Teddy Roosevelt, where are you now?

There isn't a person in this country that doesn't agree -- yes, we're united on one point -- that we need a change in government. No, we can't agree on what that change may be, but we agree it's needed. Some support McCain, some Obama, some Hillary. Some people are still holding out for Al Gore or Ralph Nader, and others are still wishing Kusinich, Edwards, Romney, Guilliani, or Ron Paul were still in the race.

No matter who you support, I don't know anyone who supports the current administration. OK, statistics say a few still do, but I can't fathom who they are.

I've been pretty public of my support of Barack Husein Obama, who is not a terrorist, not a Muslim plant, not a weakling ready to hand the country over to "Muslim Fundamentalists", and a guy who I would trust to answer the phone at 3 a.m., 2 p.m., or whenever it should ring. I find him to be appropriately experienced, having served in the same Senate as Mr. McCain and Mrs. Clinton, and although he did not live in the White House for 8 years, I wouldn't vote for Chelsea, Socks the cat, or Monica Lewinski; I just don't find that argument valid. Most importantly, and maybe because he's not part of the Washington establishment, I believe him when he says he's not a politician, and that's what I'm looking for in a candidate.

Really, everything the opposition points out as his weaknesses are what I find to be his strengths. He's an elitist... far better than the moron we have now; I want an intelligent President. He's inexperienced... I read that as uninfluenced. He's too young... no, not at all; most politicians are too old. His constituents and donors are all young. It's the young who are truly going to feel the effects of this presidency. Oh, he doesn't wear a flag pin on his lapel... I'm not even touching this one.

Now the new attack, his Facebook constituency. The Clinton people brought this gem to the table. “Our people look like caucus-goers,” Grunwald said, “and his people look like they are 18. Penn said they look like Facebook.”Penn added, “Only a few of their people look like they could vote in any state.”

I'm part of this Facebook constituency, I donated money to his campaign, I'm 32 years old, I vote, I voted in the last 3 Presidential elections, as well as a number of Senate, House, state, and local elections. So many people my age are contributing to his campaign, voted for him in the primaries, and support him for the election. Yes, we're young; most of us are not quite old enough to be President ourselves. We're the generation inheriting this shithole we call a country.

When it comes down to it, Barack Obama isn't even my first choice for president, but of the choices I have, I feel he's the best for the country. He's not the best for me, he's the best for the country. Maybe I'd like to have a beer with this guy, maybe I wouldn't, but I don't vote on that kind of feeling. Maybe one day he'll vote away my right to carry a pistol on a bus, or make me file an extra 6 forms to buy a new gun, but our children will have medical coverage. No one politician is going to espouse all of my ideals, and I accept that. But my ideals don't rule the rest of the country. I'm an atheist, but most people consider themselves Christian, or at least "people of faith". I accept that the President of the United States won't always agree with me, but I can hope that the President of the United States will do what's best for the country. I believe Barack Obama will.

If I were to vote my personal beliefs, I'd have to go with Kusinich. Alas, he dropped out of the race. If I had to vote for the greatest concerns I can think of, I'd vote Nader, but I fear that he doesn't have the strength to win, nor do I know his position on the issues beyond the environment. In that vein, I'd love to see Al Gore, but without him running, it's hard to elect him. If there's one person on this planet I always agree with politically, it's Bill Maher. Again, he's not running for office. He's a comedian, he's good at that, and people need to remember that.

Now, if there was one person I could vote for now, who would best serve the total and overwhelming needs of the people, and who I would agree with point by point on just about every issue, I'd vote Theodore Roosevelt.

Good old Teddy, historian, naturalist, explorer, author, soldier, progressive, and (the two down points) former President of the United States who died 89 years ago.

T.R. became the 26th President of the United States at the age of 42. For reference, Barack will be 47 by Inauguration Day, and in fact the Constitution only requires on to be 35.

He was a Progressive reformer who sought to move the dominant Republican Party into the Progressive camp. He distrusted wealthy businessmen and dissolved forty monopolistic corporations as a "trust buster". He was clear, however, to show he did not disagree with trusts and capitalism in principle but was only against corrupt, illegal practices.

