Mainstream American culture does not promote open discussion of various issues-


Reaching for an honest understanding of US foreign policy.


Commenting on newspaper web editions-

The story has to do with the tenth anniversary of 911, a large number of troops lost in a helicopter crash in Afghanistan, or a federal park ranger gunned down in Washington State. Many comments asking for or offering prayers for the families who have suffered a loss, etc. (praying to the same god who watched over as the tragedy unfolded?) Someone posts a public policy question or comment related to the story-

“This isn’t the place for your political views, we don’t want to hear your comments about the war, or gun control, have some respect for the families, this is not the time”, etc.

Hey folks- this is a news site- not a church service. I would never scold anyone for offering prayers- why the effort to suppress ideas?


What stops terrorists from blowing themselves up in any crowded public place- just this side of the K-9 units, body language experts, body scanners and pat downs?

Plenty of news about scanners and pat-downs out at the airport- little discussion of how these steps prevent terrorists from harming others.


State budget crisis- possible solutions


Politicians figured out that ending the draft & pretending to honor The Troops for a few moments at major sporting events would make it all good.

Today- The Troops are told that DOD (separate from VA funding) has run out of cash to pay for traditional military healthcare benefits used to entice people to stay for multiple tours in Iraq-

Seen any rage?


Conspiracy Theory-

More information is better- this is how science and medicine works. Over the years some people have been freed from prison based on new DNA evidence becoming available.
Are the people who took steps to discover that new evidence conspiracy theorists?
Apply this same curiosity and desire for knowledge to some controversial topics and you’ll be labeled a conspiracy theorist- why the effort to suppress ideas?


Successful Politicians-

They are very sophisticated  at avoiding uncomfortable questions and discussions (03:36)-


News networks-

A few years ago, John Stossel had a drug war panel discussion featuring Paul Chabot- a narcotics officer.
An audience member asked Mr. Chabot-

If it took a constitutional amendment to authorize federal prohibition of alcohol- why no constitutional amendment to authorize a federal “War on Drugs?”

Mr. Chabot provided a fascinating answer which was available for an extended period of time on You Tube.
The video is no longer available because the news network objected to the posting.
If the network sells advertising & desires the largest possible number of viewers- why would they object to a panel discussion video being posted on the web?


Local Paper

“Article Comment Submission Form

We welcome your comment to this story, to be posted after a website editor’s review.

Please stay on topic, provide credible information or insight that moves the discussion forward, be convincing and try to be brief. Your comment won’t be edited, so all of it is posted or none of it is posted.

Own your words and post your full name, although single name or alias comments will be considered. An authentic email address and phone number are for our use only. NOTE: site software requires that all fields be filled out.
Submit an Article Comment”

Don’t stray from our set of contained choices, conform & be granted approval.