ALTRUISTIC DAD

Check, Check...Is This Thing On?

2004-12-07T01:58:00.000-07:00

I know, I know...it's been a while since I've written any articles for my blog. I've been putting in a lot of late hours at work, spending quality rock-and-roll-jamming time with my daughter, and practicing my harmonica. When I came home from work tonight, my IM program had a message from Alexandra Wilson (I wrote an article about her, which you can read by clicking here). She said that Piers Anthony had mentioned her in his newsletter (yes, that Piers Anthony), and that he had linked my blog. Therefore, she reasoned, I should actually write some more articles for the blog.

You've just read the beginning of my post...and here is the rest of it.

She does have a point. So, here it is.

First, thanks, 'Lex, for mentioning me to Piers Anthony. Secondly, thank you, Piers Anthony, for linking my blog in your newsletter.

I have a few co-workers who hail from the former Soviet Union. One of them, a nice young man by the name of Oleg, had a lengthy conversation with me one night while we were closing the restaurant together. What started this long conversation was that he mentioned the difference between Europeans and Americans was that Americans are much more materialistic. I then told him that I was disgusted with materialism, and that I felt what the world (especially America) needed was more altruism.

My reasoning is simple. The reason people (in this case, Americans) seek more money and more possessions is because they think increasing their wealth, possessions, or social status will bring them happiness. People think, “If only I can get that new car, I will be happy,” or “If only I can earn more money, then I will be happy,” or “If I can win the love of that beautiful person, then I will truly be happy.” But the truth of the matter is, gaining things in this life can only make us temporarily happy. We quickly become bored with what we've gained, and then we are miserable again, seeking something new or better, hoping that it will make us happier for a longer period of time.

The only way to find true happiness in this life is to realize that all we are here for is to be born, live, and die. We must give up the driving hunger for increased wealth, power, and social status—we must realize that pursuing such things for the hope of obtaining happiness will serve only to add to our misery. Once we realize this and let go of that unhealthy urge within ourselves, then we can be truly happy.

As I mentioned in my previous article, The One Thing, the only thing we should concern ourselves with in this life is accumulating as many positive memories as possible while minimizing negative memories. We do this by striving to serve others, to put others first in all that we do, and to make others happy without severely compromising our own well-being. This—the act of selfish selflessness—is the core of altruism.

When I explained this to Oleg, in our late-night conversation at work, he was momentarily speechless. When he spoke again, he told me that I was the first person in America he had ever heard speak of altruism, and that because of what I'd said, he would do some deep reflecting on the role of altruism in his own life.

Coming from a communist-socialist background, Oleg was raised in a culture of altruism, so it was not a new concept for him. However, during his time in the United States, he had begun to feel himself changing...adapting...basically, becoming corrupted by our American culture of materialism and greed.

Oleg and I contemplated a lot with regard to politics that night, and we kept returning to one crucial point: as long as world leaders adhere to the concept that gaining money, property, power, or anything else is going to make them happy—as long as national leaders adhere to a materialistic mindset—there will continue to be needless wars and suffering.

As far as governments go, communism and socialism are both far from perfect. But so is capitalism. The United States needs to stop telling other nations how to run their countries, stop trying to cram capitalism down their throats, and focus on fixing our own nation's problems.

That's enough for this article. I'm tired from working late, I'm angry over my nation's politics, and those two things are not a good combination.

I'll probably practice my harmonica some before going to bed. I've memorized two songs so far: "Popeye the Sailor Man" and "Blowing In the Wind" (by Bob Dylan). I've never been a Dylan fan, but "Blowing In the Wind" was on the list of beginner's songs for my harmonica lessons, so I figured I'd learn it.

Peace.

The Year Of the Drum

2004-11-20T11:21:00.000-07:00

Thanks to my three-year-old daughter, Meghan, when I look back on 2004 in the future, I will remember it (and fondly) as The Year Of the Drum. I know, I know, most kids are into banging on things and into drumming, but you've got to understand—Meghan is really into drums. She can name various types of drums and identify them on sight: bongo, snare, tom-tom, etc...and she shows great enthusiasm and aptitude for learning how to drum.

You've just read the beginning of my post...and here is the rest of it.

Earlier this year, I gave her a couple of those large, metal, popcorn cans (the kind which seem ubiquitous every Holiday Season) and some wooden sticks to beat on them with. For several months, those were her drums.

Four days ago, I took her to the market with me to buy groceries. There, they had a music kit for ten dollars, which included a drum, a maraca, two castanets, a kazoo, a flute, and two plastic drumsticks. It was only ten dollars, and she got so excited about it that I went ahead a bought it for her. Immediately afterward, I took her to a movie rental store and rented School of Rock, because I thought she'd get a thrill out of watching real kids play music in a movie.

Not only did she get a thrill out of watching the kids and playing along with them, but School of Rock has now beaten out all other movie competition for her, becoming Meghan's number one favorite movie (as she puts it) "in the whole wide world!" Over the course of Wednesday and Thursday of this past week, she and I watched it a total of six times, and we watched all of the extras on the DVD. She was absolutely captivated by the scenes with drums in them, and at the end of the first day, she told me that she wanted a drum kit, like the one Freddy Jones plays in the movie.

I told my brother this, and he suggested I go to Wal Mart and get her a drum set. First, I went to the thrift store, but they didn't have one. I then went to a pawn shop near our house, and they had one on display for $109. Meghan loved the fact that it had pedals, a bass hammer, the "high hat" cymbals, a snare drum, a tom-tom, a bass drum, a stool, and a regular cymbal. I asked the clerk at the pawn shop about the drum kit, and she told me that they order the kits brand new, in the box, from a wholesaler. She told me that the drum kit is extremely popular, that they were all sold out, and then she offered to sell me the display model. When she went over to the display model, she found a tag on it, saying that it had already been sold. She told me that they could order a kit for Meghan, and that it would take three days to arrive.

Wanting to compare prices, I took her to Wal Mart, where we looked at the drum kit there. Wal Mart had a kit that looked identical to the one at the pawn shop, but Wal Mart wanted $248. I then decided to order one from the pawn shop.

Meghan is very serious about the drums, and I can assure you that this isn't just a passing interest or a phase for her. The guitar--that was a phase. The harmonica--a phase. Both of those instruments, she played a little, then set them aside. She picks them up every once and a while, plays them, then ignores them for weeks on end. But the drums...it's a whole different story with the drums. Every time she comes to my house, she has to drum. For several months, it was just the metal popcorn cans. Now that she has her plastic drum from the grocer's market (which has a velcro neck strap for carrying and playing), she takes that thing everywhere she goes. She even plays it in the car when we're driving!

This is something so big for her that I won't deny her the gift. Despite the fact that I'm very poor right now and can't really afford to spend the money on it, I know how important this is to my daughter, and I'm going to buy it for her anyway. My sister, DJ suggested that I email our family and ask them to pitch in and contribute money toward the purchase of the drum kit, so that it would be a family gift to Meghan for Christmas. I took DJ's advice, emailed our family, and so far two family members have agreed to contribute.

Yesterday, Meghan went back to the pawn shop with me, to confirm with the store manager that her drum set had been ordered. He was a very nice man, and he read the order back to us—even taking the time to confirm with Meghan that she wanted a red drum kit (they had several colors to choose from). I told Meghan that this will be a Christmas present, but that she will receive it early. When the kit arrives, I will leave the box in my living room, unopened, so that the next time Meghan comes to spend a day or two with me, she can open the box and help me assemble the kit.

I'm sure she will be extremely excited. She already is, and it's difficult for her to be patient while the drum kit is ordered and shipped. But, this is a good lesson in patience for her, and overall she is doing well with it.

I started learning the harmonica a year ago, then slacked off in my practice sessions. Now that Meghan is expressing an increased passion for music, I've started practicing the harmonica again, so that I will be able to make music with her.

When I was telling my best friend about all of this yesterday, I mentioned to him that Meghan wants to ask her mother (my ex-wife) for another drum kit, so that she will have one at each of our houses. My friend (who has a two-year-old son) said, “Maybe she could just get one drum kit, for her mother's house, and then she could do all of her drumming at her mother's house and you wouldn't have to put up with all the noise.”

I looked at him with something of surprise, saying, “You know, the noise isn't all that bad if you get in there and make noise right along with them.”

He seemed to think that was a pretty good concept.

Bush Names Scapegoat

2004-11-16T03:45:00.000-07:00

I heard about all the new governmental resignations from President Bush's cabinet today, and I heard that he's chosen Condoleezza Rice to replace Colin Powell as the Secretary of State. What I didn't hear, until my sister, DJ, sent me the URL to an online news article, was what Bush had told reporters about his decision.

You've just read the beginning of my post...and here is the rest of it.

He told reporters that he's been using the nickname “the unsticker” for Condoleeza Rice for the past four years, because she has the ability to “unstick” problems in Iraq that get caught up in the gears of government.

To me, this sounds like a setup. Bush likes Condi because she makes a good scapegoat. With her in his cabinet, he has somebody to blame (one of several people he can blame) if he makes a colossal mistake and doesn't want to take the heat for it himself.

After reading this article, I told my sister that, If I were Condoleezza Rice, I would resign and become a Democrat. But, after thinking for a few seconds, I added, “Well, I guess if I were her I wouldn't even be there.” To which my sharp-witted sister quickly replied, “No. If you were her, you would love George Bush and think that he had been appointed by God.”

Which, I guess, brings us to one very important point. I'm glad I'm not Condoleezza Rice.

And I'm sure, if she ever reads this article, Condoleezza Rice will be equally (if not moreso) glad that she's not me.

But you know, now that I've had a few more minutes to reflect on this story, it's not so much that Bush has chosen a scapegoat as he's found a way to retain one. And besides, it's not like any Republicans are accepting accountability for their failures these days. They just get their media lackeys to spread lies, twisting the facts so that they can blame the Democrats.

More of My Articles Along This Vein:
The Two-headed Monster (U. S. Politics)
The So-called Debates
Close the Door Or You'll Let In a...
Waste No Vote
The Alexandra Wilson Story
A Little More Information (Part 1 of 2): The Libertarian Party
A Little More Information (Part 2 of 2): The Green Party
Political Thinking
The War On Terrorism
Voting For the Presidency
Deniability
Twelve Years Of Dubya?

Christmas Wishes

2004-11-14T13:54:00.000-07:00

When Meghan was with me the other day, we were sitting at the kitchen table and eating lunch when she said, “I want a Leap Pad for your house. I have one at Mommy's apartment, and I have one at Granny and Papa's house (my ex's parents' house), but I don't have one for your house.”

You've just read the beginning of my post...and here is the rest of it.

Trying to figure out how I could afford to buy one for her, I smiled and replied, “If you want a Leap Pad for my house, I think you should ask Santa Claus for one.”

Meghan glanced at me, then yelled into the air, “Hey, Santa Claus! I want a Leap Pad for Daddy's house!”

Chuckling, I said, “Do you think he heard you?”

Rather matter-of-factly, she replied, “I yelled pretty loud, Dad.”

The next day, she brought up the leap pad again, and I told her that she should ask Santa for one. I was expecting her to remind me of how loudly she had yelled on the previous afternoon, but instead she said, “I don't know his phone number.”

I told her that we would wait until Santa came around, taking requests from children, and then I would take her to see him.

She liked that idea.

Twelve Years Of Dubya?

2004-11-13T03:08:00.000-07:00

If the thought of eight years with George W. Bush as our nation's President is enough to make you want to scream and tear your hair out by the fistfuls, just wait until he tries to repeal the Twenty-second Amendment, doing away with Presidential term limits.

You've just read the beginning of my post...and here is the rest of it.

If you don't think he will, think again. With a self-declared “mandate” and “political capitol” to spend, George Bush will quite likely seek to extend his rule over the United States. What's worse, he might see the fact that he has a strong Republican majority in both the House and the Senate as a sign from God.

In his religiously-driven, fundamentalist brain, Bush could see this as yet more confirmation that God has chosen him to be the leader of the free world, and that no meddling nay-sayers or man-made laws or governmental institutions should stand in his way. George W. Bush might continue to direct the US military to invade and occupy foreign nations, and you can bet your bottom dollar that he'll never invade the nations which actually support terrorism (such as Saudi Arabia, which trained and funded fifteen of the nineteen hijackers who participated in the September Eleventh attacks).

It has been said by people who have worked close to Bush that he takes his directives from God, that he sees his agenda items as missions from God, and that he will fire anybody who doesn't share his views (in other words, he'll fire anyone who doesn't agree that Bush is God's Chosen One).

When I say this next part, I must proceed with caution. Bush is a dictator. His view of politics and his vision for governing the United States are clearly fascist in nature. If he continues down his current path, believing himself to be some chosen, prophetic leader under a Divine calling and accountable solely to the authority of God Almighty, then he will grow progressively worse, and he will exhibit increasingly serious and increasingly dangerous behaviors.

He is not yet at the level of such men as Stalin, Nero, Caligula, Hitler, or Sadam Hussein...but the path he is following is perilously similar to the paths of those men. Every one of those men believed they were chosen by God, and every one of those men believed that they weren't accountable to the ways or the laws of mankind. They believed (as Bush believes) that their calling from God transcended all mortal laws and institutions.

I repeat, for clarity, Bush has not yet reached the level of the dictators mentioned above, but he needs to wake up from the religious delusion he's under, for the only thing continuing down his current path can bring is increasing disaster.

Bush has convinced himself that God has handed him a mandate, via the 2004 election. Blinded by his religious fervor, he cannot see that forty-nine percent of American voters were against him. All he sees are those red states on the electoral map, all he feels is that “warm fuzzy” feeling, and when he thinks about the fact that he now has a Republican majority in both houses of Congress, he probably gets goose bumps. And with that warm fuzzy, goose-bumpy feeling, he thinks he hears to voice of God, telling him that he's the Chosen One; whispering in his ear, “You've earned some political capitol. Now go and spend it.”

Everyone is watching out for the obvious: appointing pro-life Supreme Court justices, trying to overturn Roe vs. Wade, calling for a military draft, ramping up even more war to line his own pockets and the pockets of his corporate friends at the expense of our nation's soldiers...but I haven't heard anybody yet who has expressed concern over the strong possibility that George Bush will want to do away with term limits.

Watch for it. And remember, you saw it here first.

More of My Articles Along This Vein:
The Two-headed Monster (U. S. Politics)
The So-called Debates
Close the Door Or You'll Let In a...
Waste No Vote
The Alexandra Wilson Story
A Little More Information (Part 1 of 2): The Libertarian Party
A Little More Information (Part 2 of 2): The Green Party
Political Thinking
The War On Terrorism
Voting For the Presidency
Deniability

Money Lessons

2004-11-12T01:19:00.000-07:00

It's twelve forty in the morning, and I'm not quite sure what to write about. I'm sitting here, though, with the urge to write something, and so write I will.

Yesterday was the second of two consecutive days off for me. Fortunately, I was able to have my daughter, Meghan, for both days and nights. Even as I type this, she is playing with her stuffed animals on her bed (it appears as though she will take after both me and my mother, who are both night owls).

You've just read the beginning of my post...and here is the rest of it.

We watched a couple of movies together (Stewart Little 2 and Shrek 2), played with blocks, played some board games, and just had an overall good time with each other.

Early yesterday afternoon, I gave her a dollar. After handing her the one-dollar bill, I explained to her that she could either spend it or save it for later, and that if she saved it for later she could add more money to it, and eventually she would have enough dollars to buy something more expensive (or she could just keep on saving it). She did the typical middle-to-lower-class-American thing...she decided to spend it right away.

I took her to the dollar store, where I told her she could buy anything she wanted. Somewhere between the car and the cash register, she lost her dollar. I went back through the store and the parking lot with her, searching for the lost money. When it couldn't be found, I explained to her that I wouldn't give her another dollar because she needs to learn the importance of not losing her money.

Of course, she is only three years old, but there are two important factors to consider: 1.) I'm poor, and 2.) I don't want my daughter to grow up with the impression that money is something to be tossed about and easily replaced. I think now is a good time to start teaching her the value of money.

Also in the course of our conversation (when I was explaining to her about saving money), she told me that she didn't have any other dollars to put with it and save. I told her that she had lots of money, at home in her piggy bank, and that the money in her bank added up to several more dollars. She was confused about this, because in her three-year-old brain, money is coins and dollars are paper. She just looked at me, perplexed, and said, “But that's not dollars in my pig. That's money.”

