To contemplate the Us Vs Them concept and attempt to see it in every day life all around is an enlightening exercise.  It can enable one to begin to gain a better perception of the world around.  It can help one to begin to open their eyes to new possibilities and alternatives that may have not been previously aware of.  Far too often the only conflict in a situation is simply this concept alone.

America should return to a foreign policy of old.  A non-interventionist neutral concept that would serve to avoid conflicts and dependence.  The nation as a whole has taken a philosophy that will only ruin relationships with the world and weaken the nation as a whole.  To stand against wars alone would not be acceptable, one must watch friendships and alliances.

There are philosophical, financial, and political stand points to support such a neutral policy.  Karl Marx envisioned a world working as clockwork all without possessions all a ward of the state all equal and peaceful.  Under his world view this would work, only his approach and foundation for all of this was flawed. This would only work with beings who did not posses so many flaws, desires, and such a spirit of competition which naturally runs through human beings.  This unity may sound nice, but how can it come to be if even a local society can not work together peacefully?

It seems that man has an instinct to find a place within society where they feel a sense of belonging, brotherhood, and comradary. In Hellenistic cultures one can see the schools of philosophy that were chosen at a young age before the individual had a chance to truly come to a complete knowledge of what it was they were dedicating their lives to. As Plato wrote attributing to Socrates, “An unexamined life is a life not worth living.”(Plato, 71) So as a part of examining one’s life and finding purpose and place within the scheme of the world around them humans tend to collect into these groups that focus upon their similarities, and the differences of neighboring groups. This is one major problem with creating a complete utopia and peaceful society. It is the concept of human error and conflict with which we have always struggled. Much of this paper will focus on the conflicts that can occur, and individual and their desires to be free as well as the flaws men have and how a society can allow for these individual identifications to thrive without the attempt of oppression. This will touch on subjects of examining one’s life, concepts of personal responsibility, and government. This will also touch on concepts of compassion in relationship to responsibility and liberty as a whole.

To remain as uninvolved with foreign disputes as possible is also a major point of America’s founding fathers. There were few functions of federal government perceived by Thomas Jefferson. The basic concept was to keep peace and order. Being a government of the people those people should take up the shared burden of compassion and responsibility within the society so that the government should have no reason to take steps to intervene. It is solely on the shoulders of the people to act accordingly. It is in part the government’s part to nurture philosophy of ethics within the people that will enable it’s citizens to function properly.

George Washington made it a point to emphasize a non interventionist foreign policy in his farewell address.   “The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none; or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.”

Washington warned against the entanglements of a foreign policy that became too entangled or involved with others.  One can look at our past and see where our interaction with other countries has grown and conflicts have grown.  If one looks at points that America has kept far from the affair of the world they will find much more peace.  There will come times when certain involvements may become necessary such as in the case of World War II.  These problems must be avoided.  To take a stance of involvement and force as a preventitive measure can often be the jumping point in itself of the entire conflict.

Many of the ethics in countries such as China oppose those that the United States holds.  Keeping the stance and philosophy of Washington in mind one must ask what part should the United States take in all of this.  Many are threatened by concepts and priorities that China holds in regards to Enviornment and human rights.  There are some that would feel it is the United States or United Nations place to correct this country.  The United States has gone far from Washington’s vision to becoming the police state, or an answer for policies and hurts of almost all other nations.  Nothing could be further from Washington’s vision for the country. (Johnson, 01)

Financially war is not necessarily good.  If one provides for a war such as the case with America in World War II it is seen that war is profitable.  In cases where one must fund and pay for the war it is seen that such a thing can be a drain on resources, funds, and human lives.    Reperations are another cost of war, once the victory has been declared the United States begins to pay to rebuild another country. (Parrini, 02)  The exchange of funds between governments seems to often breed more tension, both between the countries involved and other countries who look on while this occurs.

Preventative actions are often seen as a reason for entanglements with other countries.  These actions are based often on fear of the other country growing to a point that they could cause America harm.  Is it ethical to take punitive steps against a country that may cause an incident?  John R. Bolton writes of many possible nuclear threats from other countries.  The question here is often why do these countries want to have nuclear capabilities?  America has such capabilities, but why?  Do they plan on using them against the world?  Is this the intent of other countries to use them against the world?  Is it not logical for other countries to fear the United States and the awesome power they hold against mankind and in retaliation wish to have an equal power to protect ones self?  By growing as large and powerful as the United States has grown would it be logical to expect an escalation across the world in the same direction?  How is it a country will punish another country for wanting to raise to a higher more equal level?  Has becoming more involved in foreign relations actually created the monsters one fears?

