Anyone for conflict?

One of the first things you are taught about literature is you need a protagonist and an antagonist. The antagonist may be external or internal. Unfortunately, that seems to be one of the few things most people leave school remembering.

The US needs Russia. Russia needs the US. Whites need blacks. Blacks need whites. Nicaragua needs the US. The US needs Nicaragua. Democrats need Republicans. Republicans need Democrats. Muslims need Christians. Christians need…well, everyone.

You get the idea.

The truth is, its all a myth. At least to the extent the antagonist must be colossal. I struggle with money. My antagonists are my expenses. Daily, that struggle supersedes my need for world domination. For Bush it is simpler. He doesn’t struggle to make ends meet and can concentrate on imperialism and power.

There are other antagonists in our midst. What can be done to give everyone health care? How can we repair our failing infrastructure? How can we feed everyone?

For now I would be quite content if our government concentrated on finding solutions to these problems and quit fucking around with other countries.

That’s not to say we should become isolationists, but two years on New Orleans’ people still haven’t a decent city to live in. In many respects they are worse than third-world.

I’m saying nothing new here, but there are three choices vis-à-vis nuclear arms. First, all countries need to do whatever is necessary to eliminate them from the face of the earth. Second, allow everyone to have them. It may result in total destruction of us all, but that may be what we deserve. Third is to allow a handful of countries to have nukes so they can police the earth.

The third choice is simply ridiculous, but often thought intelligent. I go for choice one. Get rid of these fucking nuclear armaments world wide.

Yeah, I'm a tree hugging innocent.

Did any of that make sense? I have real problems with the tie-in to nukes.