I started to explain to her that coins added up to dollars, and while she clearly expressed an interest in learning, she didn't seem to grasp what I was talking about. So, in a moment of paternal inspiration, I thought, I know! Visual aids will help! So, I asked her if she would like to learn about money after we returned home. She said, “Yeah, Dad! That would be great!”

So, after we got home and finished watching movies (she thought Stewart and Shrek were more important than money), we got her piggy bank and dumped a bunch of coins out onto the kitchen table. I began by laying out a one dollar bill (which I pulled from my wallet). I then explained to her that one dollar was the same as one hundred pennies. I went down the line, saying, “A nickel is five pennies, a dime is ten pennies, and a quarter is twenty-five pennies.”

She looked at me like I was growing antennae from my head. Thinking she needed some more visualization, I took five pennies and arranged them neatly, saying, “This is five pennies. It's the same as a nickel.” I arranged five more pennies, neatly, beside the first batch. “Now there are ten pennies, which is the same as a dime.”

She reached for a dime, three nickels, and then another dime, which she arranged neatly on the table, saying, “See what I can make?”

I said, “That's very nice, Meghan. Do you know how many pennies that is?”

“No, but do you want to see me make a circle?”

I chuckled and said, “Sure. Make a circle.”

As she was making her circle, I said, “You're not getting this money thing, are you?”

“No,” she shook her head. “See my circle?”

“Wow! That's great! Good job.”

Most of the things my daughter does are great, and I should know. I'm her dad.

Meghan and I put the coins back into her pig. I returned the dollar bill to my wallet. Then, we went into the living room to play with her blocks.

I guess she's still a little young for math lessons.

Marital Debt

2004-11-09T23:57:00.000-07:00

When I came home from work tonight, an email from my ex was waiting for me. It said, “I need you to start paying your marital debt as agreed to in our divorce. I feel I have been more than understanding of your financial hardships, but now it is ridiculous. I don’t want to have to take you to court on a contempt citation but unless you start making full payments and trying to pay off what you are behind I will be forced to. ”

You've just read the beginning of my post...and here is the rest of it.

Now, I must explain to you that the marital debt of which my ex-wife writes is twelve thousand dollars, which she borrowed from her father without my knowledge and against my will (the reason she borrowed it secretively was because she knew I disapproved).

Here is what I wrote to her, in reply.

“If it wasn't so sad, it would be funny. I'm currently netting about $150 to $180 per paycheck. Out of that, I have to pay for gas, car insurance, utilities, groceries, and rent. I'm currently four months behind on rent and utilities. So, you can take me to court if you want to, but you won't get any money. ”

That pretty much sums it up. Right now, I feel like laughing at the situation, but at the same time I feel like crying.

I think I'll read some more Al Franken, to take my mind off of things.

The First American Dictator

2004-11-09T05:26:00.000-07:00

My online blogger friend, Dr. Rob (from Britain), recently posted an article to his own blog, which he titled, "America the Brave." In his article, he wrote, "The United States is still an adolescent in the family of Western Nations. It is young, barely out of its teens whereas the rest of the Western Nations are well into middle age, mature, solid, sure of themselves. These Western European Nations have been at it for centuries, we have a history. We’ve had our squabbles, spats, fights and Wars over more than 1000 years. We’ve bloodied noses and bit off ears with the best of them, before even the US was a twinkle in someone’s eye. Now I think the US is jealous, they want to flex a bit of muscle, they want to do what their older brothers have done."

I wrote a responding comment on Rob's blog, which I'm repeating here (with a few minor editorial changes, to make it fit with my own blog).

You've just read the beginning of my post...and here is the rest of it.

I do respect Rob's opinions, and I especially appreciate the fact that he's exploring the world for the Truth. However, I have to disagree with the "America is jealous" theory. Americans (for the most part) are too proud and self-absorbed to be jealous of any other nation.

I'll tell you what I think the problem is. I think it's the American religious revival, which started in the mid-eighties, carried on through the nineties, and is still going strong today. This, coupled with a strong, deliberate plan by the conservative, racist, war-mongering right wing of America (which started with the Presidential election of 1964), has branched out to take increasing control over every aspect of American culture; especially politics and media.

A lot of the people who voted for Bush in 2004 were church-going Christians who said they didn't agree with Bush or his policies, but that they thought God wanted him in the White House because Bush was/is an evangelical Christian.

This is a frightening state of affairs. We are becoming (or have become) a nation where people think, "God is on our side, so we will thwart the evil-doers of the world (where have you heard that term used before?) and do whatever it takes (another Bushism) to stand firm (another) and bring these terrorists to justice (another)."

As anyone of intelligence and an open mind will know, this is exactly the way the Arabic nations think. This is the kind of radical, extremist, religiously-driven bull shit that causes nations to invade other countries, declaring Holy War, and murdering innocent men, women, and children by the thousands.

Shortly after the September Eleventh attacks, George W. Bush declared that he would launch "a Crusade" against the terrorists. His advisors quickly rushed in to make him change his choice of wording, but I believe his original terminology was most true to Bush's nature. Ever since that point (mere days after the attacks), I've been telling people that George W. Bush is America's first dictator.

He is making political and military decisions of war based on his own religious fervor and self-righteous pride. And, unfortunately, he has been convincing the American religious masses to follow his leadership and believe his lies.

So, while I do respect Dr. Rob's opinions, and while I do appreciate his efforts to expose the truth, the fact of the matter is that America isn't jealous of Europe or anybody else in the world. America (as long as Bush is in power) is a nation at seige, being oppressed by the iron-handed rule of a religious lunatic, fascist dictator.

More of My Articles Along This Vein:
The Two-headed Monster (U. S. Politics)
The So-called Debates
Close the Door Or You'll Let In a...
Waste No Vote
The Alexandra Wilson Story
A Little More Information (Part 1 of 2): The Libertarian Party
A Little More Information (Part 2 of 2): The Green Party
Political Thinking
The War On Terrorism
Voting For the Presidency
Deniability

Deniability

2004-11-08T01:59:00.000-07:00

Roy Blount, Jr. is a comedian who appears regularly on one of my favorite radio shows, "Wait Wait...Don't Tell Me!" and this weekend made a guest appearance on "A Prairie Home Companion." He said something which I found to be quite true of our currenty President. I'm paraphrasing here, but he said that in the Reagan years, it was all about plausible deniability. If Reagan or his buddies screwed up, they could deny it as long as their deniability was plausible. George W. Bush is doing the same thing, but he's just dropped the "plausible" part of it and taken the thing to a whole new level.

Deniability.

You've just read the beginning of my post...and here is the rest of it.

Evidently, in the mind of George W. Bush and his administration, if you screw something up all you have to do is deny it. Lie your ass off, and the American people will let you off the hook.

Since the election results came back from this year's Presidential vote, a record number of Americans have been contacting the Canadian government, asking for information on moving to Canada and changing citizenship. I think a large percentage of these people are probably families with young men who are of drafting age. Wisely, they see through Bush's lies and know that a military draft is inevitable. And, wisely, they realize that the war in Iraq is a waste of time, energy, resources, and (most importantly) human lives.

Do you know the difference between the Vietnam War and the War In Iraq? George W. Bush had a plan for getting out of the Vietnam War.

My stepdad, who is dying of cancer (has about three to five years left, according to the cancer doctors), is an ex-marine. He is so pissed off at George W. Bush, the mistreatment of American veterans, and the lies of the Republican party, and the outcome of the 2004 election that he now refuses to let anyone discuss politics in his presence.

He says, "I don't have time for that bull shit."

And I can't blame him. With precious little time remaining in this life, he doesn't want to waste his time stewing over things he can't change or control.

I, on the other hand, am still relatively young (thirty-three), in decent health, and am going to continue to do what I can to increase public awareness with regard to the declining state of our nation.

I may or may not be able to make a noticeable difference, but at least I won't have to look back on my life later and regret not having tried.

More of My Articles Along This Vein:
The Two-headed Monster (U. S. Politics)
The So-called Debates
Close the Door Or You'll Let In a...
Waste No Vote
The Alexandra Wilson Story
A Little More Information (Part 1 of 2): The Libertarian Party
A Little More Information (Part 2 of 2): The Green Party
Political Thinking
The War On Terrorism
Voting For the Presidency

Voting For the Presidency

2004-11-03T06:10:00.000-07:00

I have to tell you, I've voted for every Presidential election since I turned eighteen (the legal voting age in the U.S.), and this is the first time I can remember ever losing sleep over one. On the eve before the election, my mind was racing with thoughts about the political situation of our country. I read for a while (I'm about a third of the way through Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them by Al Franken), played a video game for a while, then left my house at about ten till six, so that I could be in line when the voting started.

You've just read the beginning of my post...and here is the rest of it.

My polling place was a nearby school, and when I arrived, I was surprised to find that the parking lot was nearly full. On my way toward the front doors, there were two people—one to either side of the sidewalk. One of them was handing out copies of The Missouri Voter's Bill of Rights. The other person was handing out a narrow sheet of orange-yellow paper, on which were instructions on how to vote party-line Democrat. I graciously accepted both fliers, walked the rest of the way to the front door of the schoolhouse, and on the door I saw a white sign, declaring that electioneering was illegal within twenty-five feet of the sign.

I glanced back at the two people who were handing out the fliers, thought to myself, That looks like twenty-five feet, and then I opened the door and stepped inside.

There were about seventy to eighty people in line. I followed the line back, around the corner, remarking to the young black woman who was walking ahead of me, “Wow. I'm glad I got here at six o'clock.”

She took her position at the end of the line, I took my position behind her, and within seconds there were several more people behind me. The lady behind me expressed concern over the possibility that she might be late for work. She had a cell phone in her hand, and I told her that she could always call her boss if she was running late. Voting is an important and respected civic duty, and it is illegal for an employer to deny an employee time off work to vote.

The line moved rather quickly, and within fifteen minutes of arrival, I was standing in front of a folding table, behind which were seated two elderly people—a man and a woman. The two of them were bickering back and forth as they worked, obviously feeling pressured by the large number of people who had turned out to vote.

A young black man showed his driver's license and voter registration card. The lady looked up at him and said, “You've already voted.”

A middle-aged black man, who was voting at a booth behind me, turned around and said, “He's my son. We both have the same first name, and he's the third.”

The old lady quickly found the son's name on the list, and he soon had his ballot and was directed to a booth. When I showed my driver's license and registration card, my name was quickly found (no confusion there). I initialed next to my name, signed next to that, was handed back my I.D., registration card, and a punch-card ballot that was inside of a secrecy envelope.

In the U.S., election procedures can vary from state to state. For example, in some states people vote in standing booths that are metal frames with a curtain all around, concealing the voter from head to foot. At my polling place, there were about thirty booths at counter-top height, and they were more like separate desks with metal blinders on either side, rising to about three feet above the desktops.

I was told that there were two booths open, so I walked over to one. There was a slot for the punch-card, which had two holes on the top. The card slot had two red pegs, which went through the top holes on the ballot card, holding it firmly in place. A short, metal stylus was chained to the desktop, and most of the stylus's length was encased in a blue, plastic handle.

In the center of the desktop, a booklet was securely attached. I read the front of the booklet, which gave concise, clear directions on how to vote. Ignoring the advice of the electioneer outside, I voted party-line Libertarian (which could be done by punching a hole next to the party of my choice on the first page of the booklet). I then flipped to the rearmost section of the booklet, voted against a tax increase to build sports arenas, voted to keep all the current Missouri Supreme Court Justices, voted for an amendment to the Missouri Constitution, making it unconstitutional for tax dollars earmarked for highways to be spent elswhere...and then I was done.

I closed the booklet, returned the stylus to its holder, and then retrieved my ballot card (which I slipped into the secrecy envelope). There was a friendly little old black woman who was sitting next to the ballot box. I let her tear the top section off of my ballot. She thanked me as I dropped my ballot into the steel box, and I thanked her back as I picked up an “I voted” sticker from on top of the box. I walked out the door, down the sidewalk, between the two electioneers, around the corner of the schoolhouse, and got into my car.

Five minutes later—about twenty-five minutes after leaving my house—I was back home.

Voting felt good. Voting for a candidate—for a party—I truly believe in felt very good. George W. Bush has been reelected, John F. Kerry has lost the election, and I'm not happy about that. Some people would probably want to ask me why I voted for Michael Badnarik, if I wanted Bush out of the White House. To them, I have to say, “If I had voted for John Kerry, I would have been voting for the lesser of two evils...which means that I still would have been voting for evil. At least this way, I know that I voted for somebody who I felt would—if elected—do the right thing.”

I voted with a clean conscience. I stayed true to myself. My candidate didn't win the Presidency, but I feel that I did the right thing by voting for him, and by voting for the party I believe in.

More of My Articles Along This Vein:
The Two-headed Monster (U. S. Politics)
The So-called Debates
Close the Door Or You'll Let In a...
Waste No Vote
The Alexandra Wilson Story
A Little More Information (Part 1 of 2): The Libertarian Party
A Little More Information (Part 2 of 2): The Green Party
Political Thinking
The War On Terrorism

We Know What You Want

2004-11-02T01:56:00.000-07:00

Being a divorced father, and living with an income which is below the poverty level, over the past couple of years I've found myself seeking no-cost sources of entertainment for myself and my daughter. Given that, for three of my five days a week with my daughter, I have to make a thirty-minute commute to spend three hours with her, I have found several such sources of free entertainment: parks, libraries, browsing through stores...

You've just read the beginning of my post...and here is the rest of it.

There is a mall near my ex-wife's apartment, and inside the mall there is a carousel, a train, and some sculpted “faux nature” playground objects (hollow fallen log, tent, canoe, big mushrooms, tree stumps). The carousel and the train each cost $1.50 per passenger, per ride, so it is rare that my three-year-old daughter and I are able to afford them. The “faux nature” playground equipment, on the other hand, is completely free of charge.

Today, I was sitting on a bench, watching my daughter run around excitedly and play with about thirty other children, when I happened to glance up. Overhead, the second floor of the mall had an opening in it, and on the side of the opening (the side of the floor, as it were) I saw five large, glowing words—glowing bright green, and difficult to read because their projector had been poorly aimed. The words read:

“WE KNOW WHAT YOU WANT”

Upon reading it, my initial reaction was to chuckle, and then I began to ponder. Who, exactly, is “We?” Is We supposed to be the stuffed-shirt mall executives? Is We the maintenance crew, who installed and aimed (however shoddily) the projector? Or is We some other, more mysterious entity—a behind-the-scenes, covert organization, consisting of nosy busybodies who have nothing better to do with their time than to sit around trying to figure out what I want?

Which leads to my second and third questions. 2.) Why does We care what I want, and 3.) Why do they feel the need to project their declaration of knowledge in four-foot-tall, green lettering on the side of the second floor of Oak Park Mall?

I mean, come on. This makes no sense to me. It would be like me calling up somebody at random, saying, “I know what you did last summer,” and then hanging up the phone.

Creepy, isn't it?

If I knew who We was, I might ask We what We intends to do with this knowledge. If somebody went to all the trouble of hanging a track light from the mall ceiling, equipping it with a green filter and making it spell out a message—

—WE KNOW WHAT YOU WANT—

—then wouldn't you think that this “We” entity would want to do something about it? And why, for crying out loud, did this “We” entity waste all that time, energy, and money projecting the message when the same resources could have been directed toward actually giving me what I want?

Actually, I'm not so sure that this “We” even knows what “We” claims to know. I certainly don't want cryptic messages about me, projected in large, glowing letters in public places. If “We” has so much money and time to spare, why can't “We” pay off some of my debts for me, or better yet—hire a great divorce lawyer for me, so that I can eliminate this unjust amount of child support and get more time with my daughter?

That's what I really want.

The War On Terrorism

2004-10-29T01:53:00.000-06:00

It's one o'clock in the morning. This is the one night this week that my daughter gets to spend the night at my house, and she is sound asleep. I've been sitting in my recliner for about half an hour, with the laptop, just trying to think of a topic for this article.

One idea, which came to me in the middle of my fitful sleep, was to write about the War On Terrorism.

You've just read the beginning of my post...and here is the rest of it.

