Changes we need

Politicians running for President of the United States of America are talking about the need for change, but so far, in my opinion, they are all missing the boat.

Here are the changes we really need:

• one national primary, just before the nominating conventions
• candidates have to talk about the important subjects, not the pulp mags kinds of nonsense - you know, about just how they will improve the economy, take care of national security, bring manufacturing back to this country, all those "boring" topics
• once again, we need improvements in education - people have to not only know how to read, but have to improve their comprehension skills - depending upon so called "political pundits" for their information, without the ability to discern between reality and fable (promotion), does, in the end, give us poor choices for the job of president.
• real news and political broadcasts - provided by commentators who at least know about that which they speak - all we seem to have now are, as Lewis Black to Larry King, "failed comics - entertainers"; the problem with that is, would audiences have the ability to understand what they were told, or, for that matter, could they watch the programming for more than a few minutes before switching to something more entertaining?
• commentator shows - as seen on CNN, Fox, MSNBC, et al., and their ilk should at least change their "guest" panelists - the same old faces with the same old opinions, promoting the same tired old candidates. If you don't have cable or satellite, then how can you watch/hear some intelligent commentary shown on channels like CSPAN, Free Speech TV, Book Channel, etc. (note - Free Speech TV is interesting in that you hear news, stories, and opinions that are not of the mainstream - most of what I have watched has been pretty far over on the liberal socialist side of the spectrum, but it's always good to know what "the other side" is talking about).

In other words, the change we need is to become a more mature, thinking, intelligent society. I know that's a tall order, but think about this - Governor Richardson said he was supporting Senator Obama because he is a "unifier", which is what many of Obama's backers state. But what is meant by a unified country? Wars against this country (WWI, WWII) were great unifiers, where we all worked for the common good. But without that kind of uniting event, a "unified" country could only be one which is subservient to the state. Because if we are unified, then there is no room (need?) for diverse opinion. We are subjected to what the state believes is good for us, which the state will have convinced us will make us all happy. Sounds like fascism to me.