I am small - the world is big - these are rough drafts.

First, I have NO idea if anyone will read this given the number of blogs out there.

Second, if you do read these posts, please understand they are stream of consciousness.

From these rough drafts I will derive a structured and revised set of prose, which I make no claim will be worth your time to read.

I have been interested in writing for many years now, and I believe I have gotten over the mental block of self critique that stopped me at page one for so long.

I'm totally an armature, but if you like to do something, I think it's ok not to be great - and who knows, by following your heart you may find ability hiding beneath your fears.

Nobody knows it all but everybody thinks they do.

Have you ever been in a conversation, and someone comes out and exclaims the answer to all problems?

Society is complex.

It is too complex to make 'off the cuff' statements about.

If we are to evolve as a society, we must acknowledge such things.

ACTUALLY, I HAVE A PLAN

There needs to be a MODEL built, on the Internet, and agreed to be accurate by independent and multiple sources.

This model cannot be built in a day, or a year, or a decade, but the act of building it will be constructive.

WE NEED TO ASK THE RIGHT QUESTIONS AND STOP THINKING WE KNOW THE ANSWER!

(call me out on recursive logic if you will  - but it is a low blow and argumentative way to pave yourself to the word hypocrisy)

Punt the Pundits (or) Pundits, please Punt

I know there is a concept of "responsible journalism".

It is clear you are intelligent.

It is clear your predictions sway many voters.

Please stop.  It is not responsible journalism, and I do not need to tell you this or go into greater detail because you know it already.

If I may, spend your time breaking down the words they say.

You know, a little old thing called "reporting".

Take their sentences and without bias, simply help America understand the implications.  If you have substantial valid information to bring a claim to skepticism, I trust you will present it factually and reveal your source.

Stop predicting.  It's wrong.  It screws up the election process.  Nothing can stop you but YOU.

Honestly, and most Sincerely,

Gabriel J. Green

Patriotism is an idea stealthily quelling healthy skepticism.

I do not accept being called unpatriotic for questioning the ACTIONS which have taken place in my lifetime which are a result of American leaders, those people elected by the people and for the people (ideally).

How long can we keep saying America is the Greatest Country in the World?  It rolls of my tongue like I was born saying it.

But the world can change while you still remain in the same geographic location.

Each and every time a statement is made, it is in the best interest for all stakeholders to be hearing it from a well informed source.

Otherwise, it meets the criteria of propaganda.

I feel that I put myself at risk of derision for writing these words.

I feel this because I believe these words can be interpreted and associated with the phrase "unpatriotic".

PLEASE READ AND CONSIDER THIS BEFORE YOU JUDGE ME:

Look at the text of the Declaration of Independence.

No I am not in any way shape or form suggesting the actions for which that document was the spark.

However, here is my CHALLENGE:

CAN A PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE READ THOSE WORDS ALOUD TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WITH DIGNITY AND HONOR OF THE LEVEL IN WHICH IT IS REGARDED?

Stop Hitting the Snooze Bar

I am not a particularly smart man.

I did not finish college.

Purely a gift of Genetics or God (both, maybe - I don't know) instilled me with an incredible amount of curiosity.

If I see something, I want to know how it works.

If tell me you will do something, I want to know how you are going to do it and why you believe you can succeed.

I was quite young, but I remember wishing I could vote for Ross.  His pie may have been over my head, but I never saw a candidate be so specific.

Over the years, I observed more than I acted.

I asked myself many of the questions I am quite sure thousands of others ask everyday.