My brother and I got into a debate over politics about a week and a half ago. He is a staunch Bush supporter, so we have a lot that we disagree on. One thing we did (after some argument) agree upon was the fact that a war against terrorists can never be won by invading other countries, bombing their cities, and killing their civilians. When we do that, all we are doing is creating more terrorists.

The only effective way to actually fight a war against terrorists is to get good intelligence, acquire the names and locations of the terrorists, then send Special Forces units in to kill the terrorists and their families—leaving all the other, presumably innocent, people unharmed.

Of course, even this isn't perfect, for even the best intelligence in the world is still based on information gathered by human beings, and there are bound to be mistakes. Inevitably, innocent people would still be mistaken for terrorists, and actual terrorists would occasionally be mistaken for innocent civilians.

Even so, it would be much better than charging into another nation with an army, bombing their cities, and then proceeding with a land war that is almost entirely urban in nature.

There is no doubt in my mind that our President had no business sending our soldiers into Iraq to attack their people. As I stated in previous articles, we need to end this war immediately. We need to apologize to the world—especially to the Iraqis—and then bring our troops home.

President Bush and his accomplices have tried to convince us that there is a link between Iraq and Al Quaeda, and that the reason Bush sent our armed forces into Iraq was to fight terrorism. The Iraqis weren't terrorists. Since the invasion of Iraq began, however, I wouldn't doubt (or blame them, for that matter) if thousands of Iraqi citizens have turned to terrorism as a means to strike back and defend their homeland.

If the roles were reversed, American citizens would do the same. If, after 9/11, legions of foreign soldiers came rushing into our country, bombing our cities from the air, destroying things (and people) with tanks, chasing down and shooting innocent civilians from Humvees or on foot, don't think for a single second that we wouldn't have fought back. And don't think for a half a heartbeat that, if a bomb or a bullet struck down my three-year-old daughter, I wouldn't do everything and anything—anything—in my power to strike back, hurt, and kill those responsible.

Any one of us would do the same. That's what the Iraqi citizens are doing—defending their homes, their friends, their families, avenging the deaths of their loved ones...and there are people in America who want to call that terrorism.

What the people of Iraq are doing isn't terrorism—it's self defense. We should be deeply ashamed and humiliated over what we have done to them. We should be outraged over what our President has done to them in our name. There is no justification for the pain and suffering the United States (and Britain) have inflicted on the people of Iraq.

I hear people in the U.S. (the so-called “Security Moms”) saying that they don't want a President elected who won't stand firm in Iraq. Give me a break! Until we invaded Iraq, there was no threat in Iraq. And most of the people who are fighting us in Iraq are doing so to get us out of Iraq.

By invading Iraq, President Bush has created a Terrorism Generator. For every month since we attacked Baghdad, the number of terrorist attacks in the world have been higher than the previous month. By fighting and killing innocent civilians in an unjustified, immoral, unethical, and illegal war, President Bush has been adding fuel to the proverbial fire, which he alleges to be trying to put out.

It's like fighting a fire with tanker trucks full of napalm.

If we were to leave Iraq today, apologize sincerely for what we've done, and take up a defense-only stance with our military forces while sending financial reparations to Iraq, our chances of being attacked by terrorists would begin to decline. We would never be absolutely invulnerable to terrorism—never have been, never will be—but, over time, the number of people who are pissed off at us would decrease.

Bush and his supporters would like us to believe (have actually told us, repeatedly) that the only reason terrorists attacked the United States on September 11, 2001 was because they hated our American values—our freedom and our prosperity. This is not the case, and until we, as a nation, can own up to the fact that we committed specific, horrendous atrocities to anger the people of other nations, we will never be able to make significant progress in our struggle to overcome terrorism.

We need to examine our own past deeds, find what things we did (or failed to do) that angered these other people to the point of war...and then we need to heal those old wounds. We need to swallow our American pride, apologize for what we did to hurt them so badly, and then try to make amends.

That's really hard to do when we're invading other countries and killing innocent civilians. Somehow, it's just a lot harder for others to trust our sincerity.

More of My Articles Along This Vein:
The Two-headed Monster (U. S. Politics)
The So-called Debates
Close the Door Or You'll Let In a...
Waste No Vote
The Alexandra Wilson Story
A Little More Information (Part 1 of 2): The Libertarian Party
A Little More Information (Part 2 of 2): The Green Party
Political Thinking

Political Thinking

2004-10-28T01:17:00.000-06:00

I'm not sure whether or not my political articles are doing much good (or if they're even being read by U.S. Citizens). If I use comments as a unit of measure, then my articles which deal with philosophy and day-to-day life get read quite a bit more (or at least make more of an impression on people, since the non-political articles seem to motivate people to comment more). The Alexandra Wilson Story got some comments, but that wasn't purely political...it was a human interest/political article, with a hint of philosophy.

You've just read the beginning of my post...and here is the rest of it.

So, I guess my point to ponder is whether or not I should bother to write articles about American politics at all. I'm sure the die-hard Republicans and die-hard Democrats would all prefer I stopped writing them, since I write with a strong third-party bias.

Oh, who am I trying to kid here? I won't stop writing about politics. If I stopped writing about politics, mine would be one less voice heard, which would mean one less chance that a difference might be made. The third-party movement in America is a team effort, and we need all the help we can get.

And hey-—for the record—-I don't want to hear any more foreigners encouraging the assassination of my President. I may not have voted for him, I may not agree with most of what he's done or what he's currently doing, and I may think he's a fascist dictator who needs to be stoppped...but he is still my President, and I take offense at anybody threatening to kill him. (I'm making reference to an article that appeared in the UK's Guardian. To read about it, click here.)

As an American, I have the power to cast my vote on Election Day. If that fails to remove him from office, then there are other, non-violent options for getting him out of the White House (such as impeachment).

If anybody assassinates President Bush, I hope everybody involved in the assassination plot is tracked down and severely punished.

Violence is not the answer.

More of My Articles Along This Vein:
The Two-headed Monster (U. S. Politics)
The So-called Debates
Close the Door Or You'll Let In a...
Waste No Vote
The Alexandra Wilson Story
A Little More Information (Part 1 of 2): The Libertarian Party
A Little More Information (Part 2 of 2): The Green Party

Tuning In

2004-10-28T01:14:00.000-06:00

It's a very unusual experience, this energy flux. I want to thank Rabab for her insightful explanation. I think she is right, and that the light I've been seeing during meditation is the energy pool, of which we and everything around us are a part.

You've just read the beginning of my post...and here is the rest of it.

I came home from work again tonight, and while the feeling of the energy wasn't as strong as it was when I returned home from work yesterday, it was still present, so I decided to meditate. I turned off all the lights, leaned back in my recliner, and relaxed both my body and my mind. For nearly an hour, I sat, becoming increasingly aware of the energy around me, inside of me...and I felt my way through a few areas in my life (work, writing, my relationship with my daughter), and as I felt the energy of each of these things, I found myself learning new things about them—and gaining new insights into my own life.

I stopped meditating after about an hour, and I went upstairs to get a snack. As I walked through the house, I continued to be aware of the energy in everything around me. There were things I felt compelled to touch-—and I did touch a few of them—-to feel the energy within them. My skin detected no energy, but my body and mind could still sense the energy. It was a very strange sensation, and it is still going on.

My fingers and wrists are touching my laptop computer while I type this article, but the skin on my fingers and wrists sense nothing of the energy. However, if I relax-—even slightly-—and focus my mind on the laptop, I get a very strong sense of the energy within...even down to areas of increased activity, such as the hard drive and the processor.

It would be cool if I could figure out a way to use this new insight (this new “energy vision”) to move physical objects without touching them. But, I doubt I'll ever gain the power of telekinesis, so I'll just have to settle for the really cool ability to sense the energy in the things around me.

What I would really like to find out is what useful, practical applications such an ability can have in my life. I'm sure there must be some. Perhaps this is another area where my friend, Rabab, could give me some answers.

I feel like, over the past year, my mind has been slowly tuning in...searching for just the right frequency, so that it could sense the vibrations of energy frequencies in the surrounding universe. Last Saturday, I was listening to one of my favorite radio programs on NPR, “Wait Wait, Don't Tell Me,” and they have this game where three of their staff members tell a story. Two of the stories are made up, and the other one is the truth. When I was listening to them, I could tell by their voices—-subtle qualities in their voices—-which of them were lying and which one was telling the truth.

I've never been able to do that before, and I think it was at that point (or very near to it) that my mind began to find the edge of the frequency—-the “tuning in” point, where it could focus and pick up energy waves from various sources.

Hopefully, I will be able to find a way to use this ability for the benefit of others. I'd be rather disappointed if it turned out to be little more than a personal novelty item.

Energy Flux

2004-10-26T13:43:00.000-06:00

My daughter is sick today--cold and flu season, don't you know--and she's come down with her third cold of the season. My ex-wife called me at work last night to tell me that Meghan was running a fever of one hundred and three degrees, Fahrenheit. After a brief discussion, we agreed that Meghan shouldn't go out with me today, so that she could stay in and rest.

I came home from work last night / early this morning, and my energy was off. I sat down in my recliner, and I felt like I had no energy to do anything--like I was physically drained, despite the fact that I've been getting plenty of sleep over the past several days. But that's not the strangest part of it. What's really strange is that, while I was feeling physically exhausted, my energy level was “snapping” every two to five seconds, and each time it would “snap,” I felt like I was going to pop right out of my body.

You've just read the beginning of my post...and here is the rest of it.

In an effort to control the energy flux, I leaned the recliner back, rested my hands across my lap, closed my eyes, and began to meditate. Within seconds--without even trying--I could see a brilliant, white light. This, I believe was the energy pool, of which everything (living and non-living) in our universe is a part (for more on my philosophy about such things, read my article, “The One Thing”).

After meditating for a little over an hour, the energy flux was still present, so I went to bed and fell asleep. That was at about two o'clock in the morning, and I didn't wake up until two in the afternoon.

While the energy flux has subsided somewhat, it is still present. I'm no longer physically exhausted, but I still feel this flow of energy, coarsing through my body and mind. I haven't eaten or drunk anything out of the ordinary recently, nor do I feel like I'm coming down with any form of illness. Of course, the sensation I'm feeling could very well be the primary symptom of an illness...but I have no idea what that illness might be.

Currently (no pun intended), my theory is that this has something to do with my understanding and awareness of the universal energy pool. If that is the case--if my growing awareness of this truth is causing me to feel the energy more strongly--I find it somewhat amusing, because there are people in this world who devote years out of their lives, going through bizarre rituals, subjecting themselves to extreme self-deprivation, meditating for days, months, years on end, trying to discover the truth...and do you know how much time I meditate? I think (counting last night) that I've probably meditated (sat down, closed my eyes, cleared my mind, and meditated) for a total of four hours in the past ten years.

On top of that, I've never been schooled in meditation. I just do what feels right (when and if I do it at all).

I've got an online friend, Rabab, who teaches meditation. Maybe she can help me understand my situation.

A Little More Information (Part 2 of 2): The Green Party

2004-10-25T13:58:00.000-06:00

This is the second of a two-part series of articles, in which I hope to help inform people regarding two of our third-party political organizations in the United States. In the first article, I wrote about the Libertarian Party. In this article, I will write about the Green Party. For the sake of comparison, I will address the same issues in this article as I did in the first one.

You've just read the beginning of my post...and here is the rest of it.

Quoting directly from the Green Party of the United States Platform 2004, “The Green Party of the United States is a federation of state Green Parties. Committed to environmentalism, non-violence, social justice and grassroots organizing, Greens are renewing democracy without the support of corporate donors. Greens provide real solutions for real problems.”

Where the Libertarian Party is for downsizing the federal government and increasing personal liberties, the Green Party is for maintaining the size of the federal government and making some adjustments to existing policies.

Every year, politicians on Capitol Hill pass out over eighty-seven billion taxpayer dollars to more than one hundred of the nation's largest and wealthiest companies. Although this practice, known as “corporate welfare,” is not addressed by the Green Party platform directly, they do write, “...we seek to dissolve the grip of the ideology, intoned by big-money interests for more than twenty years...that government should rightly 'starve the beast' by slashing all spending on social programs.”

In addition, the Green Party is for the decentralization of wealth, so that wealth is more fairly and evenly dispersed among all the population.

Regarding education, the Green Party believes that the federal government should remain involved, but that federal policy should be reformed so that it acts principally to ensure equal access to a quality education. The Greens also propose a plan to encourage parental involvement in the education process, as well as a plan for increasing school funding and using part of the additional money to increase teachers' salaries.

When writing about their approach to the crime issue, the Green Party seems to parallel the ideas of the Libertarian Party. Greens are for legalizing “no-victim” crimes, such as drug use, prostitution, and gambling. Greens, like the Libertarians, are also for ending the War On Drugs. Doing these things would free up law enforcement resources to go after the real criminals of our society.

On the environment, the Green Party Platform has a lot to say. Under their “Environmental Justice” section, they list seven bullet points, outlining their structure for approaching issues of crime against the environment: 1.) enforcing strict penalties against environmental criminals, 2.) funding environmental crime units in counties with a high occurrence of environmental crimes, 3.) imposing a moratorium on siting new toxic chemical or waste facilities in those counties with the highest percentage exposure to hazardous substances, 4.) not forcing workers to choose between a hazardous job or no job at all, 5.) preventing communities, especially low-income or minority communities, from being coerced by government agencies or corporations into siting hazardous materials, or accepting environmentally hazardous practices in order to create jobs, 6.) preceding the siting of hazardous materials or practices with public hearings, conducted in the language of those community members who will be directly effected, and 7.) requiring corporations to permit on-site visitations by community watch-dog committees, and the appointment of a neighborhood environmentalist to their board of directors.

There is much, much more on the environment (in detail) further into the seventy-six-page platform document. Under their section, “Ecological Sustainability,” the Greens cover the following items: Energy, Nuclear Issues, Transportation, Waste Management, Clean Air / Greenhouse Effect / Ozone Depletion, Land Use and Sustainable Cities, Water, Agriculture, Biological Diversity, Ethical Treatment of Animals, Forestry Practices, and Ocean Protection.

The Green Party addresses the issue of poverty (and how to help people overcome poverty) under their section, “Welfare: A Commitment to Ending Poverty.” Greens are in favor of supporting the “big government” approach to the welfare system, and for repealing time limits on welfare. In their 2004 platform, Greens write, “Such support should not be given grudgingly...We call for restoration of a federally funded entitlement (welfare) program to support children, families, the unemployed, elderly and disabled, with no time limit on benefits.”

Quoting, again, directly from the Green Party's 2004 platform, “The Green Party opposes the privatization of Social Security. It is critical that the public protections of Social Security are not privatized and subjected to increased risk. The bottom 20% of American senior citizens get roughly 80% of their income from Social Security, and without Social Security, nearly 70% of black elderly and 60% of Latino elderly households would be in poverty.”

For more information on the Green Party, go to www.gp.org. For more information on the Libertarian Party, go to www.lp.org.

More of My Articles Along This Vein:
The Two-headed Monster (U. S. Politics)
The So-called Debates
Close the Door Or You'll Let In a...
Waste No Vote
The Alexandra Wilson Story
A Little More Information (Part 1 of 2): The Libertarian Party

A Little More Information (Part 1 of 2): The Libertarian Party

2004-10-25T01:06:00.000-06:00

Most people are familiar with the two main political parties in The United States, so in this two-part series of articles, I want to expose my readers to more information regarding two of the lesser-known parties: the Libertarians and the Greens. And, in this first article, I am going to focus on the Libertarian Party.

You've just read the beginning of my post...and here is the rest of it.

It is the belief of the Libertarian Party that our federal government has gone far beyond the few, limited roles that are assigned to it by our Constitution. If our nation's government were functioning only in the capacities intended and assigned to it by the founding fathers, it would be much smaller and very effective. Unfortunately, it has expanded beyond its Constitutional duties, and it has become a bloated, lumbering, and ineffective behemoth.

Libertarians believe that our federal government should protect our rights and keep us safe from assault, theft, civil injustice, and foreign attack.

Every year, politicians on Capitol Hill pass out over eighty-seven billion taxpayer dollars to more than one hundred of the nation's largest and wealthiest companies. Libertarians want to stop the federal government from handing out “corporate welfare.”

When it comes to education, the Libertarian Party wants to remove the federal government completely from our school system. There is no Constitutional basis for government involvement. Rather, Libertarians envision a school system where students are supported by private scholarships (which are matched, dollar-for-dollar, by a federal tax credit for anyone who donates to the scholarship fund). Such a program, already functioning in Arizona, has seen excellent results.