Where is this man today? This is the kind of guy who would kick George W. Bush and Dick Cheney squarely in the teeth. What do you think T.R. would say about Halliburton?

His "Square Deal" promised a fair shake for both the average citizen (through regulation of railroad rates and pure food and drugs) and the businessmen. He was the first U.S. president to call for universal health care and national health insurance. As an outdoorsman, he promoted the conservation movement, emphasizing efficient use of natural resources. After 1906 he attacked big business and suggested the courts were biased against labor unions.

It sounds to me like Roosevelt was a Social Democrat, or possibly a Libertarian. His platform sounds pretty progressive and on target for today, not bad for a guy who was in office over 100 years ago. This sounds like a guy I'd vote for.

As a second choice to voting for a dead guy who has already served his 2 terms, and is therefore ineligible to be President, I offer armed rebellion. Allow me to quote the Declaration of Independence:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Of course, I fear, despotism has taken its hold, so if I were to march on Washington with my musket in hand, I would most definitely be jailed, is not executed under the false grounds of Treason. Perhaps I'd be sent to Guantanimo Bay and be waterboarded. When we signed the Patriot Act, we threw away the Constitution. Evidently the Declaration of Independence was in with it.

We are at an important crossroads in this country. The Unites States is truly screwed up, and so is the planet, and our priorities in government seem to be equally flawed. The big issues shouldn't even be the war in Iraq. It's already a failure. The big issue is bigger, it's about the United States' place in the global community. Our foreign policy is inherently flawed. And our contribution to the deterioration of our planet is so far in excess of what a responsible modernized nation's should be. We need to think beyond our own borders and beyond our own lifetimes, and I'm not sure we can right now. It's not about gas being $4 a gallon, it's about fossil fuel technology being non-sustainable, environmentally irresponsible, and politically dangerous.

I'm in total support of any fuel source that can be tapped that is better for us and the environment than petroleum. I am leery, however, as we explore new possibilities, that what may seem the solution today may become a bigger threat to the Earth tomorrow. In many respects, I may simply be more "anti-fuel" than "pro alternative fuel". Global warming is possibly the single most important issue we face right now.

It's gone beyond contemplating change, and it's gone beyond "we need to sacrifice". The lifestyle of the Westernized person needs to change radically, and the solution is not a matter of alternative fuels -- a lack of dependence on foreign oil -- but a lack of dependence on those things that require oil. Biodiesel and hybrid cars may help, but not driving entirely is closer to what I believe the solution needs to be. It's no longer enough to buy recycled and recyclable products, it's time to buy less products. Consumerism is destroying the Earth, and I don't know if anyone noticed, but the Earth seems to be pretty integral to our existence.

It's time to change the "westernized" way of life. It's time to change the "westernized" mindset. The current administration would like to spread Christianity, freedom and democracy across the globe. We think too highly of "our" way of life. It's our way of life that's destroying this planet, both physically and politically. Look at the impact of "westernization"; I don't think we have it right. How can we be so vain and arrogant as to think our way of living is the best? Well, it's the same arrogance that shouts out that this is "the best country in world", shouted by voices who have never left its borders.

There is an absurd notion that the map of the globe as it was at the end of World War II is carved in stone. Sure, we can occasionally draw another few lines bisecting the Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia or Yugoslavia, but any other evolution of the Earth is not allowed. New empires may not be formed. Borders may not be shifted. Iraq may not invade Kuwait, nor may the flawed concept of Israel be abandoned.

OK, please put down your flaming arrows for a moment, I am not an anti-Semite. I just believe that the genius who decided that, as restitution for the Holocaust and the near eradication of the Jewish people from Europe, carving out a piece of Middle Eastern beach front property for them was the right move, should be shot. No, not shot; whoever came up with that well-thought plan should have been personally made responsible for ensuring it peace, armed only with a pocket-knife.

