To read article, refer to blogroll on right, hit subject
Should the US pull out its troops regardless of whether
Iraq is ready to defend its people?
A New World Peace isn’t part of the “New World Order”; the New World
Order doesn’t acknowledge the possibility of acheiving peace, and assumes
the inevitability of continued war.
The world’s people should, could identify the interests at stake for continued war, and seek to end war by uniting themselves directly, bypassing the special interests, seeking to unite themselves in peace, and strength!
What prevents the world from moving beyond war? It seems the combination
of our technological rise, with an ongoing attempt to master the world, nature, and
each other, brings us to a choice. Will we keep fighting ourselves, keep threatening
the destruction of our planet, or realize a place yet unseen, turning our struggle with
one another toward a common goal of building ourselves to the height of our potential.
Instinct, intolerance, and technology has formed an abyss under us, endangering our
existence along with our ability to move to a higher state of being, a higher civilization.
Weather you believe our destiny is shaped by us, or through us, it’s up to each of us
to continue over the void we find ourselves drawn across, moving to the other side
toward the potential that lies ahead. In doing this we must progress, not only techno-
logically, but socially and spiritually, recognizing our similarities exceed our differences,
while developing a greater tolerance for differing views, ideas, and beliefs. Allowing
diversity to add strength.
It seems societies based on religious faith would benefit from an enhanced secular
approach in dealing with one another in the resolution of disputes. With regard
to the Israeli, Palestinian issue of settlements, for instance, disputes arising from
differing ideas of religious entitlement, set against one another, can be more effectively
delt with within the more objective realm of secular law, one designed by both sides
specifically to resolve the dispute in question.
As the world becomes more interconnected, fostering greater interdependence,
it’ll be essential to objectively resolve differences. In the process of building a balance
of prosperity beneficial to all, we begin to realize a place where war becomes obsolete.
We’ve reached a decisive moment in history, with both the need and opportunity for
individuals to have greater impact; with ideas flowing as free as the wind, and with them,
hopefully, freedom, prosperity, and peace flowing as naturally as the air we breath.
As nations compete for leadership, influence, and markets, it’ll be interesting to
see how China continues to adapt to freedom, and the free market system.
A traditional view held in the east is that power lies not in diversity, but unity. Where
as, some countries have a greater cross section of people, providing access to a wealth
of ideas, talents, skills, and backgrounds, many believe less diverse countries have
greater unity and focus.
Japan’s rise to the world’s second largest economy has been phenomenal. This
success is due, in large part, to a single minded focus on developing the most reliable,
fuel efficient cars and trucks. On the flip side, China’s focus on mass producing cheap
products at cheap prices, has given it the fastest growing economy, propelling it to
the world’s third largest.
Conversely, in America, we believe our great diversity is our great strength, with
our system of freedom not only providing an environment favorable to innovation,
but one that attracts the best minds from around the world.
While Japan resembles China, in unity and focus, they more resemble America,
in system and freedom.
If the United States, Europe, Japan, and other democracies can present China with
a phalanx of freedom, diversity, unity, and focus, it’s likely China will adapt, changing,
as it has, to what works best. For China, just as the free market system has proven itself superior to the reverse, so shall the freedom of the world’s people prove itself superior
as well.
World peace has a chance when enough people live under a system which nurtures
freedom, equality, and prosperity for all; a world in which people have the opportunity
to raise themselves to a better place, one they deem precious to preserve.
As the world system evolves to freedom, and democracy, an unprecedented era
of peace and prosperity has the opportunity to emerge by virtue of the fact it will
be in enough peoples’ interest to preserve a peace conducive to prosperity, and a
prosperity conducive to peace.
It’s not beyond vision to see a world where all people live in freedom, having the
opportunity of getting a good education, while developing themselves, along with the
world’s potential.
It’s in our power to create a system in which war ends, in as much as it’s in our
power to have faith that God helps those that help themselves.
The people of China are moving toward prosperity, liberty, and democracy.
Of the 6.5 billion people in the world 2.3 billion live in free societies, 1.5 in
partially free societies, and 2.2 billion live in dictatorships, or totalitarian ruled
societies.
The correlation between freedom, and economic prosperity is clear. Irrespective
of region or culture, every country with a gross national income per capita above
$3,250 is a free society, with the exception of oil rich, subsidized, Saudi Arabia.
China, also, appears as a short-term exception, yet, how long can a people push
themselves, and be pushed, without the freedom that liberty brings?
As China continues it’s march toward the status of superpower, the people
responsible, being the citizens of China, aren’t likely to be satisfied in economic
equality with the world’s people, and democracies, without the accompanying
greater spiritual, social, and political liberty of free societies, as well
By constraining the freedom of people, thoughts, and ideas, China limits it’s own
potential, placing it’s continued economic prosperity in question, limiting the results
that come with greater freedom, innovation, and international cooperation.
People won’t fail to notice the cynical nature of adopting the economic policy of
the free market system, without it’s accompanying liberty. China’s government
has opened the door to the liberty that follows prosperity. Just as Americans
longed for something greater then prosperity, during the American Revolution, so
shall the Chinese.
The world shouldn’t lose heart in observing China’s rise, since the economic
transformation we’ve witnessed will invariably be followed by a comparable
political, social evolution. As China takes it’s historical place among the most
enlightened of peoples, it’ll become a partner in democracy, peace, liberty, and
equality for all people.
While funding by special interest groups to political candidates stands in the way
of democracy more representative of the people, perhaps, of greater concern is the
way in which raising money dominates so much of the process, relegating ideas and
issues to whatever place or time is left.
Political candidates spend anywhere form 25 – 50% of their time raising money.
Not only could this time be spent talking about issues that matter to people, but the
focus on money is also a way for the powerful to manipulate the time to their advantage,
as opposing candidates are compelled to focus on raising money instead of issues a money
flush candidate may want to avoid. A landslide of money doesn’t nessisarly equate with a
landslide of votes, but it surly tilts things in favor of those with the greater money machine.
Also, candidates with great ideas, but less initial support, money, and influence
are, many times, left behind at the gate.
Seems there’s a need to put the focus back on ideas and issues, while at the same
time raising money in a way that levels the playing field.
We need a more interactive process for the ideas, the candidates, and fund raising.
Instead of candidates raising money separately, why not link fundraising with ideas
and debate performance. All candidates with the requisite signatures could participate
in the debates. Their funds up to that time would be limited to whatever amount comes
with the signature threshold. Next, there’s the televised debate; ideas, issues, candidates
are presented; afterward, Americans have the option of donating up to $200 to their
favorite candidate.
The debates could be spread over the full election cycle, for the primaries and
general election. However much a candidate raises during a debate is how much
they’ll have to campaign on till the next debate, making the process idea focused,
and performance oriented, also, better engaging people, cutting out the special
interests, while leveling the political playing field.
The American people could vote on this change, as a campaign finance reform
bill, in a referendum.
That’s a broad stroke; giving us, the American people, the sole power to raise,
and elect our political leaders.