Regarding crime, the Libertarian Party believes in protecting the right to self-defense (including the Second Amendment right to bear arms) and getting tough on real crime. By this, they mean to roll back laws which make criminals out of people who are doing no harm to others (such as drug addicts, prostitutes, and gamblers), which will free up law enforcement resources to go after the real criminals: muderers, rapists, thieves, terrorists, etc.

Tackling issues of the environment, the Libertarian Party plans to hold government officials (the government is the number one polluter, by far, in our nation) personally accountable for the environmental damage they do. Libertarians also plan to repeal taxes and legislation which are discouraging free-market environmentalism, and they plan to make all polluters (private or otherwise) pay for their crimes.

To help people lift themselves out of poverty, the Libertarian Party plans to repeal legislation (such as laws requiring unnecessary licensing) preventing people from starting small businesses. In an example given by the Libertarian Party, a poor black woman in California wanted to start a hair-braiding business. When she tried to open shop, she discovered that California law required her to attend one thousand six hundred hours of schooling, for a total cost of five thousand dollars, so that she would have a state-issued cosmetology license. The worst part of it (next to the fact that she couldn't afford it) was that the school didn't even offer a course in hair braiding.

In an America envisioned by Libertarian reform, people wouldn't be held back by such crippling laws; people would be free to pursue their dreams, with fewer obstacles.

The Libertarian Party even has a viable, practical, and workable plan for retirement. Under a system where individuals could select a portfolio in which to invest their retirement funds, and under these long-term, low-risk investments, their money would grow at a much higher rate than the current Social Security system (Social Security only returns 1.2% annually, whereas experts have crunched the numbers on the Libertarian plan and found that it would return an average of 7% annually).

Under Social Security, an individual earning $36,000 per year would (by retirement age) accumulate enough to be paid $24,000 per year via Social Security checks (that's if the Social Security fund wasn't going to be depleted by the year 2032, which it is). In contrast, under the Libertarian plan, an individual earning $36,000 per year could (by retirement age) accumulate $1.2 million, which would pay an annual retirement income of $124,000.

For more information on the Libertarian Party, go to www.lp.org. For more information on the Green Party, go to www.gp.org.

More of My Articles Along This Vein:
The Two-headed Monster (U. S. Politics)
The So-called Debates
Close the Door Or You'll Let In a...
Waste No Vote
The Alexandra Wilson Story
A Little More Information (Part 2 of 2): The Libertarian Party

Stagger

2004-10-24T02:20:00.002-06:00

As I mentioned in my previous article, Crossroads, I am making a transition in my creative life; moving from fiction into nonfiction (with the possible exception of writing fictional screenplays for my friend, the independent filmmaker, Ryan Paul). When it comes to fictional short stories and novels, I am through.

So, it may or may not interest you to know that I've posted my final book-length fiction manuscript on the internet, as a blog. The title of the piece is Stagger, and you can click here to read it.

You've just read the beginning of my post...and here is the rest of it.

Consider yourself forewarned; it is a horror novel, and it contains sexual content, strong language, and violence.

It is certainly not for the faint of heart (or queasy of stomach).

The manuscript has been reviewed. Here is a quote from the review:

"With a tone reminiscent of master horror writers like Dean Koontz or Stephen King, yet stylistically his own, Kraxton proves himself to be a rising star in the horror genre. Stagger comes highly recommended."
--Cynthia Penn
Senior Editor, WordWeaving.com
Senior Book Reviwer, Midwest Book Review
Amazon Top 20 Reviewer

Click here to read Stagger.

Time With My Daughter

2004-10-22T09:05:00.000-06:00

My ex-wife really makes it difficult for me to not hate her. Every time I feel I'm beginning to find some stability--just when I think I'm starting to see how I could peacefully coexist with her--she turns around and does something that makes me angry again.

You've just read the beginning of my post...and here is the rest of it.

As you probably know, from reading my previous articles (Vacation, Kicking Back, Visiting Mom, and Vacation Is Over), yesterday was my first day back to work after a nine-day vacation--most of which I spent with my beloved daughter, Meghan. My ex has a set work schedule, where she is off work on Saturday and Sunday, so if I'm off work any day other than those two days, by default I am supposed to get to spend time with Meghan.

This morning, I woke up at eight o'clock, got ready, drove forty-five minutes (I took the side streets) to my ex-mother-in-law's house (she baby sits Meghan), and knocked on the door, happily anticipating some quality time with my daughter.

When the door opened, my ex-mother-in-law said, “Oh! You weren't supposed to have her today.”

Now, admittedly, I haven't looked at the email my ex sent me (the one containing this week's exchange schedule) in two days, so I had forgotten that she hadn't scheduled me to spend time with Meghan today. Silly me, I made the mistake of thinking my ex had learned some compassion. Not only is it common sense that time with parents takes priority over time with grandparents (or anybody else), but this was explicitly spelled out by the judge when we were in divorce court.

Yet, because my lawyer is the way most lawyers are (not wanting to work for free), and because I've already been thumped by the system so much now that I understand going back to court without a ton of cash to pay a big-shot attorney will get me absolutely nowhere (except, as with the last time I pled my case before a judge, it could possibly get me into a worse situation than the one I'm in currently)...there was nothing I could do.

I was griping online to one of my friends a few minutes ago, and he said, “You could have grabbed her and ran!” He was being sarcastic. I've known this guy since we were five years old, and I know he was joking. Besides, the temptation to grab my daughter and run isn't very strong for me. I know that such an experience would be 1.) emotionally scarring for Meghan, and 2.) only a temporary solution to a long-term problem--a temporary solution which would, in the end, lead to even more (bigger) problems than the ones I'm currently facing.

So, I did the (you guessed it) altruistic thing. I apologized, said that I must have misread the exchange schedule, gave my daughter a hug and a kiss goodbye, got in my car, waved and honked, then drove back home.

Sometimes (okay, a lot of the time) being a divorced dad really sucks.

My First Day Back

2004-10-22T01:13:00.000-06:00

Today (yesterday now, I guess) was my first day back to work after nine days of vacation. It wasn't nearly as stressful or depressing as some of us thought it could have been. Actually, it was somewhat fun.

You've just read the beginning of my post...and here is the rest of it.

I don't want to go into too much detail with regard to my job, because I'm in management and there are politics involved with being part of a management team--and I never know when one or more of my co-workers will read this blog.

I handled a rather unusual customer complaint tonight. A gentleman called me, said that he'd just picked up a pizza as a carryout order from our restaurant, and that it tasted too salty. I've worked for this pizza company for over ten years, and I've never heard a complaint of one of our pizzas being too salty. We don't add salt to our pizzas--we don't even have salt in our restaurant. I politely informed him of this, and then I went ahead and offered to give him a full credit, so that his next order would be free. He told me that he just wanted a refund of his money, and that he would bring back the pizza, along with the receipt.

I told him that we would refund his money, and that he could come in at his own convenience. On the phone, he told me that he would wait until tomorrow to come in, but then he arrived at the restaurant about an hour later, pizza box and receipt in hand. I refunded his money, apologized, and he left.

It's so strange...several years ago, I had a customer complain that her thin-crust pizza was too thin, but I've never had any customer complain that a pizza was too salty.

I guess anything can happen.

Overall, it truly was a fun night. Our restaurant has been under the keen supervision of a great Unit Manager, who has brought our store consistently-increasing sales growth for every period since his arrival. For Thursday, October 21, our sales were eighty-four percent higher than last year's sales, and we did it while making and serving all of our pizzas to our customers quickly, efficiently, and accurately. It feels great to run a shift with a winning team!

Vacation Is Over

2004-10-21T06:25:00.000-06:00

Yesterday was the last day of my vacation, and at 5:45pm today, I will return to work. All in all, this has been a good, relaxing, and productive vacation for me. I got my house cleaned, spent lots of time with my family and friends, and I even managed to write a whole bunch of articles for my blog.

You've just read the beginning of my post...and here is the rest of it.

While it isn't my intention to slow down my writing pace after returning to work, I must be realistic with myself and concede that some decline in my rate of article production is to be expected. It's very difficult, when working a forty-hour-per-week job and commuting forty minutes round-trip three days a week to spend time with my daughter, to find as much time for writing...but I will do my best.

I sincerely hope that those of you who have been reading my articles have been enjoying them, and I hope that you have been (and will continue) spreading the word about my blog. I honestly hope to be able to make a difference with this project, and I'd like it to touch as many lives as possible.

This is, of course, one of the reasons why I'm trying to obtain interviews with such celebrity figures as David Cobb (Green Party Presidential Candidate), Michael Badnarik (Libertarian Party Presidential Candidate), and Michael Moore (independent filmmaker).

One other thing to bear in mind is that, while I plan to write more articles like “The Alexandra Wilson Story,” such articles will only be able to help other people to the degree of their exposure (the degree to which they are actually read by other people). I added a hit counter to my site two days ago, and it's already up to about ninety hits, which means my site is getting about forty-five hits per day. I'm guessing that my readership, at the present time, is approximately fifty people. That's not too shabby, considering my blog is only sixteen days old.

I'm always in search of new leads for articles, so if anybody can give me a story (preferably about American citizens) which fits with my vision for this blog, please feel free to let me know. There are thousands of Alexandra Wilsons in The United States right now, and there are millions who are being unjustly abused by our government. Point me to the victims, and I will do my best to tell their stories.

Thank you for your continuing support. Please keep reading (and spreading the word about) my blog.

Peace.

The Alexandra Wilson Story

2004-10-20T07:36:00.000-06:00

When I was staying at my mom's house the other day, I woke up in the middle of the night, logged onto the computer, and started up an instant messaging program. I was pleasantly surprised to see one of my friends, whom I hadn't seen or heard from in a few months. While IMing, he sent me a link to a news article, informing me that it was about some people who went to school with him. As I read the article, which boasted of raiding the home of a family in Kansas, finding drugs, and then jailing the entire family--children and all--I felt anger at the self-righteous injustice of it all.

My friend put me into contact with the female head of the household, and I chatted online with her for a while. The more she told me, the more I became determined that her story needed to be heard--both for the benefit of her own family and for the benefit of many other families, who have been and will continue to be victims of such an abusive and corrupt system.

You've just read the beginning of my post...and here is the rest of it.

Here is the story of Alexandra and her family.

At the age of thirty-seven, Alexandra Wilson thought she finally had her life heading the right direction. She had found the man of her dreams, and they had conceived a child, which brought them even closer than they had already been. Alexandra's teenage children were growing up to be strong individuals. Her motorcycle customization shop and cafe/gift shop/arcade, despite the smallness of the town in which she had opened them, were becoming thriving sources of income.

Everything seemed perfect, until her mother-in-law had a heart attack.

No matter how strong a woman thinks she is, recovering from a heart attack while raising two eight-year-old twins and managing the care of her husband (who was suffering from Parkinson's disease) proved to be too much for Alexandra's mother-in-law.

Overcoming her own flawed upbringing, Alexandra did the altruistic thing--she and her family moved in with her in-laws, to help manage their care.

Just as the family was getting settled in and life was beginning return to some semblance of normality, one of Alexandra's dear friends was diagnosed with terminal cancer and, with treatment, given a life expectancy of no more than five years.

With his lack of medical care, and Alexandra's current caretaker position with her in-laws, she invited him to move in with her family, so that she could help get him the treatment that he needed. Deeply concerned about her friend's condition and her in-laws weakened and degenerating states, Alexandra followed up on things that she had heard in the past, and she did extensive research into the medicinal use of marijuana.

In the course of her research, she discovered the Medical Necessity Defense. With her entire family suffering, Alexandra weighed all of their problems and their ongoing pain and discomfort against the legality of what she was considering doing. In the end, she did what many others have done in the past and would do in the future, if faced with such circumstances.

Alexandra turned to a plant that was, until sixty-seven years ago, legally and acceptably used in The United States of America. She began administering marijuana to her loved ones, using it to lessen their pain and suffering.

As long as it was available and not abused, Alexandra saw no problem with her actions. After all, she wasn't selling it to anyone; it was used in the safety of her own home. No one was harmed by its use, and (to the contrary) it actually relieved pain, returned lost appetites, and had the medically underweight cancer patient gaining weight. At five-foot-nine, with a hyperactive metabolism, the cancer patient went from roughly one hundred and ten pounds to his personal record of one-twenty-five in the course of six months.

Alexandra says she saw nothing but benefits from her medicinal use of marijuana.

In an email to me, she further wrote, “Financial constraints made purchasing it difficult at times, but fortunately it grows wild here in the state of Kansas. Pulling a plant from the side of the road became an easy alternative when finances were tight.”

Since things seemed to be going so much better, Alexandra decided to enroll in college. The cancer patient, who not long ago had been debilitated with pain and weakness, was now functional enough to assist in caring for Alexandra's in-laws, to help with home-schooling her sixteen-year-old daughter, and to baby sit her two-year-old daughter, while Alexandra and her husband went to school all day. Given the circumstances, life seemed to be going fairly well for Alexandra and her family. Then, on October 12th of 2004, their lives were turned upside down.

Speaking on the Internet with a friend she met in a chat room called Budsmokers Only, Alexandra's sixteen-year-old daughter showed somebody online the instruments her family used, along with a small sack, which she had to identify for the other person as marijuana. This “friend” she had been speaking to was actually a deputy sheriff, located in the same town where Alexandra's family lived.

Alexandra is quite angry and indignant over what she sees as the coersive and manipulative tactics used on her daughter. Says Alexandra of her daughter, “She was depressed, trying to fit in and thought she was talking to someone she trusted. Despite his harassing attempts, she persisted to tell him that she would not sell him anything, give him anything or even meet him in person just to talk about it.”

That night, the Sheriff and a group of law enforcement officers arrived at Alexandra's home, armed only with an Affidavit Requesting a Search Warrant. They forced Alexandra's ten-year-old son to the ground to handcuff him and proceeded to gather everyone on the property, including a friend not in the home, who rented a garage apartment on the property. They handcuffed only the men, refused to let anyone handle the "search warrant," and subsequently arrested six people from the home on charges of possession of marijuana, possession of paraphernalia, and (since a roadside plant was being dried for later use) cultivation and harvesting of marijuana.

During the search, arrest, and processing of charges, many of the victims' civil rights were violated. Items were "taken into evidence" and left behind (possibly with the intention of a follow-up raid). Alexandra's sixteen-year-old daughter was taken out of the home to be questioned by police before either of her parents were made aware of a police presence on the property.

Items taken into evidence were mishandled (the driver's license of her son’s fiancé, taken from Alexandra's son's wallet, but listed in evidence as being found in Alexandra's bedroom, is one example).

In the end, a plea bargain was reached. Everyone except Alexandra pled guilty to misdemeanor possession charges, and they were released under varied bond amounts. Again, caring for and protecting her family, Alexandra was charged with Felony Possession With Intent To Distribute.

Alexandra says, “With this being a year when both the Sheriff and County Prosecutor are up for reelection, I honestly believe this entrapping event was nothing more than an attempt to make them look good for the election. Their political ploy even goes so far as my first scheduled court appearance, scheduled for this Thursday, a total of ten days after the initial raid, and conveniently with two more weeks before election day, (the) faster they can get the felony charge prosecuted, the better they look to those still debating how to vote.

“With four of those ten days being spent in jail, two more being a weekend, they expect me to work on a reasonable defense in four days, while still attempting to stay in school as long as possible. I'm being railroaded with the possibility of three to seven years in prison for doing what I believed was best for my family and being given four working days to try and stop it. Is there anyone out there who cares enough about my rights to provide the best care I could under the circumstances? When no one was being harmed, no one was abusing the substance and everyone using it was benefiting from it, how is what I did wrong?”

This story, as tragic as it is, is one that is repeated every day in our nation. I'm willing to come to the defense of somebody like Alexandra, who is doing what she feels is best for her loved ones when they are suffering and dying. But I'm even willing to take it a step further and tell you that I'm for the legalization of all drugs. Since when did it become morally acceptable for us to make criminals out of people who are ill?

In our nation, we tell alcoholics, “You have a disease. Alcoholism is an illness, which needs to be treated.” We tell cigarette addicts, “Cigarette addiction is an illness, and you need treatment to recover.” The same experts who claim that addiction to such narcotics as alcohol and nicotine is an illness also say that addiction to any other drug is an illness, and it needs to be treated. Jailing and imprisoning people because they are suffering from an illness is a practice out of the Dark Ages, and it's something we should have stopped doing long ago.