Parrini, Carl P, and James I. Matray. “Reparations.” Encyclopedia of American Foreign Policy. Ed. Alexander DeConde, Richard Dean Burns and Fredrik Logevall. 2nd ed. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 2002. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. Apollo Library. 22 Sep. 2008 <http://find.galegroup.com/ovrc/infomark.do?&contentSet=GSRC&type=retrieve&tabID=T001&prodId=OVRC&docId=EJ3010308107&source=gale&srcprod=OVRC&userGroupName=apollo&version=1.0>.

John R. Bolton. “Rogue Nations Pose a Serious Nuclear Threat.” Opposing Viewpoints: Rogue Nations. Ed. Louise Gerdes. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2006. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. Apollo Library. 22 Sep. 2008 <http://find.galegroup.com/ovrc/infomark.do?&contentSet=GSRC&type=retrieve&tabID=T010&prodId=OVRC&docId=EJ3010448213&source=gale&srcprod=OVRC&userGroupName=apollo&version=1.0>.

Johnson, Chalmers. “The United States Should Not Try to Control China.” Opposing Viewpoints: China. Ed. James D. Torr. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2001. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. Apollo Library. 22 Sep. 2008 <http://find.galegroup.com/ovrc/infomark.do?&contentSet=GSRC&type=retrieve&tabID=T010&prodId=OVRC&docId=EJ3010117231&source=gale&srcprod=OVRC&userGroupName=apollo&version=1.0>.

Marx, Karl., & Engels, Friedrich. (2002). The Communist Manifesto. London: Penguin Group.

Plato,  (1971). The Republic (13th ed.). Baltimore: Penguin Books Ltd.

Washington George, (1996). Washington’s Farewell Address 1796. The Avalon Project at Yale Law School. Retrieved September 13, 2008, from http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/washing.htm

We all have scripts. We follow scripts for life. There is a concept that at a certain age or a certain position or social status you are supposed to act a certain age. People determine their scripts. The soccer mom has a soccer mom script the lawyer has a lawyer script and the artist has his little elitist bohemian script. Each and every person walks around with their script. Now the thing about scripts is that you have the ability to choose what script you live your life by. Once an individual realizes this it can be a liberating experience.

I arrived at the airport more than an hour early. Checked in with the front and went outside to smoke a cigarette. I stood out there with all of society’s other rejects who were not accepted in the nice climate controlled environment of the airport. Just in case an epidemic of second hand smoke broke out and we all spontaneously died. Apparently that happens often when you smoke. I should know I saw the truth.com commercial all about it.

Is morality subjective?  Is decency a joke?  Yeah I’ve been to the twenty four hour fart and fuck in just about every American city I’ve been to, and I tell you that I found nothing there worth a dime.  Let me lay out the topics of this chapter.  We have feminism, adultery, sexuality, exploitation, rape, abuse, pornography, masturbation, and the whole cornucopia of debauchery.  (I love the word debauchery almost as much as the word tripe.)

When the world was repressed with the suburbs sprawling, and everyone was catering to the new middle with blind acceptance we saw the counter culture movement rise up and begin to change the world.  We all know this, If you have seen any television, films or have any knowledge of popular culture, you know we went from Buddy Holly to the Beatles.  But what happened was needed, and also destroyed so much.  The Beats were the most important part of all of this in my mind.  These guys were breaking barriers with sexuality, drugs, and writing.  These guys like Ginsberg who were not your dime store novelists.  These guys who would introduce philosophies to generations and icons like Bob Dylan.  These guys would ruin it all and at the same time save the world.

We see use of drugs and liberation of sex.  We also now see a world where inner cities are crawling with fatherless youth and drug dealers and increased crime and violence.  Wow, aren’t we glad we saw sex and drugs as such a great thing?  Now go see the cute little crack baby.  Isn’t it cute how it cries from all the pain while the poison burns its skin as it seeps out of the bottom?  I’m so glad the Hippies came along to give us this great contribution to society.

Liberation was great, ending the prejudice and repression was great, but what happened is people took it too far and lost all sense of responsibility.  Dare I say morality?  No, of course not, because if you make a comment that one does not like pertaining to their morality you are suddenly “Judging” them.  Well I will do just that, and if you want to take it as judging instead of instructing, educating, or constructive criticism, then feel free to keep your mind shut up like that.

