What the...?

I buy Reader's Digest almost every month. Some of the stories are inspiring tales of heroism, others exposés of fraud, theft, and corruption; there are entertaining features like Word Power, Laughter, and the puzzles. Do I sound like a fan?

I'm not. For me it's a matter of taking the fleas with the dog. Sometimes there are more fleas, it seems, than dog. I believe that the regular feature Humor in Uniform is a example of apalling bad taste, considering the present losing wars our military is embroiled in in Afghanistan and Iraq. Over four-thousand (that's the official count, the truth is far worse) young men and women have lost their lives in these wars based on lies. Many more have lost body parts and have suffered mental and emotional trauma. Desertions and suicides are up and there are Anti-War actvist groups made up of veterans of these wars. One candidate wants to bring the troops home - now! And over 80% of the American people want the same, so it was with particular revulsion that I noted an aticle in the current issue: the Facebook Election.

Reader's Digest conducted a poll among the current generation of under-thirties. What I found particularly telling was in the part of the article under the caption, Who Do You Love? Ron Paul wasn't on the list; George Bush was, and got 27 favorable opionions and 67 unfavorable. Fine, but what's with those 27? Have they been living in a cave for the last eight years? There is a definite disconnect here somewhere as noted under the section called In Their Own Words.

* Twenty respondents - a lot for an open-ended question - registered their opposition to the war in Iraq, the majority condemning the armed conflict itself, as summed up in the one succinct answer: "We hate war." OK, so where was Ron Paul in the Who Do You Love? segment? Dr. Paul is the only candidate on either side whao has consistently expressed his intention to end the war and bring the troops home. The rest of the field, the usual suspects; two Clintons, Obama, Gore, and McCain, either have taken no like stance on the war but, as with McCain, seem intent on continuing Bush's disastrous policies for ten or a hundred years more! McCain doesn't hate war.

Another twenty of those questioned expressed the fear that Social Security won't be there when they're ready to retire. Can it be that the billions of dollars that we are wasting on a war based on lies might have something to do with that? Lyndon Baines Johnson tried the "guns and butter" thing back in the Sixties - and we got more guns and less butter. There were other concerns aired; Global Warming ("It's real!" despite the fact that dozens of top scientists have identified solar activity as the true cause. Shall we have apresident who can control the sun?); jobs being sent overseas, the ease with which people can get into debt, and four participants felt that the government had become "too secular." Governments are secular: we have presidents and congresspersons, not popes and bishops - it has something to do with the First Amendment. And then there were the four.

Four persons interviewed stressed the importance of personal integrity. "We need someone with good morals and an open mind to run this country and inspire us," said one respondent. Another longed for a President "with a soul" and who is more than "just a politician." Only four young people? Let's reiterate the question; where is Ron Paul mentioned in this piece?"

Ron Paul has consistently voted against the war in Iraq from the first, has voted against funding this disaster, hase never voted a raise for himself, has never accepted a PAC money, stands for the Constitution and the personal liberties that are protected by that august document. If that doesn't reflect soul, if that isn't statesmanship, then what is? What soul is there in torture, renditions, stonewalling, lying to the people, serving the special corporate interests that are destroying this nation?

The only expalanation I can come up with is that the people questioned may be readers of this spectacularly successful monthly publication. Reader's Digest has been a leader in one respect; while people have expressed concern that Big Pharma is marketing directly to the public. RD has been doing that for many years.

Have these kids been taking those drugs?

Follow the money.