Addicts don't need incarceration; they need treatment. And people who are doing nothing more than trying to care for loved ones--on that one, I have to agree with Alexandra.

How is what she did wrong?

More of My Articles Along This Vein:
The Two-headed Monster (U. S. Politics)
The So-called Debates
Close the Door Or You'll Let In a...
Waste No Vote

Contemplations At Dawn

2004-10-20T07:29:00.000-06:00

The folks who are on staff at the Green Party's national headquarters are very friendly and down-to-earth. Blair Bobier has been quite kind and swift to reply to my emails, and although he had to inform me that, at this late stage in the campaign, David Cobb has practically no time whatsoever to interview with me, there is a fairly good chance that I might be able to do an interview with him after the election.

I only have one day of vacation remaining, and for the first time (out of all the vacations I've taken in my life), it actually feels like I had a full nine days worth of vacation. All of the other times when I've taken vacations, the end of the vacation has run up on me so quickly that I found myself wondering, How could this be over already? Where did the time go?

You've just read the beginning of my post...and here is the rest of it.

Staying home for most of it, I think, has been the key factor in making this vacation feel like it didn't slip away from me. When you take a vacation and spend it running around, doing lots of things and rushing here and there-or even travelling from one point to another, to another, to another...you aren't truly resting and relaxing, so your time will go by much faster.

Of course, there is something to be said for traveling, for visiting loved ones, and for seeing the sights. And, for many people, staying at home for most or all of their vacation wouldn't feel like a vacation at all.

I've enjoyed it, though, and I've especially enjoyed spending time with my daughter. We've grown closer over these past eight days, nurturing a friendship which every parent should have with their child(ren). I only hope that this friendship can be maintained, onward through her childhood, through her difficult teenage years, and into adulthood.

While it is difficult, I know that is not impossible, for I've seen other parents (my older sister, for example), who have done this successfully.

Waste No Vote, Part 2

2004-10-19T07:16:00.000-06:00

David Cobb

After writing my previous article, “Waste No Vote,” I realized that it may have seemed as though I was exclusively endorsing Michael Badnarik for President, and that some people might have been put off by thinking that I may have been telling them how to vote. Such isn't the case, really, and in this particular election (as long as you don't vote for Bush), I'll be at least moderately happy. Of course, I would prefer that you vote for a third-party candidate, and my two favorites in 2004 are Michael Badnarik (Libertarian) and David Cobb (Green).

So, to be fair to my readers (and to David Cobb), I'm doing a follow-up article to the first one, and in this article I want to tell you what I've learned about the Green Party Presidential Candidate, David Keith Cobb.

You've just read the beginning of my post...and here is the rest of it.

Born and raised in the small shrimping village of San Leon, Texas, David Cobb stood out among his peers as an extremely bright child, who possessed strenghts in reading comprehension, as well as both written and verbal communication. After graduating from high school, Cobb went to work in construction, where he was a member of Pipeline Workers Local #38.

After several years working construction, he earned a degree in Political Science, then went on to earn his law degree in 1993.

Prior to running for political office, Cobb served on the board of directors for a local non-profit group called Children at Risk. This philanthropic organization worked hard to fight for the rights of children and advocate regarding children's issues on the municipal, county, and state levels.

When he was running for Texas State Attorney General in 2002, David Cobb strongly established his Green Party political position with this official quote, "I will use the office of Attorney General to assist local governments and community groups with drafting local laws to assert local, democratic control over corporations. I will initiate charter revocation proceedings against those corporations which flagrantly violate state and federal laws."

Although he lost the race for his state's attorney general's office, Cobb made a powerful and lasting impression. This energy carried over into his effort to win the Green Party's candidacy for the 2004 Presidential election. In the months leading up to the Green Party primary, Cobb traveled to forty states, giving speeches and energetically participating in debates.

David Cobb is clearly a man of strong conviction, who holds anchor in a system of unwavering personal values, and who is willing to do whatever it takes to fight the corrupt, two-party system in a peaceful and non-violent manner, and win back the rights, freedoms, and government of the American people. He and the Green Party are determined not only to avoid the corruption of American politics, but to abolish all forms of corruption and restore a strong sense of ethics and responsibility to our nation's government.

As testament to Cobb's dedication and determination, he was present with Michael Badnarik when Badnarik attempted to serve court orders on The Debate Commission, allowing him to participate in the second of the 2004 Presidential debates. Both men were arrested, handcuffed, shoved into the back of a paddy wagon, and put in jail (for full details on this egregious violation of Constitutional rights, read my previous article, "The So-called Debates."

I've been contacted by David Cobb's media director, Blair Bobier, who has asked me to send some interview questions for Cobb. I've done so, and I'm waiting for the response. When I get the answers, I will post the entire interview on my blog.

Click here to watch a debate between David Cobb and Michael Badnarik.

More of My Articles Along This Vein:
The Two-headed Monster (U. S. Politics)
The So-called Debates
Close the Door Or You'll Let In a...
Waste No Vote

Visiting Mom

2004-10-18T02:54:00.000-06:00

I'm writing this from my mother's house. She lives in a tiny village in rural Kansas, which only has a population of about three hundred and sixty people. I grew up in this town (from three years of age through my graduation from high school at the age of eighteen), so for me--even after all these years--whenever I come here to visit, there is a definite feeling of homecoming.

You've just read the beginning of my post...and here is the rest of it.

Tonight is my second night here, and my daughter and I (as well as my mother and stepdad) have been thoroughly enjoying the visit. My daughter got to spend a lot of time playing with her grandmother(who she calls Mema), we got to visit a little, and since the weather was fairly nice we got to go outside quite a bit. My daughter not only played outdoors, but she also helped me do some yardwork, which my stepdad hasn't been able to do, since he had surgery for cancer recently and is on chemo therapy.

In the mid-afternoon, my mother, daughter, and I went to the park. My daughter rode her tricycle, and it was the first time she'd ever been allowed to ride it out of the yard. On the way to the park, as Meghan was pedalling excitedly down the sidewalk, I asked her, "Have you ever ridden a tricycle this far before?"

She replied, "No, I haven't, but it sure is fun!"

So cute.

In a conversation with my stepdad yesterday, he told me that since returning from the hospital he hasn't had enough energy or motivation to do anything but lie around and sleep. He told me that, until recently, he hasn't even felt the motivation to turn on the television, but that within the past two or three days, he's started to feel restless, and that he wants to start moving around again; to get out of the house.

This is a very good sign, because it means that his spirits are up and that he has a will and a desire to recover. I (and the rest of us) sincerely hope that he makes a full recovery very soon, and that he is able to get out and enjoy life again.

I hadn't seen my oldest sister online for several days, and my mother hadn't spoken to her on the phone. Nor had either of us seen my nephew online or heard from him, so we were both concerned. Mom tried calling my sister's overseas phone number, but got an error message, saying something like, "The country you are trying to dial cannot be reached at this time." This escalated our fears some, but when Mom tried to call again in a few minutes, she got through to my sister, who told us that her computer had crashed and that she will be trying to get it fixed soon.

For anyone who is interested, my sister has a blog, which you can read by clicking here. She writes poetry and short stories, many of which have to do with politics, but some of which are simply little "slice of life" anecdotes.

I think you'll enjoy them--I know I do.

Well, that's about enough for now. It's 4:30 in the morning, and I can't sleep. I'm not a fan of the boob tube, but I'll probably watch some television for a while.

Peace.

Kicking Back

2004-10-16T08:31:00.000-06:00

Today is the one day during my nine-day vacation that my ex has our daughter. Anyone who has children will understand...while it is enjoyable to have your child(ren) around, it is occasionally nice to get a little time for yourself.

My sleep schedule is different from that of most people. Because, since leaving my ex, I've been forced to take short naps (of approximately three to four hours each), my day usually consists of two separate naps, divided by several hours of “awake time.” I went to sleep at about nine-thirty last night and woke up at one-thirty this morning, which (for a writer) is good. Night time is the perfect time to get writing done.

You've just read the beginning of my post...and here is the rest of it.

I surfed the web for a while, doing research for an article on Michael Badnarik, the Libertarian party's candidate for President of The United States. I then spent a couple of hours, sifting through all the information, organizing my notes, and then writing “Waste No Vote,” which you can read by clicking here.

While I was working on the article, I popped up an informational video from The Free Market News Network, and watched Harry Browne talk about the troublesome state of our government-run public school system in America, and what we might be able to do to make improvements. The idea he presented seemed viable. Since no government-run organization is ever successful, we should get the federal government's hands off of our schools entirely, and turn them all over to private organizations.

After watching Harry's video and posting my article, I did some more cleaning (I'd started cleaning my living area at the onset of my nine-day vacation, then took some time off from it to spend time with my daughter). I now have it mostly cleaned. I still need to vacuum, and there are a few small items which I need to organize. I should have that done soon (I'll probably get my second nap of the day in this afternoon, then I have to pick my daughter up and take her to visit my mother, so the final cleaning will have to wait until I return).

Right now, I'm kicking back in my recliner, writing this article on my laptop, and listening to blues music--Johnny Lang, singing “Mustang Sally.”

So far, today is a good day.

Waste No Vote

2004-10-16T04:03:00.000-06:00

Michael Badnarik

There is a new force in American politics, and his name is Michael Badnarik (pronounced bad*nah*rik). In 2002, Badnarik was working as a software engineer in Texas. He gave up his apartment, put his belongings into storage, and hit the road, traveling across the United States on a personal quest--telling people that they do have an alternative to the corrupt, corporate-controlled Democrat and Republican parties: The Libertarian Party.

You've just read the beginning of my post...and here is the rest of it.

In May of 2004, Michael Badnarik was one of several nominees to be considered for the Libertarian Presidential Candidacy. The other candidates had considerably more financial resources, as well as more experience in the world of politics. Still, Badnarik won the position, and since then he has set himself to the task of aggressively pursuing the office of President of the United States of America.

I find it quite interesting that, when asked about third-party choices for the 2004 Presidential election, most people will mention Ralph Nader and nobody else. But check this out: Ralph Nader is only on the ballot in thirty-five states, whereas Michael Badnarik is on the ballot in forty-eight states.

That gets your attention, doesn't it?

Another thing that adds to Badnarik's strength as a Presidential candidate is his popularity among both conservatives and liberals. Where Nader has to rely heavily on undecided Democrats, Badnarik is pulling in voters from both wings. Republican voters, who feel betrayed and embittered by the Bush Administration’s fascist, warmongering behaviors, have begun to show support of Badnarik as a viable alternative. In addition, Badnarik has shown no hesitation with regard to campaigning for the minority votes. He accepted an award from The American Muslim Alliance in Orlando, Florida, demonstrating his popularity among Muslims and Arab Americans. And, just a few weeks ago, Badnarik rode in the Gay Pride Parade in San Francisco.

When interviewed by Chris Bull with regard to his participation in the parade, Badnarik said, “I believe everyone has individual rights. As President, it would be my job to protect the life, liberty and property of Americans, and I mean all Americans. A San Francisco Gay Pride parade is diversity in the best sense. I never forget that everyone chooses to pursue happiness in their own way, and government should stay out of the way.”

People who think voting for a third-party candidate is spoiling the election for a Democrat or Republican candidate need to bear the following things in mind. First, a third-party can't “steal” votes from another candidate. No candidate owns votes--each individual American owns one vote, and it is every individual's right and responsibility as an American citizen to cast that vote in a responsible manner.

Secondly, the Democrats and Republicans have held our nation in a corporate-conrolled death grip for far too long. With every passing year, the rights of the individual citizen are diminished, and the gap between lower and upper class Americans grows wider. If you vote for a Democrat or a Republican, you are telling them that you approve of their methods, that you are happy with the way things have been going, and that you don't mind losing your constitutional rights and having your hard-earned money taken away and given to wealthy executives and foreign powers.

If you vote for the lesser of two evils, you are still voting for evil.

Michael Badnarik (and the Libertarian party, for that matter) is for smaller Federal government with increased personal freedom. In our current world, where politics-as-usual has given us “No Child Left Behind,” a seriously flawed Medicare reform, the egregiously unconstitutional U.S.A. Patriot Act, and an unwinnable, immoral, illegal, and unconstitutional war in Iraq, the policies and platform of Badnarik and the Libertarian party have powerful appeal to American voters.

You may be wondering how Badnarik has been faring in the polls. Personally, I'm not a fan of polls. They simply aren't accurate. No poll in the history of our nation has ever predicted a landslide victory, and since most polls taken in the 2004 Presidential election season haven't included Michael Badnarik, numbers obtained by them would be even more misleading. However, I will tell you what I know. According to the polls conducted (the few which have included Badnarik), Bush and Kerry have been within four percent of each other, with Badnarik holding approximately five percent.

What does this mean? Nothing, really. Like I said, polls are meaningless. They are something that was invented as a way to increase media hype over election coverage.

There is, realistically, little chance that Badnarik will win this Presidential election. However, there is a good chance that he will win at least five percent of the popular vote, and possibly more. If a third-party candidate were to win five percent of the popular vote in a Presidential election, while being denied his legal right to participate in the debates, it would be an unprecedented and historic event.

Some people may ask, “Why should I cast my vote for somebody who isn't going to win? Wouldn't I be wasting my vote?” No. Wasting your vote is casting your vote for somebody who doesn't represent you or your values--somebody who you know, based on a long history of past behaviors (both as an individual politician and as a political party) will give priority to the demands of corporations and rich executives over your rights and needs as an individual. Casting a vote for a third-party candidate is not wasting your vote; it is investing your vote...investing your vote in the future of our nation.

I have emailed Michael Badnarik's campaign headquarters, requesting an interview with him. If he should grant me the honor of such an interview, I would guarantee him two things: 1.) He would be treated with the respect due any Presidential candidate, and 2.) I would ask him good, thought-provoking questions that he's never been asked in other interviews.

If he accepts my invitation for an interview, I will post an article with the resulting information on this blog.

Click here to watch a debate between Michael Badnarik and David Cobb.

More of My Articles Along This Vein:
The Two-headed Monster (U. S. Politics)
The So-called Debates
Close the Door Or You'll Let In a...

Close the Door or You'll Let In a...

2004-10-15T19:44:00.000-06:00

It's been a long-standing tradition in the United States for military recruiters to visit the homes of high school seniors, trying to convince them that the military is a good option for post-graduation life. In the post-9/11 world--especially after we've invaded Iraq--recruiters have been turning up the heat, making an ever-increasing effort to bring in new recruits.

You've just read the beginning of my post...and here is the rest of it.

When I graduated in 1990, it was a different world. Military budgets had been cut severely, and the United States hadn't been involved in a major, long-term war for many years. I can recall the Navy recruiting officer who came to my home and sat down at our kitchen table, trying to recruit me into submarine duty. When I told him I really wasn't all that interested in submarine duty, he complimented my math scores on the SAT and proceeded to extol to me the many benefits of training to be (and serving as) a nuclear engineer.

I remember looking back at him with a smirk and saying, “I really don't have any desire to be placed in a metal tube, deep underneath the ocean, with a nuclear reactor.”

He assured me that we were in a post-cold-war world now, and that the threat of war or military conflict was next to none. What I told him next stands out clearly in my mind, both because of his reaction and because of the prophetic nature of my words.

Looking him straight in the eyes, I said, “There are nations in this world--in the Middle East, particularly--who absolutely hate the United States of America. They call us The Great Satan. They burn our flag in the streets and vow to bring about our destruction. You might want me to believe this is a peaceful world--you might even believe it yourself--but one of these days, one of those nations is going to attack us, and when that happens I don't want to be sealed up in a submarine with a nuclear reactor and no means of escape.”

The Navy recruiter's jaw went slack, he blinked, then he lowered his eyes toward the table. After a few seconds of silence, he brought his eyes back up to mine and said, “I'm not going to be able to convince you, am I?”

He was nothing if not observant, I'll give him that.

I don't think it was present in most young people of my generation as we graduated from high school, but I had a definite awareness that our nation was vulnerable to attack from Middle Eastern nations and terrorist organizations. I had the misconception (as many Americans did) that, if our nation did go to war, the full-time active duty soldiers would do the fighting while most of our reserve units and national guard units remained in the homeland.