• What made that murder case so special that a nation would unite in the quest for justice? 
• Why was the word God in the pledge of allegiance? I was raised Christian, but I saw no reason why all my classmates must have been.
• What actually goes on in the Peace Corps?
• Why can cops arrive at a red light and flash their siren for a quarter second, then run it?
• What was the basis for Reagan's trickle down theory?  Had it been tested elsewhere?  Where was the data?  Should we not try something this sweeping in small steps?
• Wait a second, lasers in the sky blowing up ICBM rockets?  HUH?  I knew the blast in Hiroshima was measured in kilotons of TNT. These rockets carried multiple fusion bombs yielding energy in the megaton range. It didn't take a rocket scientist to realize that one of them was on par with at least 5 to 10 of the bombs dropped to end WWII.
• What about the subs?  Were there not subs?  If nuclear war broke out, many, many high yield fusion bombs would explode in America.  Lasers?  I liked Star Wars the movie, but that was along time ago in a land far, far away.
• What was up with this Oliver North guy and why did he keep taking the 5th?  It seemed quite obvious what the deal was, so why was it stopping me from watching new episodes of Silver Spoons? (Is Erin Gray Married?).  I'm 32 :)
• Hey wait a second, isn't the President of our country seeming a bit off?  How many diagnosticians in this country knew he was well into dementia before leaving office?  Why was nothing done?  Can the people of America deal with real things, or do they need to hear what they want to hear?
• Why do I see these adds about feeding children, and adopting them?  Why do they film these poor children and put them on TV?  Am I expected to believe that if I fail to subscribe to a monthly payment, then the result will be one of the children I just saw with chapped lips and flies on the face (which I later learned is not even bothersome in their culture) would DIE?  I knew for a fact this commercial was in no way an accurate portrayal of what actions took place.  I did not feel smart.  It was plain as day.
• It seemed that genocide on par with the holocaust was taking place but where were our troops?
• I knew where quite a few pilots were - they were pressing a button, "flying" on precision cruise control and watching a building lit up by a laser explode.  Why was it that when regular Joe's who were born in a different country got killed it was ignored but great fanfare ensued when an American soldier was killed by his fellow soldier?  Yes it seemed the nation was captivated by a botched training mission and one death and really didn't care if a few hundred, or maybe a thousand people who happened to be in the blast radius of a bunker buster got maimed?
• I had been hearing the word "sanction" for along time, and from what I understand (I still do not understand it completely) - citizens of the country on which sanctions are imposed suffer a degradation in the quality of their life. Was I missing something or were we using passive aggression to hurt regular people because we disagreed with their leader's policy.  Would Americans tolerate such a thing?
• Why do people refuse to recognize an argument which is at deadlock?  The signs are clear.  When one person says "you are killing a baby" and the other says "it's my body" - this argument is not going to end. Why do people waste their energy?  There are facts which cannot be disputed. A sperm cell comes into contact with an egg and chemical reactions nobody fully understand cause this to be the first cell which then replicates itself using nutrients from the mother's body. At first each cell is identical but soon some of them start to change and become specialized.  Eventually, and by no means in a discrete fashion, the set of cells begins to take on a human form, which after about nine months is ready to leave the mother's body.  What does any of this have to due with murder?  What does any of this have to do with the fact that the mother of child is her own body?  Plain as day - obvious as the head on your shoulders, this is a slippery slope and nothing, no amount of arguing will ever change it.  You can believe or "feel" how wish about this, but it does not change the fact of the matter.  While it may be regarded as distasteful by some, the fact that the fertilized egg develops independently and the fact that it develops inside the mother's body is analogous to a home owner and his or her plant which resides in the house.  You put a seen in the dirt.  Then if you water it and give it sunlight, it grows.  It is your house.  You are inside that house just like organs are inside your body, and the plant is in your house.  If you throw in out, it will die.  If you care for it, it will live.  Life.  Death.  Two options.  Suppose and one night you were drunk and decided to throw a seen in the pot.  Well, it is growing now.  It's in your house.  You own the house.  Throw it out or keep it, it's plain as day what the outcome will be.  Murder and ownership have nothing to do with a biological process which once set in motion will proceed without intervention and stop completely without.  That is IT.  There's nothing to argue. Oh there is that case where the burglar knocked the seed into the dirt while he was violating your house.  It's still your house and the process has begun.  What basis is there for a relationship between events?