Israel is a political nightmare, for itself, for the region, and for the United States. Now, what I'm going to say next will have me labeled as a terrorist sympathizer along side Rev. Wright. Osama bin Laden made clear, prior to 9-11, that his cause was to end American involvement in Israel. He asked us simply to leave Israel to its own means and let the Middle East deal with itself. So, in completely ignoring this, because in our own arrogance we knew better what the Middle East needed than the Middle Eastern people, yes, we invited the attacks of 9-11. Now, even knowing this, the U.S. has a policy that "we do not negotiate with terrorists". OK, tell that to someone who's father worked on the 107th floor of Tower 2.

Even leaving the Middle East alone, let's go to China. Like Cuba, China is a Communist nation. We have an embargo with the tiny island nation of Cuba; we can't smoke Cuban cigars, and they have to drive cars from 1952. They seem to be doing OK repairing their 52 Chevys, and giving their citizens nearly free healthcare, and welcoming Canadian tourists. China, on the other hand, is a giant super-power nation under a totalitarian Communist regime. Do we have a trade embargo with them? No. We couldn't. How would we stock our Wal*Marts? How would Barbie poison our little girls? Where else would we get the cheap consumer goods we need to have... for 6 months... before they fill our landfills and leach lead back into the soil? And what does China import from us? Just job opportunities.

But we don't care about job opportunities lost to Southeast Asia. We're only concerned with Mexicans working here. Mexicans aren't stealing jobs from us, they're doing the jobs we refuse to. Without Mexicans picking fruit -- if we had to pay fruit pickers at least minimum wage -- do you have any clue what a gallon of orange juice would cost? And maybe illegal aliens are moving into the jobs with a fixed wage, too. I'm fairly certain the people serving my coffee at Dunkin' are illegal. That's fine by me. When I was 16, that was the type of job I had; I worked at Wendy's and later Pizza Hut, my friends worked at McDonald's, the movie theater, etc. But today's youth are too good for these types of jobs, and since I (and millions of you, too) still want coffee and hamburgers that we don't have to make ourselves, illegal workers will happily work those jobs.

Our children are too good to be employed as laborers, too. Our parents and grandparents worked in factories, making things, but they wanted better for us. They wanted us to go to college. Now we have generations of our nation's children over-educated, and of the mindset that they are too good to perform manual labor. So, we have two choices, illegal aliens in our manufacturing plants, or ship those jobs overseas with everything else. Let's face it, the only thing our country produces anymore is debt.

We make debt. Our government makes debt. We have one thriving industry in this country, and it's debt. Did you ever notice how many credit card applications we receive daily; more companies, creating debt for profit, profiting off our debt. We have domestic debt. We have foreign debt. We have unpayable mortgage debt, yet we bail out failed investment debt. We have a massive trade deficit, which is just more debt. This month the government is trying to mail you back part of its debt, hoping you'll buy something. The problem is, 90% of the things one might buy just produce more trade debt.

There are still a few American companies still benefiting from the economy. Unfortunately, these aren't companies in the U.S. right now. These companies are in Iraq. These companies are actually thriving because the government is creating more debt financing them in Iraq. At least we can say that this multi-billion dollar debacle is benefiting a few American companies, right? Sure. But do we know who owns these companies? Members of the current administration, that's who. It's no different than if Bush, Cheney, and the gang just brought bills before the Congress to make their checking accounts items on the national budget... really enormous items on the national budget. This isn't war profiteering, this is felony larceny on the grandest of scales. Now I'm sure this isn't the first time this has happened, but never before has it been so blatant. And we're letting it happen.

Why? Because we're complacent. We're happy with our westernized way of life, existing only as consumers. We're happy to destroy the planet. We're happy to be the hind end of the global community. And we're happy to be taken complete advantage of by those we put in power. I never told my Congressman I wanted to go to war. I never told my Senator it was OK to burn the Constitution and replace it with the Patriot Act. I told my Congressman I wanted to support a clean energy bill. I told my Senator I was against the use of torture in any way. Was I heard? Likely not. Will I allow him to represent me next year? Likely not.

One screaming madman with a blog is just that. 10,000 unified voices is a movement. And a movement that is quieted or ignored becomes a revolution. True patriots held a revolution; they didn't eavesdrop or wear flag pins.