For this reason, I allowed myself to be recruited into the U. S. Army Reserves.

As I said earlier, things were different back then. Every branch of our military was suffering from heavy budget cuts, and new recruits (myself included) were told going in that if, for any reason, we changed our minds prior to basic training, all we had to do was call our recruiting officer and we would be given an honorable discharge--no questions asked.

I went through a two-day prep-training camp, which was supposed to help new recruits prepare mentally and physically for basic training. On the morning that I was supposed to ship out for basic, my recruiting officer called me at home, saying that there had been a mistake during my in-processing. Somebody at MEPS had forgotten to draw my blood for one of the tests. Rather than ship out for basic, I was to drive to the Kansas City MEPS station, where I was to meet with my Army career counselor, then get my blood drawn.

When I sat down with the counselor, I told him, “I'm enrolled for college starting in August. How soon will I be leaving for basic?”

He told me that, since I'd missed the ship date for the current cycle of recruits, I'd have to wait two more months. I said, “Sorry, but I'm going to have to back out. The main reason I enlisted to begin with was so that I could get the G. I. Bill for college, and now you're telling me that I'll have to skip my first semester so that I can go to basic training. That just doesn't work for me.”

We signed some forms, I was given an honorable discharge, and approximately two months later, President George H. W. Bush invaded Iraq. My Army Reserve unit--a transport team based in Emporia, Kansas--was one of the first ones to be deployed.

Granted, I would have been in basic at the time of their deployment, but still it was too close for my liking, and I found myself thanking my lucky stars that I now had an honorable discharge and that, if a draft were instated, I would be excluded. Of course, no draft was needed for The Gulf War, but none of us knew that at the time.

This new war in Iraq...now that's a different story, entirely. We've already lost more American troops in Iraq than in the first three years of the Viet Nam War, combined. Losses, troop morale, and recruiting levels are all so bad right now that the Bush administration has instituted what they call a “stop loss policy,” which is a back-door draft, not allowing soldiers to leave the military even though their service enlistment time has expired.

President Bush has promised, repeatedly, that no draft will be used as long as he is in office, yet he continues to say that he is in Iraq to win, and that our troops will remain in Iraq, fighting, until the war is won.

He can't have it both ways.

Every month that the United States continues to occupy the nation of Iraq, our troops suffer more casualties than the previous month. If this rate of fatality continues, and if he refuses to pull our troops out of Iraq and bring them home, President Bush will have no other option; he will have to institute a military draft.

Even John Kerry, if elected President, will have a difficult time not instituting a draft. However, Kerry's chances will be much better than those of Bush, because Kerry plans to withdraw our troops from Iraq more quickly than Bush does. I'm not a military expert, but I do understand history, and I do understand the nature of war. Regardless of who wins the Presidency (Bush or Kerry), despite the lies they have been telling us in order to win our votes, chances are frighteningly high that the United States of America will soon see our first military draft since Viet Nam.

I have a seventeen-year-old nephew, who is currently living with my sister and her husband overseas. My nephew is a U. S. Citizen, and he is old enough to be drafted. In the event that a draft is instituted, I hope that he will find a way to slip through the cracks. I know that many wouldn't consider that a very patriotic thing to say, but I don't consider it a very patriotic (much less humane) thing for a President to sacrifice our young men and women's lives, invading a sovereign nation and slaughtering innocent civilians for nothing more than oil profit.

To hell with oil and gas prices. Let the pump prices in the U. S. Jump to five or six dollars a gallon. I (and most other Americans) would pay the higher prices...just stop the killing.

Bring our soldiers home, and stop the violence.

Vacation

2004-10-14T21:04:00.000-06:00

Today was the third day of the first paid vacation I've been able to take since 1998. I suppose most people don't realize that delivery drivers are so dependent on their tips as income that they can't usually afford to take vacation. While the restaurant for which they drive will normally offer a paid vacation program, few drivers can ever afford to take a full vacation, because to do so would mean that their income would be severely reduced.

You've just read the beginning of my post...and here is the rest of it.

During the past couple of months, I've been existing in a depressed funk (see my article, "Lemonade Man”), and I haven't been doing much of anything--just going through the motions of working, sleeping, eating, and spending time with my daughter. Reality had become so painfully overwhelming that I had escaped almost entirely into the world of online video games. As a result, the portion of the house in which I live (I share a house with my brother and our friend) became seriously neglected, to the point where everything was a jumbled mess, and I could barely see the floor through all the debris.

At the onset of my vacation, I made cleaning this living area (a space approximately twenty feet square) first on my agenda. My three-year-old daughter, who has been asking me to clean house for the past month, was delighted. She started out helping me with great zeal, but soon became bored and distracted by her toys, books, and movies. This is quite fine and understandable from my point of view (she is only three years old, after all).

By the end of my second day of vacation, I had the place approximately eighty percent clean, and my daughter had begun to complain that I wasn't playing with her enough. So, I took today off from cleaning and spent time with Meghan.

There is something therapeutic in playing with a child--escaping, if only momentarily, into the world of Mega Blocks, stuffed animals, Lincoln Logs, and children's books. Not only does it help liberate one's soul from the stresses and struggles of day-to-day life, but it also strengthens the bond between parent and child.

Meghan (and I) both played hard today, and I felt we were having so much of a good time together that I allowed her to skip her afternoon nap. So, she fell fast asleep this evening and is now sleeping quite soundly. She'll probably sleep until ten o'clock in the morning.

Several years ago, I came up with an idea for a company. I doubt I'll ever do it, but it sure would be funny. In the United States, most companies will not allow an employee to carry vacation time over from one year to the next, accumulating paid time off. In most cases, if you don't use your vacation time by the end of the current year, you lose any unused time and have to start the new year from scratch, building up new vacation time as you go.

My idea was to start a company, in which I would offer to take other people's vacation time for them, so that it would not be wasted. My clients could simply sign a contract, allowing me to receive the vacation pay on their behalf, and I would then have the responsibility of using the money in an enjoyable and relaxing manner.

The funny thing is, that I recently heard something on the radio about some companies where people are trying to arrange it so that unused vacation time can be given to other employees within the same company--like, for instance, if Jane got sick and needed extended time off, but she had used up all her sick leave and vacation time...then other employees could donate vacation time to her, so that she would still have income.

I like this idea. It's not only philanthropic, but it's also altruistic, and I'm all about altruism.

Due to my diminished level of personal income, I found myself unable to travel during this vacation. I will take a trip to my mother's house (one hundred and fifty miles from my house), but aside from that, there will be no spending on this vacation of mine. But, you know what? I'm fine with that. There is something to be said for being able to just stay at home for a change and relax--especially when much of my life anymore is driving here and there and everywhere, running errands, picking up my daughter, dropping off my daughter, commuting to and from work...to stay inside the house for several days in a row (with the occasional run to the grocery store) has been a real treat for me.

Today, my daughter and I made Halloween decorations together. Not having the budget to purchase some, and not having already owned some, I turned to the age-old (and unfortunately, all-too-oft forgotten) tradition of creating homemade decorations. My daughter gets a lot more enjoyment out of this than she would out of opening and putting up store-bought decorations anyway, and so do I.

With nothing more than a stack of printer paper, a pair of scissors, a roll of transparent tape, a black ink pen, and an orange magic marker, my daughter and I covered our glass front door with ghosts, pumpkins, cats, a witch, and a bat. I did the cutting, Meghan did the coloring, and together we taped them all to the door. It was great fun!

I'm glad I took the break from cleaning today. Tomorrow evening, Meghan returns to her mother for one day. I'll finish the cleaning while she's away.

The So-called Debates

2004-10-14T08:39:00.000-06:00

The state of American politics really has my dander up. Watching the third and final Presidential debate of the 2004 election season, it was more obvious to me than ever that everything in these debates is premeditated, planned, and scripted by the Debate Commission (which, for those of you who haven't read my previous article, “The Two-headed Monster (U. S. Politics),” was formed by the Democrat and Republican parties in the early 1980s, to deliberately and blatantly keep third-party Presidential candidates from being allowed to participate in debates).

You've just read the beginning of my post...and here is the rest of it.

These so-called “debates,” which the Democrats and Republicans would like us to believe are impartial, open, and democratic debates for the benefit of the American people and a healthy part of a democratic society...are anything but any of those things. If these “debates” were truly democratic, there would be no pre-scripting of the debates. When a moderator willingly and openly admits to pre-screening the questions and choosing the order in which they are asked, then even the “town hall debate” (much less the other two) was not openly democratic.

United States citizens should be allowed to stand up in a debate hall, ask any question of the politicians, and expect an honest answer. Not only that, but the person who posed the question should be allowed to make further comment on it, especially for clarification.

To have a moderator pre-screen the questions is nothing less than CENSORSHIP, it is a violation of our individual right to freedom of speech, and it should not be allowed. We, the people of the United States of America, should be outraged at this egregiously unconstitutional behavior on the part of the Democrat and Republican parties.

Furthermore, we should be outraged at the new and frightening appearance of “free speech zones” within our nation's borders. Any time a person tries to voice his or her opinion and gets arrested simply for trying to do so when they are “outside of a free speech zone,” it is an ugly and inexcusable violation of our Constitutional right to free speech, and we should be furious.

There have been several examples of this in the past few years, and I will give a recent one as an example. During the second of the three 2004 Presidential debates, two of the third-party Presidential candidates, Michael Badnarik (Libertarian) and David Cobb (Green) attempted to enter the debate hall in order to serve the Debate Commission with court orders, allowing Badnarik to debate alongside George Bush and John Kerry. Badnarik and Cobb clearly identified themselves as Presidential candidates, declared their intent to serve papers and obtain participation in the debates, and then stepped through the line of police officers.

Both Presidential candidates were immediately arrested, handcuffed, and shoved into the back of a paddy wagon. They were then taken to a jail house, fingerprinted, and placed in a cell, where they spent some time with several college students, who had been tackled by police and arrested for walking through the non-free-speech zone on their way back home.

It's a sad day in America, when two upstanding Presidential candidates--who have the legal right to debate in a Presidential election year--are denied not only their right to debate, but also their very basic and critical Constitutional right to free speech...and when they try to exercise those rights, they are handcuffed, arrested, and jailed.

Thanks to the folks at FMNN, Michael Badnarik was interviewed regarding his (and David Cobb's) experience. If you'd like, you can watch the video of his interview by clicking here.

Also, if you like, you can click here to watch a debate between David Cobb and Michael Badnarik.

Crossroads

2004-10-13T01:34:00.000-06:00

I find myself feeling that I'm at a “chapter change” or “crossroads” in my life. I've spent my life, up to this point, pursuing one primary goal, and now I find within myself the newfound ability to expand that goal; to explore alternative routes and decide upon one which might be a deviation from my original destination but which might, in the end, serve a more noble purpose.

Clear as mud? Let me back up a bit.

When I was four years of age, my older sister started kindergarten (back then, there was no such thing as pre-school or head start). She would come home from school every day and teach me what she had learned. By the time I was five, I was reading out of newspapers and encyclopedias. By the age of six, I had read the entire World Book Encyclopedia set, which was owned by my parents.

You've just read the beginning of my post...and here is the rest of it.

I loved to read. I loved stories, loved learning, and I loved the printed word. More than that, I loved language--both written and spoken. As a child, I used to listen to people talk and visualize the words, printed on the air and flowing out of the people's mouths. I believe that is one of the reasons why I am able to write great dialog.

The memory is still clear in my mind. There came a morning, when I was five years old, when I was sitting at the kitchen table reading the newspaper. On the front page was a story about a fifteen-year-old boy who had gotten a book published, and he had received payment for his efforts. This concept--that somebody could write a story, submit it to a publisher, and receive money for it--was entirely new to me. I knew then and there that I wanted to be a writer.

Writing became my life's ambition. My parents argued loudly and tenaciously with each other for many years, and my reading and writing quickly became my escape. I found that I could hide in my bedroom, lock the door, and disappear into another world, simply by opening a book or picking up a pencil and working on a story. In this way, writing became a lifesaving presence for me; something I clung to in order to maintain my sanity.

I'm now thirty-three years old. I think back to my elementary, middle school, and high school years, and the writing I did and awards I won are fading memories. They're good memories, but they are fading with time. Not only that, but my life's experience has given me perspective. With five books published and a negative net profit to show for it, I have learned the hard way that the publishing industry cares far less for literary talent than they do for marketability.

Publishing is a business, and while publishers and editors have an affinity for talented authors, they will always--always--choose a less talented, marketable author over one with talent who has little or no marketability.

Have you ever picked up a bestselling book, read it, and found yourself thinking, “How did this thing even get published, much less become a bestseller?” It's because of marketability. The editor looked at the proposed manuscript, saw in it something that many consumers would be likely to purchase, and made the business decision to publish the book.

Which brings me around to where I am today. My first five books were all published with small publishing houses, none of whom could afford to pay me an advance, and none of whom could distribute and market my book so that it would be placed on the shelves in bookstores. As an outgoing, entrepreneurial author, I went out to the bookstores, libraries, grocery stores, comic book stores, and various other businesses myself. I spent many hundreds of dollars--out of my own pocket--promoting, marketing, and advertising my books. Five books and four years later, I still haven't turned a profit.

I suppose, to some who read this, it might appear as though I'm simply not a talented writer of fiction. Such is not the case. Cindy Penn, Senior Editor for The Midwest Book Review, read three of my novels and gave each of them her top rating (five stars), saying that I am “a horror master,” and comparing my writing style to Stephen King and Dean Koontz.

Even with these rave reviews printed on the back covers, my books simply wouldn't sell.

With all that I've been through in the past couple of years: the divorce, the way my attorney and the divorce judge abused me while handling my case, my steadily increasing descent into the world of poverty, my automobile accident, and the personally-written rejection letter of my latest manuscript by the executive editor of a large, New York publishing house (who requested the manuscript and then rejected it, saying that he loved the work but didn't have room for it in his agenda)...after all of this, I've reached the point where I'm reevaluating my life's dream.

I had one point, during the divorce, where I told everyone I was through writing, but at that time I didn't mean it--and I knew I didn't mean it. I was just under so much stress and my emotions were in so much turmoil that I couldn't deal with it anymore.

This is different.

This is looking back over all the years, over all the writing, all my struggles, all my accomplishments, and thinking to myself, “Maybe I shouldn't be writing fiction, after all.”

I've had many people, over the years, tell me that they enjoyed reading my non-fiction (such as this blog) far more than they liked reading my fiction. They were always quick to point out that I was a damned good fiction writer, but that they liked my non-fiction even better. That never really made much sense to me, and to be honest with you it still doesn't make a lot of sense, but I'm beginning to understand how people might see things that way.

My problem is that I think too much. And, after I've thought too much, I think even more...I think deeper, and I don't let things go away. Concepts, thoughts, ideas, float around in my head without ever really disappearing. I've got friends who I talk to and say, “Remember when you told me such-and-such?”

They look at me, blink, and then say, “No. When did I say that?”

I say something like, “Oh, it was when we were walking through the mall last Christmas,” or “It was back when we were in high school.”

That's when their expression turns to awe, and they express total astonishment at my power of recollection.

The thing is, it's not so much recollection as it is retention. One of my friends tells me that he thinks I have a photographic (eidetic) memory. I don't. I just have a brain that doesn't want to let things go. Often, when I want to remember something, I find that the information eludes me. It's when I'm thinking of something else--something that may not even be closely related--that the memory will resurface, and I'll sit there going, “Hmmm...that sure was a long time ago.”

This, I think, is the quality of my brain which enables me to reason things out to such a deep level (as with my blog article, “The One Thing”). My brain thinks too much, goes deeper, takes a break, dives a bit deeper, takes a break, dives deeper...and the next thing I know, I'm so far into the concept that I wonder how I ever got there.

But the observations, views, and concepts I come up with along the way are what I think people enjoy reading. Also, I think people like my writing style. (Hey, Cindy Penn said I write like Stephen King and Dean Koontz, so I must be doing something right.)

I look at my life, my writing, and I think back to the coppery-headed five-year-old boy I once was, sitting at that kitchen table, reading the newspaper, feeling the goose flesh spring up on my arms as I realized I was meant to be a writer...and I understand now, that it's okay. I'm not betraying my younger self, nor am I throwing away my dream of being a writer...nor am I betraying the tremendous efforts I put forth in my previous works.

