I have been mulling my version of a better America for some time. I think for many people it's a utopian society where the government ensures that everyone has plenty. For some it's a society without religion and, thus, religious conflict. For others it's a place where there is no government at all and everyone can live as he or she pleases.

But this is how it looks to me. Beginning with a few facts as I see them:

1) People aren't created equal (I'm not tall, handsome or brilliant)
2) Government can't solve all of our problems without creating more problems
3) God exists and Satan opposes us
4) The opportunity to create wealth creates a better world for all of us (the person who invented the microwave got rich, I'm guessing and God Bless him or her for that).
5) America is already the most generous nation on earth (in real terms, not sure about percentages).
6) A lot of the money that's given to hon-profit organizations pays the hefty salaries and marketing budgets of those organizations.

So, I don't believe we can create or expect equal outcomes, better government programs, life without conflict, more giving to churches and synagogues, or more effectiveness from non-profit organizations.

So what can we do? What would it take to create a better America? I think it's this.

If Americans were to devote their time, energy and money to those who are the most needy around us - particularly the elderly, young single Moms and those locked in urban blight - I believe we could change the world. I hope to be a part of a movement similar to "habitat for humanity" or the Salvation Army who give directly to those in need, but with one change - investing directly in individuals futures.

I think if we invested our dollars directly - each finding one individual to help - we could wipe out (the almost criminal) high interest credit card debt that holds people down, ensure that they have a car that will get them safely where they need to go, make sure they have access to decent child care and a decent education for their children and that they don't have to worry about where their next meal is coming from. That would break a cycle of dependance that I don't believe I could get out of (I would lose hope if I were in their shoes). This wouldn't involve a new government program, but would ensure that they are getting all the benefits available to them. It would also provide someone to give guidance about education, job interviews, smart financial decisions, etc.

There is a tremendous amount of money in America. And it's here because of capitalism. A lot is already given to different causes. But I believe, given the proper leadership - whether political, clergy or laic - and given a commitment to sacrifice for the good of others, that we could change the world by directly affecting the lives of the most needy.

What do you think?

It's Friday morning which means (for most of us) one more day at the grind and then two days of freedom. Hallelujah!

Never mind that we have a small group dinner planned for Friday night; we'll spend all of Saturday helping our friends (family of 5 currently staying with us) move into their new house. We'll be a church until noon on Sunday and then again from about 5:30 to 7:30 on Sunday evening and then we'll have to finish all the kids homework and get ready for the week.

Still. It's not like being at work.

Everyone have a great weekend.

sharptalk

Supreme Court Justices and their ages:

John Paul Stevens, 85
Ruth Bader Ginsberg, 72
Antonin Scalia, 69
Anthony Kennedy, 69
Steven Breyer, 67
David Souter, 66
Clarence Thomas, 57
John Roberts, 50

Samuel Alito, 55 (upon confirmation)

It's commonly accepted that the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary committee will vote against any Bush nominee who is pro-life. That's the only thing they need to know. (I should point out that Chief Justice Roberts is clearly pro-life and was approved by some Democrats in the Senate, I'm isolating the Judiciary committee here.)

So that raises the obvious question. Are they comfortable with the Republicans voting against every judge put forward by a Democratic president who is pro-abortion? Would that be considered reasonable?

As long as the Republican have their majority in the Senate - and that's likely to continue for a while at least, that would mean that there would be no judge affirmed to the Supreme Court by Hillary until she found a pro-life judge.

That's nonsense.

And it's equally nonsense that there could be a move afoot to "one-issue" block President Bush's nominees.

So we're left with this silly sort of dance at these hearings. First it was the radical liberal Justice Ginsberg (abortion with absolutely no restrictions anywhere) who refused to answer any question that could come before the court, thereby nullifying any and all issues of even faint interest. Now that's the approach all of them will are taking. By the way, she was confirmed 96-3 in a Senate with plenty of Republicans who felt she was qualified even though they disagreed with her on the issues.

Imagine that.

Politics is never dull.

sharptalk

Right on cue. Daniel Shore of NPR (and formerly of Nixon's enemies list - do you think he might be bitter?) laid the blame for the mine disaster in West Virginia at the feet of President Bush. Yep, it was his fault that something happened - we don't know what yet - but it was his fault.

Have liberals become so eaten up with hate that they've completely lost the ability to reason? Not to say that conservatives weren't there under Bill Clinton - or won't be there again under Hillary potentially.

But this is absurd. So I've developed a test for those who might be possessed by the demons of hatred. If you answer any three of these positively, you should seek help.

1) You have a picture on your desk at work that compares George Bush to a monkey
2) You believe Halliburton controls the weather
3) You believe anything they say on CBS news (not everything - anything)
4) You have an Al Gore bumper sticker on your car
5) You have been known to quote Michael Moore about anything
6) Same as above - substititute George Soros, Cindy Sheehan, Jane Fonda, the Dixie Chicks or any actor, singer, producer, writer, professor or otherwise reality-challenged socialist
7) Your call Bush a terrorist and Chavez a hero
8) You believe Al Qaeda did some good things
9) You hope Saddam wasn't tortured in prison
10) You've believe Bush isn't doing enough to keep America safe and is also doing too much to keep America safe

Any three of the above qualifies you for government assisted help. If you answered all 10 in the affirmative, you should resign as head of the DNC.