In order to pass social Security Roosevelt passed a bill to essentially force the sitting supreme court justices out of office so he could appoint new supreme court justices that would allow an unconstitutional law to be passed.

Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937

So right out of the gate this new system was not embraces and not thought of as a good thing by all. So with the Supreme Court out of the way Roosevelt was able to begin his socialist concepts of the New Deal. Now Roosevelt was on his way to bringing Marxism to the U.S. leading the way for L.B.J. and the Clintons. Larry Ferstenou points out some myths of Social Security here Showing us a little bit of just how inefficient the whole system is. There is more to be gained from planning for your own future and investing the money that is forcibly taken from your paycheck each week. If those funds were to be invested in other plans that are available then your future and retirement would be a much wealthier one. You can see some comparisons between Social Security and Private Pensions here. The word Security is almost a lie when used to describe this federal program.

Here is the big myth, the big ass kicker, and where the wool is being pulled over your eyes. You do not have to apply for, pay or have Social Security. That’s right. You do not have to. The kicker is. Once you have applied for a Social Security card you then must pay. So If you oppose it you do not have to go apply for a Social Security card. Well let’s look at that. If you do not have a Social Security number what things would you have a problem with in the current American Federal Imposition? Try getting jobs, getting a drivers license, and many more the list is almost infinite. Most people did not apply for it their parents have signed them up for it before they even had a say in it. Does that seem right to you?

-George Washington

These are the words of George Washington from his farewell speech on the subject of political parties. Our Country was not founded on a belief of Republican and Democrat! The two party system excludes most Americans from voting their beliefs and convictions!

Now an article in the Cleveland Plain Dealer says that switching parties is illegal. It somehow upsets their party ideals. That is utter rubbish! If the people want to vote, the people feel that they disagree they should not face charges or exclusion! This is imposition on our freedom, and it is another step to insure the security on the two party system.

How many of you Americans want another choice?

How many of you Americans feel you are represented by either of these ancient parties in this Federal Imposition?

The political party should have no power to make laws, only an elected official. Elected by the American people. If there is one man prosecuted for voting then I demand a protest. I will demand an all out attack using the words of bloggers, and complete opposition to such a ruling! I do not support the Republican party and it seems this is all about what Republicans did, but despite my difference with them I feel that by an attack on their liberties like this we are attacking the freedom of the American people to vote how they want to vote. I have often thought of voting for a democrat that I disagree with over a Republican that I disagree with and visa versa.

Most Americans disagree with both parties. It is time we speak up and let this be known. These are our fathers parties not mine.

America speak out on your blogs with outrage!

America walk to the doorstep of party headquarters in protest!

Write your representatives!

I grew up in Cleveland Ohio, and I have fled the great state of Ohio. The more I see it imposing on personal freedom the more ashamed I become! I wish to return to Ohio one day but in it’s current state I can not.

His answer was to print more money to fund his war “Viet Nam” and to fund his social reforms. This was done with the Federal Reserve. What happens if citizens needed different health care or housing and they decided to print up more money for it? There was nothing to back this money, no work, no sweat, no gold. It was empty. If you get a chance I strongly suggest taking a look at this video and this video. I’m sorry there is not 30 second version, but I expect my readers to be of a higher caliber of citizen than those that want to just see Obama Girl telling them how to vote.

The Democrats want to spend more on socialist programs. I am opposed to socialism. I feel that there are places and needs for some of the things they want, but it should not be from the federal government. They can not afford this. The Republicans want to spend more on war and all these foreign welfare programs. This money just isn’t there. Yes it would be good for me to spend money on more things that I want to do, but without the money to do so how can I? What makes the Federal Imposition any different?

• Food Stamps,
• Medicare
• Medicade
• Government Funded Housing Projects
• Unemployment
• and more…

I do not propose a system that drops everything and abruptly leaves a population stranded.  I propose a new system that will address many issues that have arisen with Welfare.

I believe that Welfare has been and shall continue to be the job of the Church.  In our country we can not claim separation of Church and State if the State has taken a role of the Church.  Churches of all denominations and religions in the United States should not be Tax Exempt unless they have earned the privileged by fulfilling their duty to care for the poor and needy.

Churches are too often glamorized country clubs where their members and leaders benefit from tax exemption and financially by throwing golf outings, and sleep over pizza parties.  Too many serve no purpose besides social gathering places for the middle class.  If this lifestyle is sought it is not looked down upon, it just needs to not work falsely under the guise of a Church, but it needs to be treated as such.  It is unfair to tax Country Clubs and not to tax these churches.