Everything that happened, up to this point, happened to bring me to where I am today. It was a learning process, a life-experience-gaining process, and without it I would not be who or what I am. And, as a result, my nonfiction writing (which is what I hope to now pursue) would not be everything that it now is or will be in the days, months, and (if I'm lucky) years to come.

Someday (hopefully sooner than later), I will write a nonfiction book. When that day comes, I have no idea what that book will be about. All I know is that I must write, and in so doing I hope to make some sort of a positive difference in the world around me. Eventually, that will mean writing more books.

For now, it means writing this blog.

The Two-headed Monster (U. S. Politics)

2004-10-12T04:24:00.000-06:00

I was discussing the Bush/Kerry controversy with my best friend a couple of weeks ago, and he told me that he didn't like either candidate, but that he was probably going to vote for Kerry just to get Bush out of the White House. I didn't think much of it at the time, because I'd been planning on voting for Kerry for precisely the same reason. Besides, I'd been hearing this line of voting logic since childhood--people saying, “When it comes to this year's Presidential race, I can't stand either candidate, and I think they're both crooked, lying snakes, but I'm going to vote for the lesser of two evils.”

You've just read the beginning of my post...and here is the rest of it.

It's not something I'd given a lot of thought to, until the other day, when I was at work and I asked an elderly co-worker whether or not he was registered to vote. With a scowl on his face, he said, “Yes, but I can't stand either one of 'em. I think Bush is a warmongering dictatorial asshole, but I don't think Kerry is much better. When it comes right down to it, they were both cut from the same mold. It doesn't matter what lies they tell us, neither one 'em gives a rat's ass about you and me; they're only looking out for the interests of the big corporations.”

I've always been one to respect my elders, and this guy is in his mid-eighties, so I took his words to heart. In addition to this, he told me, “You know, it didn't always used to be this way. It used to be, whenever a Presidential election rolled around, there would be four or five political parties involved, and we would get to hear what each one of them had to say. They were all in on the debates and everything.”

Now, that really got my gears turning. In 2000, I voted for Ralph Nader. I began to wonder about the other small parties and what they might have to say. I'd heard a couple of people complain to me about the fact that Nader hadn't been allowed to debate with Bush and Kerry this year, and they (like I) wanted to know why the voice of the Green Party wasn't being heard.

I went online, did some research, and was surprised to discover that Ralph Nader was no longer with the Green Party. In 2004, Nader is running independently (with no party affiliation), while the Green Party of the United States is being represented by David Cobb and Pat LaMarche. On the Green Party's website, I found some video links, wherein David Cobb outlined some of the key principles to his platform and beliefs. I watched these videos, and then I started digging for more information.

I discovered a website for a radio/television program, called Democracy Now!, and on their site was some video footage of a telephone debate between the vice-presidential candidates from the Libertarian Party, Green Party, and Nader's independent team. I listened to the debate, then moved on to discover an even better one. Hosted by an online news team, known as The Free Market News Network, I discovered a televised debate between third-party candidates. (Click here to watch the video.)

The original plan had been for them to include the Presidential candidates from the four largest third-party organizations in the U. S. Two of them would be filmed on-location, in the hotel, while the other two were to be included via satellite link. Unfortunately, the satellite link didn't work properly, so the only two candidates included in the televised debate were Michael Badnarik and David Cobb.

The debate was quite good, though there were a few questions I would have liked to have had answered (for comparison to Bush and Kerry), such as stem cell research, gay marriage, and abortion rights. I also would have liked to have asked all candidates (including Bush and Kerry) how they planned to eliminate the controlling influence of the Saudi government in U. S. Politics. Also (for obvious reasons), I would like to know whether or not any of the candidates would be willing to seriously consider revising American divorce law legislation, so that divorced men could be treated more fairly.

For me, a very interesting and educational thing occurred when former Presidential candidate (and former U. S. Congressman) John Anderson addressed the audience, prior to the debate. He told how, in 1980, he had run for President, as the Unity party candidate, against Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter. The first debate of the season was put on by the League of Women Voters, who thought a man who could get his name on the ballot in all fifty states and hold fifteen percent of the polls should be allowed to debate with the other two candidates.

Jimmy Carter refused to show up, saying that he refused to debate against two Republicans. John Anderson, who had been a Republican Congressman, was not running as a Republican--he was running as a Unitarian. He debated against Ronald Reagan, and not long after the debate, two politicians--one Democrat, the other Republican--got together and decided they couldn't let this happen again. They quickly formed The Debate Commission, with the sole purpose of doing everything they could to keep third-party candidates out of all future debates. Since that first debate in 1980, the only other third-party candidate to appear in a televised debate against the Republicans and Democrats has been Ross Perot, and that is only because he had so much money that he was able to create his own media awareness, driving up his popularity among voters to the point that if he had been forced out of the debates it would have caused serious problems for the other two parties.

I watched these debates between the small-party candidates, and I thought, “Man, Cobb sounds good. I like what he and the Green Party have to say, and I think they would do a good job.” I checked my informational brochure, which The League of Women Voters had given me when I registered to vote, and was disappointed to discover that the Green Party appeared nowhere on the list of candidates for the State of Missouri. Our ballot selections for 2004 in Missouri include the following parties: Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, and Constitution.

The deliberate and blatant efforts of the Republicans and Democrats to prevent third-party voices from being heard go even farther than not allowing them to appear in national debates. In some states, if a third-party candidate gets put on the ballot, they are forced to leave their party name off, so when you look at the ballot (for example), you might see:

George Bush - Republican
John Kerry - Democrat
David Cobb - Independent
Michael Badnarik - Independent
Ralph Nader - Independent

Most voters will not already know that Cobb is the Green Party candidate, that Badnarik is the Libertarian candidate, and that Nader is an Independent. For all most voters know, Cobb could be a Nazi, Badnarik could be a Communist, and Nader (in most people's minds) could be Green. So, rather than vote for somebody when they aren't sure what the candidate represents, most people simply go ahead and...vote for the lesser of two evils.

Another example of discrimination against smaller parties is that many states will apply different rules for getting a name listed on the ballot. A Democratic or Republican candidate might only need to collect one thousand signatures to get his/her name listed on the ballot, whereas any other party may need to gather ten thousand signatures.

You may be asking yourself, “Why would the Republicans and Democrats do this?” Think about what those two parties represent. While one party takes a conservative, right-wing view and the other party takes a liberal, left-wing view, they are two heads on the same monster. Despite what lies either party may tell us, neither party cares about the middle- or lower-class in The United States of America. Both parties are puppets, and the strings are being pulled by the wealthy and elite in huge corporations--and not just U. S. Corporations, mind you. This is a global network of super-corporations, which means (unfortunately and frighteningly) that much of America and American politics are currently being controlled by foreign powers.

If you don't think so, watch Fahrenheit 9/11. While I have a great deal of respect, admiration, and appreciation for Michael Moore and his efforts, I have to carry his observations on to a logical conclusion. The Saudi Arabian government is the largest single supporter of terrorism in the world, and they own seven percent (one trillion dollars) of the United States. The Saudi Arabians invested 1.4 billion dollars in George W. Bush, before he even became the governor of Texas. They have an embassy on Pennsylvania Avenue, and they get privileged, frequent visits into the White House. Do you honestly think the Republicans are the only party allowing this to happen?

The Saudi embassy didn't just spring up overnight. It's been there for years, and I'm pretty sure that they've been buying politicians from both of the major political parties--and why wouldn't they? After all, both the Democrats and Republicans have been accepting illegal bribes from lobbyists, special interest groups, and large corporations for many, many years--why not take bribes from foreign terrorists, as well? What's the harm in that?

It makes me sick in my stomach just to think about it. And the worst part of it is, despite how much we gripe and yell about the politicians and their mistakes--who elected them into office? Who has stood by, wringing their hands and doing nothing to stop this from happening again and again and again?

We, the people.

We, the people of the United States of America, have to stand up, accept responsibility for this horrible mess, and start taking corrective action. We need to send a clear message to Washington, to our fellow citizens, and to the rest of the world, that this kind of behavior is no longer acceptable. We, the people, will not stand for it. Our nation will no longer be a nation which serves the selfish, greedy, inhumane executives of large corporations, even to the point of endangering our own citizens (by harboring terrorists and their Kings within our own borders) or to the point of invading other innocent and sovereign nations, bombing and killing their innocent civilians (and, in the process, creating more terrorists than the world has ever seen before).

Changes have to be made, and they need to go far deeper than the surface, idealogical differences between the right-wing Republicans and the left-wing Democrats. In the United States, we need deep, resounding, systemic change. We need to seek ways to help our other political parties find their voice and receive equal representation in the political process...so that they can win votes and get elected.

Smaller parties are already getting candidates elected on the local levels. I'm not sure about the state level, but that would be the next logical step. From state to Congress, and from Congress to the Presidency.

In closing, I want to say what has become a popular saying among the smaller political parties here in the United States: "Remember, if you vote for the lesser of two evils, you're still voting for evil."

The One Thing

2004-10-11T06:55:00.000-06:00

Have you ever been contemplating life, our existence, and the meaning of it all, and had this feeling that there had to be this one thing--an idea, concept, something--and if you could just figure that one thing out, the entire world, the universe, our existence, everything would make complete and perfect sense to you?

I've figured out what that one thing is, and I want to share it with you. However, first I must humbly admit that I am not the first person to stumble upon this truth. I learned much of it from others. Now, with this understanding (I dislike the term “enlightenment,” because it carries such a weight of pride), I can tell you that I can see the world, the universe, and everything in it from a perspective of comprehension. This comprehension makes life better, in many ways.

You've just read the beginning of my post...and here is the rest of it.

Depending on your current personal philosophical state of mind (whether you adhere to any certain religion, belief in a Higher Power, etc.), this simple truth may or may not be difficult for you to comprehend and accept. Here it is.

Mankind has always feared the unknown, and the greatest unknown has always been what will happen to us after we die. From the time we first taught ourselves how to make crude symbols on the cave walls, we have been striving to understand and explain the mysteries of our universe.

Back when our philosophical quest for truth began, our ancestors had no scientific understanding of the universe, so everything was magic to them. Lightning, rain, hail, snow, ice, fire, wind, stars, the moon cycles, the rising and setting of the sun, comets, meteor showers...everything was magic. Everything was mysterious, and everything came from an invisible source. To explain these mysteries, we formed religions. We created gods and deities, saying that one or more higher power(s) were responsible for all the unexplained mysteries around us.

Religions are man-made myths to explain the afterlife and take the sting out of death. The simple truth of it is that there is no Higher Power. There is no deity, no god, no super-being who is omniscient, omnipresent, or omnipotent.

Our universe is completely constructed of energy. Everything is energy--even what we think of as solid matter, for even solid matter is made up of atoms, which are made up of subatomic particles, which consist of energy. Energy cannot be created or destroyed, which tells us two things: 1.) When we die, we are recycled back into the energy pool, and 2.) The universe had no beginning and will have no end--it is an eternal, constantly-recycling, self-reciprocating and self-sustaining mass of energy.

The only reason why we humans feel the universe has to have a beginning and an end is because, to our primitive brains (yes, we are still primitive), we see that things around us are born and die, that rock formations erode with time, and so forth. But, if we think beyond that, to the concept of a universe where energy cannot be created or destroyed and all energy is constantly being recycled--then we can understand that our universe, truly, has no need of a beginning and no fear of an ending.

Once we have that concept established, we have to understand that everything in this life is temporary. Everything around us is in the process of being recycled back into the energy pool, and because of its temporal nature, nothing in this life can bring us true happiness for an extended period of time. We have a tendency to think that things can make us happy. We think, “If I get that new computer, I'll be happy,” or “If only I can win the love of that beautiful woman, I'll be truly happy,” when the reality is that these things can only satisfy us for a short time, and then we will become bored.

The only way to find true happiness in this life is to fully realize that nothing in this life can bring us true happiness. We have to understand that nothing--not even abstract goals and dreams--can bring us true contentment, if we cling to them.

People have the desire to make a mark on the world around them, to make a difference, to leave some sort of iconic symbol; a legacy of their existence for future generations to see. But if we think about it, our world, solar system, galaxy--everything--is in the process of being reclaimed by the energy pool. Recycling is both inevitable and imminent. There is no way to prevent the redistribution of existing energy.

Five hundred thousand years from now, nobody will remember I was here. Five hundred million years from now, it's quite possible that nobody will even know that the human race existed. Five hundred billion years from now, our solar system will be gone. No trace of our lives, our societies, our cultures will remain. No buildings, no cars, no roads, no farms, nothing.

We claw and scratch and struggle to make our marks on the world around us, trying to say, “Look at me! Look at what I did! I made a change! I made a difference!” When, in reality, even the greatest of all things anybody in our species could achieve would be a mere scratch on the surface of an unfathomably colossal, constantly changing and self-healing machine. We think five hundred billion years is an incredibly long time, but to our universe--to this mass of energy, of which we are all a part--five hundred billion years is nothing.

These concepts have come to me and solidified within my mind (with no small degree of assistance from some research into the original teachings of Siddhartha, a.k.a. The Buddha) just within the past year. Over the most recent three to four months, I've been hashing out an explanation for the yin-and-yang nature of our universe. So many religions have sought to explain the “good vs. evil” nature of our world, and they all seem to want to bring supernatural beings into play. Even the atheist religions (like Buddhism and Taoism) believe in other planes of existence, where devils and angels live.

Personally, I don't buy into that anymore. Upon understanding the recycling nature of our universe (which came to me earlier this year), I began to try to explain within myself the good-and-evil nature of our universe. My first concept incorporated the idea of multiple, parallel universes. My idea was that Good and Evil were opposite poles, much like North and South, and that there were many parallel universes, stacked up along this axis between Good and Evil. My idea was that, based on how we live our lives, we program ourselves to be more good or more evil, and when we die our energy is drawn toward one of the other dimensional planes. Planes nearer to the Good pole are increasingly good, and planes nearer to the Evil pole are increasingly evil.

I no longer believe in that. The main reason I don't believe in that is because I don't believe in rebirth. I believe that, when we die, we are completely converted into energy. I believe that ghosts are lingering pools of energy, left over from people who died with confused or troubled minds (or souls, if you prefer). Even ghosts, being energy, are in a state of deterioration and will, eventually, be recycled back into the collective pool.

I do believe that Good and Evil are like polar forces in our universe, but I don't think they run on an axis. I don't believe that there is an evil nexus and a good nexus, and that the closer we get to each will determine the goodness vs. evilness of ourselves and our surroundings. I think that both are forces in our universe, and that they are interwoven.

Our universe can neither spawn nor support anything which is purely good or purely evil. This explains many of the difficult paradoxes of our world. For example, why sometimes when we set out to do something good (like swerving to avoid a puppy dog) we end up doing something evil in the process (like running over a cat). And sometimes when we do something evil (like invading Iraq), we end up doing something good in the process (taking Saddam Hussein out of power).

It also explains certain concepts and sayings that we have developed, such as, “It's a blessing in disguise,” or “The end justifies the means.”

Furthermore, I believe that positive energy begets positive energy, and that negative energy begets negative energy. If you treat others well, even though you may not be treated well in return you will feel positive energy increasing within yourself. If you treat others badly (for any reason), you will begin to feel the acidic, negative effects of guilt, anger, and frustration as they eat away at you from the inside.

My philosophy draws from several sources, and while I believe it to be the truth, I understand that few people will be likely to adopt it as their own. Ideally, the entire world would turn our backs on religions and embrace a day-to-day life application of these altruistic principles. People are far from ideal, though, so I have no unrealistic hopes of such a thing occurring in the near future.

In the end, it all comes down to a plain and simple truth. We must treat others with the same respect and selflessness that we would hope to receive from them or anybody else in life. In so doing, we are making our own lives better. We are creating and maintaining our own clean consciences, and we are expelling positive energy into the world around us. In this way, we can live our lives with as much contentment, peace, and happiness as possible.

It is selfish selflessness, and it is the ultimate application of yin and yang for day-to-day existence (balancing good and evil within ourselves), and it is also at the core of all existence. If everyone in the world understood this concept, there would be no war.

Think about that one for a while.