• Why was the president impeached for lying about intimate relations?  Did the amount of resources justify the cause?  Why do American tolerate their representatives taking so much time to pursue such a petty thing?  President Clinton was smart.  He had intelligence which is rare.  This is a quality which seems overwhelmingly important.  His acceptance of sexual favors is clearly an abuse of power, but did anyone bother to compare that abuse with the contrasting abuse of power in our government?  Call me idealistic - that's not it works "sonny boy" but if you are so complacent then please offer some answers to these queries.
• Some number of rogue criminals carefully planned and exploited security holes to pull of 9/11.  It was a sad event.  But, it was also the beginning of the phrase "WAR ON TERROR".  no, NO, NO NO!  This is an invalid use of the word war.  TERROR is not a country with borders - it is not in one place - it is in reality a huge threat with no solution on the table.  Why does America refuse to acknowledge that modern times have brought modern loopholes in our system to remain secure.  Toxins like Rican come from a bean!  Our borders are massive.  The Internet allows totally encrypted point to point communication all over the world.  We have accepted the good.  The bad is not going to go away.  It is there.  There is not WAR to fight - there is a CONDITION to deal with, and I do not know the answer, but I do question why the focus is so obviously off track.
• We are going nuts about non-proliferation.  We are ready to go to war over it.  These are countries with borders and scientists.  We still have a few subs and rockets in bull-pen.  The same thing which kept the world together during the cold war will keep small countries from committing suicide.  Would it not be more sensible to say, "we require proof that you security standards are as strict as ours as a reflection of changing times and the possibility of rogue criminals with an intention of stealing and using your materials against us" ?  Who are we to declare anyone who builds a bomb is going to be sanctioned or invaded?  Why does nobody ask this question? If it is asked, then what is the answer?  Also, how did Israel get nukes?  I do not know, but I'd like to find out.
• This battle in Israel and Palestine.  "For God's Sake" take a step back and look at the picture.  Babies are born every day into a situation of danger and strife.  Why?  Is it over disputed real estate?  Buses blow up.  F-16's retaliate and people die.  People just die, and keep on dying.  STEP away.  Each new baby is born with no hate for their neighbor.  Why can *nobody* see the practical approach for the sake of their sons and daughters and simply for the betterment of the world, setting an example that we are more than apes who won't back off in an an endless game of king of the hill?
• We are entrenched in Iraq.  I am pretty sure if we pulled out now, the people we intended to "save" would be left much worse off (tell me if I'm wrong, please).  So, we went in on the premise that they (1) harbored massive amounts of bad stuff that could be used to kill bunches of Americans (2) ruled by a dictator who used chemical weapons on his own people (how many died as a result of that action compared to the residuals from our strikes?  what about compared to genocides of recent years?) - and (3) he had every intention of harboring terrorists who would use the country as a base of operations.  I have seen nothing but loss of life on both sides.  I was sick to see the way his execution was filmed by a cell phone - this perfect contrast of today's technology in the midst of barbaric ritualistic and highly biased capitol punishment.  He ruled in that region for so many years.  He was a man.  Our goal is supposed to be to stabilize and bring peace and a better quality of life.  Is it not reasonable to think he could have been a resource in this matter?  Knowing he was not going anywhere, he might have insights which is is obvious we do not as we see generals resigning their commission in disgust.  Why am I thinking these questions?  What am I missing?
• In the current election, the Democrats will win, right?  They must because Bush has been so wrong so many times that it seems obvious (I'm not a pundit, believe me - this is writing on the wall as far as I'm concerned).   Even setting this aside, Democratic voters are being fed huge promises dealing with health care - things that seem to me would require huge adjustment to the largest industries on our country.  WHERE ARE THE SPECIFIC DATA SETS WHICH SHOW THESE POLICIES WILL WORK AND WHY MUST THEY BE ROLLED OUT AT ONCE BEFORE EVALUATING THE EFFECT IN PLACES IT IS DESIGNED TO HELP THE MOST?  The say what the EFFECT will be IF the plan happens and mention the way they'd like to pay for it.  You would think they are the only branch of our government.  Why can't I get some assurance from incumbents that they agree and will back this plan?  Why is there no specific research data at a level an educated economic academic or professional can evaluate and give a non biased opinion upon?  AM I CRAZY TO ASK FOR THIS?
• What was the result of that "first 20 days" thing in congress?  It was an inspiring media byte, but what happened?
• Will anyone besides me just ask questions and stop listening to other peoples opinions and making them their own?  I am by no means an extra smart person.  These questions are based in simple logic, and I admit some of them are possibly invalid - still if I can think of them, then so can others, and I know I would benefit from answers or guidance as to why my questions are invalid and/or what the answers are.