By bringing the community together to tackle the problem of the needy, the problems that exist that keep citizens from working and caring for themselves can be addressed by an active community working together to resolve such needs.

Many claim that a majority of crime is rising from lower income houses.  If this is the case then by introducing moral establishments and moral responsibility into the lives of Americans will serve to end such problems.

The Trip is not as out there as some of the movies to come like Holy Mountain, but I believe it is all around a better film. The plot is not great and some of it kind of lacks, but some of the images are phenomenal. Dennis Hopper is not in it nearly as much as I would have liked, but the scenes with him are good to see. Roger Corman directed this classic and it is one of those movies that makes you ask what happened to Roger Corman. Hopper has a few scenes one of them with his anti commercialism speech is one of the highlights of the film.

This movie was written by Jack Nicholson, yeah the Joker and Shining Jack Nicholson. It seems to be a piece of film history with all these names involved in 1967.Peter Fonda’s character goes to a drug house, well not a current day drug house but a peace and love hippie commune drug house. There he plans on tripping on acid for his first time. Some of the visuals at times look much like a Hammer flick. And then we get all the cool light effects and tripy acid camera fun.The first half of the film Peter is stuck in one room tripping realizing his sexual freedom and imagining running through nature. It seems to pick up when he sees his companion who has left the room to get apple juice shot in the head. In reality this is all part of his “Trip”. He runs out into the world where he becomes paranoid and acts a fool running around tripping on LSD. One particular scene he wonders into a suburban home and wakes up a little girl who he makes friends with is a great one. The scene has a sense of humor, as well as just an odd event that it seems to stick out as part of what makes this good.Some of the best visuals involve seeing the city as it was in the late 60’s with all the branding, signs and sights of the city as Peter Fonda wonders through the world on LSD.The end is not like Easy Rider or Dirty Mary Crazy Larry, it ends with a nice hippie ending of free love.In the Scheme of Peter Fonda And Dennis Hopper Films this one seems like the moment Peter Fonda has his realization that sends him into the role he takes so often. I like to see it as an indirect pre-quill to Easy Rider. This is the moment he realizes what in the world he stands against and finds the freedom he is constantly trying to achieve.

Now we’re off to a lot of good driving scenes and a lot of clueless police disagreeing. And of course the hippie cop that refuses to wear a gun gets crap from his superiors. It truly is classic. Peter Fonda and his fellow fugitives get on to lots of lurid bickering and banter, with some dated cheesy lines. Susan George pulls the white trash role off perfect. It’s Just the kind of stuff that worked in movies like this. I’ve heard that Tarantino loves this one and by the banter I think I see why, and I think I see where some of his inspiration comes from.

It takes about forty five minutes to get to the first car chase which is over quick due to dumb luck. From there our friends go on to jump a draw bridge while it rises. Then Franklin our hippie cop gives his anti establishment speech. Peter Fonda seemed to want to make a statement in some of the movies he did, I get it, the hippie freedom put it to the man thing, but it was cheesy. Cheesy is not bad to me. I like it in this movie; it seems to work almost like it did in Easy Rider.There is a great scene where the trio goes to a swap meet and it is just full of wonderful colorful redneck characters. Deke starts to shine as the movie goes on. You start to see more fear and annoyance in his face, the worry is apparent. Deke seems to be the only sensible one of the three as Mary and Larry just go on with their flirtatious shenanigans.

The ending is very much Easy Rider. With an abrupt unrelated death of our main characters just as they taste freedom. Overall it is equal to Easy Rider but parts might be better than Easy Rider. So I suggest checking this one out.

Lt. O’Connor is a corrupt cop who gets involved with Leo, a young rich brat (John Lydon aka Johnny Rotten) who is a suspect in the murders.

O’Connor decides to take things into his own hands and takes Leo hostage. He is kept tied up in the bathroom and tortured. There are some great scenes in this with Harvey Keitel and Johnny Rotten. Truly worth the time watching. O’Connor finally decides to let Leo go.

Letting Leo go turns out to be a mistake when he walks back in to his life with dirt. Leo Returns to Ruin O’Connor’s life and play a great game of cat and mouse with him.If you decide to see a movie this weekend, I strongly recommend staying away from the piles of redundant stuff Hollywood is churning out, and give this classic a chance. You won’t regret it.