Naturally, such an ideal (of global altruism) is unattainable, as there will always be somebody (a group of somebodies) in the human race who are still ignorant and stupid enough to adhere to greediness and attempt to use forceful and/or manipulative tactics in order to get rich off of the suffering of others. But, the more altruistic people we have in the world who understand the principles I've spoken of here (and still have the backbone to take a stand and keep the greedy assholes in check), the better off we all will be.

Lemonade Man

2004-10-08T05:50:00.000-06:00

I'm not sure how the divorce system works in the rest of the world, but in the USA it varies from state to state. In the state where I was divorced (Kansas), I learned some difficult yet valuable lessons about their method of processing divorce cases. The first (and perhaps most notable) thing I learned was that there is a distinct difference between the way things are supposed to work (the written law) and the way things really work (the applied law).

You've just read the beginning of my post...and here is the rest of it.

When I went to my divorce attorney for the first time, he looked me straight in the eye and told me that I had a good chance of coming out of the divorce financially stable. He told me that, because there was no strong difference between my income and the income of my ex-wife, that there would be no alimony payments. Furthermore, he explained to me that Kansas uses a formula to calculate child support, and that the formula was based on three things: the compared income levels of both parents, the amount of time each parent spent with the child(ren), and how much money each parent was spending on health insurance.

By the time the divorce was final, it became quite obvious to me that my attorney had told me a lie. The formula does work the way he explained it, but when he told me that I would come out financially stable, he was telling me a bald-faced lie. He knew (had to know, based on his seventeen years of divorce law experience) that I would come out of the divorce a financial wreck. Here is how things actually worked.

They calculated child support using the formula, the judge looked at it, ignored it entirely, and then ordered me to begin turning half of my monthly income over to my ex-wife. I felt betrayed, angry, and confused. There had to be some sort of mistake. My ex and I were both earning the same amount of income, we had a written agreement to share 50/50 custody of our daughter--the only difference to effect the formula was that my ex was paying for health insurance on our daughter.

I contacted my attorney and returned to court, pleading with the judge to eliminate the child support payments. He listened to my plea, listened to my ex complain about her need for money, and then raised my child support payments to even more than they had already been.

For several months, I was earning just barely enough money to make the child support payments, put gas in my car, buy groceries, and pay my bills. I was working as a pizza delivery driver. Then, my car got totaled and I was no longer driving. With the absence of tips, my income dropped to a base pay of $6.15 per hour. I went job hunting, and in two weeks I put in twenty-six applications. I followed up, got called in for a couple of interviews, but didn't get hired. Finally, out of desperation, I went to my boss and asked him to promote me into management.

I say “out of desperation” because I've been in management before--I've been a restaurant general manager before--and I didn't like it. I was damned good at it (won several awards for it), but I didn't like it. Unfortunately, there come times in our lives when we sometimes have to do things we don't like out of necessity.

So, here is my current situation. I now only have enough income to put gas in my car, buy groceries, and maybe have about twenty dollars per month for spending money. I haven't been able to pay my rent since July, but fortunately I have a roommate who is very understanding and generous enough to help me.

This bothers me. It bothers me to be in this situation, because I feel like I'm sponging or leeching off of my friend. I have told him my long-term plan, which is to be promoted to restaurant general manager within two years, and I have told him that I will get him paid back...but still, this troubles me deeply.

I didn't realize it until about a week ago, but since leaving my wife and filing for divorce, I've been struggling with recurring waves of depression. Things got especially dark for me after my auto accident in July, and I spent two months escaping into video games. I would go to work, come home, play video games for several hours, sleep for a few hours, wake up, get my daughter for a few hours, return my daughter to my ex, come home and play video games for a couple of hours, go to work...and the cycle kept repeating. I was ignoring nearly everything else in my life.

My depression grew from an overwhelming feeling of helplessness and despair. I mean, this is definitely not where I wanted to be at this point in my life. I'm a writer. I've had five books published through small publishers and none of them is making me any money. My last royalty check was $1.65. I chuckled when I opened that one, wondering why the publisher had even bothered to print it out and mail it to me.

I make efforts to remain optimistic, but reality keeps pushing me down. Two years ago, I attended the World Horror Convention (I'm a horror writer) here in Kansas City. I met Don D'Auria, the executive editor for Leisure Books, which is a large publishing house in New York City. He was impressed with my work and asked me to write a manuscript and submit it to him. I did so, submitted it to him in Spring of 2004, and four months later he sent me a rejection letter, saying (paraphrased), that he loved my work but didn't have the room in his publishing agenda for it.

How can I stay optimistic? I mean, I try, but jeez...even the executive editor who was supposed to be my Big Break says he loves my work but can't help me.

It's not so horrible. I know that, even now--that I shouldn't be so down about it. I know that, if it weren't for the combined pressure of everything else that's gone bad in my life, this rejection letter would be something I would feel good about. But it's not...it's bittersweet.

Still, I am the undying optimist, trying to turn my lemons into lemonade. I've compiled a list of literary agencies, with the plan to submit the manuscript to them, along with a copy of Don D'Auria's rejection letter (as an endorsement). Now, it's a matter of gathering my guts and submitting to the agencies. And then there's this blog, which is another example of turning lemons into lemonade--hoping that, by baring my naked soul to the world I will, in some way, make a positive difference in the lives of others.

So, I guess I'm a Lemonade Man. Are you a Lemonade Man (or Lemonade Woman)? Some people are, some aren't.

People who have never seen the American divorce system from a man's perspective often express disbelief, astonishment, or skepticism when they hear my story. People have a tendency to think that I'm not being honest with myself or with them, that I'm exaggerating or that I'm fabricating a false reality to justify or to cover up my own shortcomings. Believe me, that's not the case. I do have shortcomings, but I'm not living in such a profound state of self-delusion as to weave such a complex web of deceit.

What has happened, in my case, is that I've been stereotyped and bulk-processed by a conveyor-belt system of American court procedure. The divorce judges and attorneys handle so many of these cases, day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year, that they start to view everybody as the same. There is no personal treatment, and unless the divorcing male has enough money to buy large chunks of the attorney's time, the attorney will not go to the effort of learning the individual details of the man's personality, back story, or life. The attorney will look at the divorcing male, feign interest, and then mentally file the man in his brain as “pissed off asshole husband who is probably already sleeping around on his wife and wants a divorce.”

Unfair? Yes. Unrealistic? No. That's the way it works.

I don't blame the attorneys, and I don't hate them. I honestly believe that most attorneys start out with good intentions, that they are idealists and that they want to help people. But what happens, over time, is that they get several bad clients. They get the pissed off, cheating, abusive, asshole husbands. They also get the husbands who fail to pay their attorney's bills. And, because a lawyer has to make a living, the attorneys are forced to take a more jaded approach.

Clients with more money take priority. Clients with less income and who are less likely to pay off their bills take lower priority. And, unless you can pay the attorney to make it worth his time, he won't bother to get to know you as an individual--he will simply stereotype you as the pissed off, angry, cheating husband.

Judges are similar to attorneys, but not the same. Judges have a full docket and want to crank those cases through their courtroom as quickly as possible. Like most people, judges don't want to spend more time than necessary at the office; they want to finish their work on schedule, clock out, and go home. So, the judges have developed a system, whereby they process every divorce using the same, stereotypical method. In the judge's mind, the husband is probably a lying, cheating asshole and the wife is the loving, doting mother, so why not take half of the asshole husband's money and give it to the wife?

Some people might think I'm exaggerating, but I'm not.

Furthermore, the attorneys will discourage the low-income ex-husband from pursuing action in court. This is because the attorneys know that they won't be likely to get paid for the work. Here is one of my many examples. As part of the shared custody agreement (which my ex and I both signed), she is supposed to write a draft of our exchange schedule for the upcoming week, share it with me, then consider my input for revisions--we are supposed to work on it together and come up with something that is mutually beneficial.

The reality is that she makes the exchange schedule and I have no say.

It is a thirty-minute drive from my house to her apartment, yet she never (okay, maybe once every six months) schedules it so that we make the exchange halfway between our residences (much less so that she has to drive over to my house). Instead, I am scheduled to drive thirty minutes, one way, to pick up my daughter and spend three hours with her, despite the fact that I am available and willing (have begged for the opportunity) to spend more time with my daughter.

When I took this problem to my attorney, he told me, "There's nothing I can do to help you. I can't force her to cooperate. You're on your own," which was his way of saying, "I can see your financial future, pal, and you can't afford me anymore."

Oh, there is more...so much more...but I feel the anger rising in me and I want to stop writing, because anger is destructive and I don't want to dwell on it.

To wrap things up, I want to write a lead-in to my next article.

Have you ever been contemplating life, our existence, and the meaning of it all, and had this feeling that there had to be this one thing--an idea, concept, something--and if you could just figure that one thing out, the entire world, the universe, our existence, everything would make complete and perfect sense to you? Well, some people call that enlightenment. I think the term “enlightenment” sounds too hoity-toity and snobbish. Personally, I think of it more as “understanding,” and I've figured that one thing out. I'll share it with you, next time around.

Peace.

From the Beginning

2004-10-05T07:29:00.000-06:00

When people find out that you're divorced, inevitably the question will be asked, “What happened?” So, to satisfy those who would ask (and those who would want to ask but might refrain out of a sense of kindness), I will answer the question up front. In so doing, I will also explain to you how I came to my current set of personal beliefs and philosophies, and I will tell you how that has led me to the creation of this blog.

You've just read the beginning of my post...and here is the rest of it.

I am somebody who believes strongly in the power of respect. I strive, in all that I do, to treat everybody I meet with the same respect I would hope to receive from them or anybody else. It's a form of The Golden Rule (Do unto others as you would have them do unto you). At the same time, you have to respect yourself enough to demand of others a respectful attitude. In other words, just because you are respectful of others does not mean you have to be a floor mat to them. If somebody is treating me with disrespect, I feel it is perfectly within my right as a human being to tell them, “I make a conscious effort to treat everybody with a great deal of respect, and I expect the same in return.”

With that in mind, it may be difficult for some to understand how I ended up in a bad marriage with a wife who was disrespecting me on a regular basis. Unfortunately, at the time that I got married, I hadn't reached the point where I was demanding respect of myself from others. Like many people, I felt guilty whenever thoughts of demanding respect came to mind. It's common for altruistic people (people with selfless tendencies) to think that demanding respect from others is selfish. Altruistic people also have a habit of blaming themselves if they are being abused (thoughts like, “My wife is angry with me because I'm doing something wrong. If I try to do everything better, maybe she'll treat me nicer,” or “My wife is just going through hard times right now. She's got a lot of stress and trouble in her life (dealing with the past, etc.), and maybe if I work harder to make her happier, she will feel better and treat me with more respect.”

See how that works? To the altruistic person, everybody is a victim of life's circumstances. We are the heroes with the healing touch, and we want to work our magic to make people feel better. This is a virtuous trait, but we must proceed with caution, lest we be consumed in the selfish network of another person's controls and then, rather than being a healing presence, we become a footstool on which they can rest their feet.

This is a hard lesson to learn, and it's one I wish I'd learned prior to marriage. However, it's difficult for me to say whether I would have learned this lesson without going through a bad marriage and a divorce.

It's yin and yang, I guess.

Without going into extreme detail (the details of my divorce aren't as important as the nature of the relationship and how the divorce process was handled by everyone involved), I will say that I trusted my wife (now ex-wife) completely, for far longer than I should have, and that she abused my trust to the point where I felt I only had two choices: 1.) stay in a bad marriage until my daughter (then a year old) turned eighteen or 2.) leave my wife and get a divorce.

Staying in a bad marriage “for the children” is never a good idea. I speak from personal experience; as a child, my parents were horribly miserable and angry with each other for many years, finally ending in a divorce when I was fifteen years old. The years prior to the divorce were horrible for everyone in the family--including the children. We weren't a family. My siblings (three sisters and brother) all stayed away from the house as much as possible. I locked myself in my bedroom, where I escaped into the world of reading and writing. We didn't talk to each other, and when we did we were usually either depressed, angry, or both.

When my father finally left us, we we were all very happy about it. It felt quite liberating, as though a dark and oppressive cloud had been lifted. My siblings started staying home more, I emerged from my bedroom, and we became a family again.

By this point in my marriage, there was no trust remaining. Some people I went to for advice and support suggested marriage counseling, but what many people don't realize is that, by the time a marriage deteriorates to the point of no trust, there is no way for counseling to help hold it together--at least not in a healthy manner. It wouldn't have mattered what my wife had told me during counseling or how much she'd vowed to change. I never would have believed her, and I never could have trusted her to sustain the changes.

Based on the information I had at the time, I felt my only option was to divorce her. So, that is what I did. Being the altruistic person that I am, I made many efforts to make the process fair as possible. Unfortunately, she was not the kind of person who appreciated such measures. When I left her, I made a computer spreadsheet of all our possessions (we had only been married a few years, so we didn't have much). I divided the list, allowing her to keep everything that was hers prior to the wedding and most of what we'd received or bought afterward. I took what was rightfully mine (my clothes, my books, my computer, and my computer desk), along with half of our daughter's belongings. I left my ex with all the household furniture, appliances, and other electronics (entertainment center, etc.).

My ex has a notoriously bad temper, and while I'd never seen her physically attack another person I had (on several occasions) witnessed her willful and violent destruction of property. With concern for my possessions (particularly my computer and writing files), I made what I still believe to be the wise decision of leaving her while she was at work. Unfortunately, this went a long way toward riling her temper and destroying any good will I had attempted to foster with my gestures of fairness.

All through the divorce proceedings and trial, I continued to be fair and to treat her with as much respect as possible, even to the point where some of my friends and family became angry with me for not fighting back at my ex as much as they believed I should have. My argument to them (my personal philosophy) is this: No matter how mean, vengeful, or difficult my ex-wife acts or behaves toward me, I have to do what I feel is right and good--for myself, for my ex, and for our daughter. If I were to lose my temper (and believe me, I have been tempted to do so), go off on my ex, and start attacking her at every opportunity, I would compound the stress and hostility between us, which would have a strongly negative effect on our daughter.

Not only that, but my attempts to defeat her in court would most likely fail, which means that I would be hurting my daughter for little or no net gain. In my opinion, it will be far better for me to treat my ex the way I would like to be treated (even though, as in our marriage, she won't return the respect). Our daughter is only three years old now, but as she ages and matures, she will learn for herself how her mother is, and our daughter will form her own opinions of both parents. More than likely, if I live my life right, then my steadfast determination to be altruistic will pay off. Even if it doesn't, and even if my daughter matures into the kind of person who can't grasp these concepts, I will have a clear conscience.

See, my ex-wife will have to live with the consequences and guilt of her actions. Even though she currently feels that she is justified in her negative behavior against me, it is (even if only on a subconscious level) tearing at her on the inside. Each time she commits one of these negative acts, she is adding to that acidic mass inside of her, which serves only to destroy the fabric of her mind. We are all familiar with the negative “ghosts” from our past, which serve only to haunt us and attempt to bring us down--telling us that we are bad people. The less we commit negative acts, the fewer negative memories we accumulate, and the less of those ghosts will be around to haunt us.

My hope is to live my life in such a way that I do not accumulate any more of those accusing ghosts. My ex can (and will, unfortunately) continue on in her negative behavior, gathering all the negative memories and ghosts that she can. In the end, it will hurt her far more than it hurts me. And, if I can find ways to help our daughter overcome her mother's negativity, it will hurt my ex more than it hurts our daughter.

In emails to my ex (most of our communication is via email), I have told her on several occasions that I am concerned about her level of anger, and that I want her to overcome the bitterness, resentment, and vengeful attitude she has toward me. I've expressed my hope that, for her own sake, she will seek a way to release this anger and begin to function as an emotionally healthy person.

Unfortunately (and not surprisingly), she isn't open to taking my advice.

In these articles, I plan to share my experiences with you. More than that, I plan to share with you my struggles, my successes, and my failures. I want to share with you what helps me cope with all of the difficulties (and there are many) of post-divorce life as a devoted and loving father. And, in the end, I hope that you will find something in my writing which will bring you hope, inspiration, and provide you with lessons (either from my successes or my failures) that you can apply to your own life.

While I am writing this from the perspective of a divorced father, much of what I write here could be helpful to divorced mothers as well. It's also possible for non-married (or currently married) people to find helpful information in my articles. If that is the case, I'm glad. And if something you read here touches you or moves you or helps you in a profound way, please let me know. I always appreciate hearing from my readers.

So ends my first blog article. Please stay tuned for future posts.