It's true that Bill Clinton doesn't know I exist and, if he did, he wouldn't care about me. Same is true of Bush. Nader doesn't know about me either, but from what a few people on this board have said, he might care about me as an individual.

So what do we do?

One thing is to take the first step toward making whatever changes we identify as the most important. I guess the first step toward that is to identify the goals, and then identify the steps that need to be taken.

And first steps are necessarily local in nature. We may not have to reform the entire U.S. government all at once. What, for example, would Nader be able to accomplish if we elect him as president and there isn't a single Green Party member of Congress? That won't accomplish his goals. Here's an example. The Green Party platform includes a plank of abolishing the U.S. Senate. That would take a Constitutional Amendment. So Nader as president could introduce the legislation, but then it still has to be approved by both houses of Congress and some percentage of the states -- I don't know whether it's a majority or a super majority. This is simply not going to happen if the only elected official who backs the proposal is the president. So let's think about what we can do to bring about the changes that we want.

But whatever we do, let's not just throw our hands up and say it's hopeless. It will only be hopeless if we do nothing.

Let's also try to stay in balance -- as Wise says, everything we hear is filtered through the media -- always always always ask yourself what SOURCE has provided you with a piece of information and what point of view that source has. Test a variety of sources against the opinions that you have formed for yourself. Don't take anyone's word for it. Also, take a look at how many layers of attribution a particular story has, and how many "weasel words." A good example of this is the article pasted into Genius' reply above. This is an article reporting on an article. So you've got lots of layers of attribution. If anyone's called on the story, they just point to the London Sunday Telegraph and say, "Hey, we're just reporting on their story -- we're not saying this is true." Notice that the Sunday Telegraph would not be subject to a libel lawsuit in the U.S., but Conspiracy Nation would be. So ask yourself why the story is written the way it is. Notice that the article says that the U.S. papers aren't rushing to report the same thing -- and implies that this means that the media is covering something up. Notice how that implication is made. Notice what the writer wants you to think. Ask yourself whether there are other credible explanations for the set of facts that the writer is using to raise his implications. Notice how many times the words "allegation" or "claim" or the like appear. Ask yourself why the reporter didn't interview the witnesses himself. Ask yourself why this isn't being pounced on by the Bush camp.

I'm not commenting on the truth or falsity of the article posted in here. I'm saying that these are the kinds of questions we should be asking of every article we read, in order to stay mindful of the power of persuasion of the written word, the power of suggestion, and the role that various media play in changing minds.

There's as much to be learned from what is left out of a story as there is from what is included.

So. What's the first step? What's the goal? Are we united on this or are we all working on different issues?

Peace.