that fewer ever even question such laws, we begin to see that a show like "Dexter" actually fills the gaping wound that is the lack of consciousness called the United States....

Without diving into a political rant, on a basic human level, "Dexter" delivers:

what kind of person is ready to risk everything, in the name of what they believe is "justice"? And does it require a certain "psychopathy" or "sociopathy" to carry it out?

Perhaps if more of us were watching Dexter's high "ethical"(only killing those who heinously killed others, etc..) code played out(albeit through his own deviant, immoral acts)we could see the irony implicit in our own government,our country--even ourselves...

This article asks for....Common Sense, please!

While I begged the case just last week for altering one's diet to effect positive change on Global Warming, I'd be the first to tell you it's not the ONLY thing which needs to be done.

Hardly.

WHY can't human beings see that a solution to a given problem is more likely, when multiple strategies are applied?

Thus, we can drive less often, drive a fuel-efficient vehicle, and, if you don't want to go vegan, or even vegetarian, try eating LESS meat.You'll reduce energy consumption, and by consuming less meat, you'll actually possess more energy yourself--of another kind!

For more on this topic, check out my Monday, October 15th post(including quotes from Ariana Huffington), at my Blog, at:

www.lisaallender.com

Peace.

I am excited that Salon was able to notice, and detail that Obama is quieter than the other candidates, that Edwards was quick, and Hilary slipped--indeed, she failed.

But WHY no mention of irresponsibility /silliness on Tim Russert's part?

His asking for pledges, and then adding insult to injury,in his hypothetical scenario in which he asks WHEN the candidates would-- as President-- take action against Iran, was just so much more trumping up of war!Haven't we had ENOUGH of the encouragement of war by the media?

I trust Salon to do a through investigation when it's serious stuff(like the incredible, heartbreaking article on the Abu Ghraib torture, which I read just yesterday)... I also expect you to hold accountable fellow journalists/reporters just as you would hold accountable the politicians.

Peace.

While I am the first to note we Americans have a sense of hubris akin to Ms. Harvilesky's observations, I also think it bears mentioning that we are fully cognizant of this!

Hence, we don't need T.V. shows to point this out. Instead, I think we ENJOY the lashings we get, because it actually ameliorates the pain--real, palpable sorrow that we in this country---nearly all of us have felt---- lo these past 6-going-on-7-years.

I see disillusionment with America, but I also see HOPE in little visiting Pakistani("Aliens in America") boy, too.

Perhaps we should refer to Mark Twain here:

"Loyalty to the country, always. Loyalty to the government, when it deserves it."

Barack Obama has a shot. A GOOD shot. But deep down you all know it:

If Al Gore is not a last-minute-miracle nominee(and I pray for this to happen!), then John Edwards will win the nomination, and Barack Obama will most likely be his V.P.

Hilary will NOT get the nomination for Prez, and I think we all know she won't accept a V.P. spot....

We all want a strong, capable leader to run for President. And having a woman could be a BONUS.But that woman is NOT the I-take-more-$-from-special-interests-and-I-also-parrot-whatever-this-Administration-says-in-regard-to-terror-Hilary.

Barack Obama will eventually, consistently, name her--just as John Edwards currently does. 50% of Democrats won't vote for her, and the percentages are huge(over 70%) among Republicans and Independents who don't like her, or won't even consider voting for her.

If Democrats are serious about winning-- and I hope to God they are-- there is no way Hilary can win the nomination.

Barck Obama's seeming backpedaling was a softened response to Tim Russert for the reasons pointed out in several other letters here--it's two different situations--where one called for him to be a "climax"(the last on the roster to speak in front of an impassioned crowd), while the other called only for some good foreplay(Russert questioning him on "Meet The Press")....

Let's hope for more "money-shots" from both Barack Obama, and John Edwards.

How naive are we, really?

It's incredibly clever to say nuclear weaponry is the "Bomb of the mind", and yes, I get it--it's in our consciousness, etc, etc...

But it's simplistic to believe what Jonathan Schell asks our("nuclear-superior") countries to do, could work.I'm the biggest pacifist you'll meet, but how do put your nuclear arms on the table, and say "Okay, we're reducing, so you guys, stop proliferating..." and expect them to actually do so?

And even if we could trust everyone ELSE to do as we ask, to trust that they will honor their commitments,and keep their promises, we(the US) have already lost credibility just about everywhere in the world, through the us vs. them/good vs. evil mentality of the George W. crew, and that means:

Why would the rest of the world trust US?

I'll read Jonathan Schell's latest book, and I'll get my boots dusted off. I just hope there's still time.