The most difficult dilemma for a democracy relates to war.

The most difficult dilemma for a democracy relates to war. Why is it a dilemma and why is it difficult? Because a democracy should follow the dictates of the People, and what if the People are against, as most people are, going to war. Are all the people so well informed that they are able to make such a judgment? Even if the people have been informed on the general situation, are they privy to all the information the Executive is privy too. No individual in his/her right mind wants war. But, isn't a political decision based on different factors from the individual factors that are foremost on the mind of the individual? Sure, the people have an opinion and they should express it. But, a political decision on an International level is made on many factors not available to the individual. Of course, this particular dilemma can be abused by the Executive. How many times have we heard a loud clamor for war based on erroneous data, e.g. "they have weapons of mass destruction", only to find out that they did not exist, and later, to justify that same war on the declaration that we are 'bringing them democracy'. Every human being is, or should be, against war. A decision on the level of the International sphere calls for an 'international judgment' based on whether restraint will only encourage further atrocities. If its clear that the alleged atrocities against the human condition have taken place, there seems to be no choice in the matter. Inhuman conduct that has already taken place will never cease on its own. Truly, democracy is about People but, when the media shows the victims of these atrocities as being women and children, what other remedies are available? That situation has gone past reason; its no longer an ideological difference. We've said already, that National democracy and International democracy is about the human condition; We've also said, the human being (not ideology)should be the 'unifying force' of all governments, both National and International. In this situation, we are not protecting or defending an ideology; we are protecting the human condition. God help our young people.

democracy is a political impulse

Democracy is a political impulse and freedom and equality is a human impulse. Democracy can only be 'experienced' among large collections of human beings. Freedom and equality is experienced within the human condition as a separate, 'independent, functioning human impulse' that has its source in human existence; in Life. An 'independent human condition' is an individual and a large collection of individuals, whether by birth or by 'coming together', can be said to exist within a Polity, which should be a Democracy. Why should it be a Democracy? because Democracy is the only 'political arrangement' in which the individual in a condition of the 'the Many', or 'togetherness' can exist in a 'condition of 'fairness' i. e. in an independent condition of political Freedom and Equality. Large collections of individuals, or Nations have every right to an independent political existence. However, they have to interact with their own 'people' as well as with other established independent Nations. Of course, there's a National governing system as well as an International governing system. The National sphere should insure the Freedom and Equality of its inhabitants,( this requires a Democracy) while the International sphere should insure the independent respect of that Nations government. However, the primary concern of any political 'collectivity' should be the Freedom and Equality of its own inhabitants. Why else come together? Every Country, at times, must depend on its 'people' to help defend the Country. There is no other 'political way' to show gratitude towards those people except, at the very least, by guaranteeing their Freedom and Equality. Democracy is the political impulse of Nations while freedom and equality are the impulses of the individual in his/her human condition. Neither can do without the other.

Where and when did the People 'go wrong'?

When, where, and how did "We the People..." go wrong? This is a blog that looks at political structures, but underlying every political structure is a 'People'. That's where you and I are. It is 'people' who inhabit all the different political structures. Hence, every International political issue is also a 'human' issue. Even though, each separate political entity has its own identity and its own government, nevertheless, every polity is a 'condition of togetherness' with a 'political identity' and although it functions on the International scene as an independent political whole, nevertheless, the inhabitants of all nations are all human beings. Each individual is a human being and is entitled to his/her life within whatever polity s/he lives. The manner in which the Polity treats its inhabitants may be a domestic political matter but, the polity should not disrespect the human condition, for the simple reason, that all Polities are constituted of human beings. Of course, the problems of the Polity as a whole while acting on the International scene, are usually conceived separate from the problems of the individuals within that Polity. But how often do individuals, in positions of power, treat their inhabitants unjustly, unfairly, and undemocratically. Although a Polity acts within the International sphere in its relations to other Nations and these relations relate to the establishment of harmony on the International sphere, how can unjust, unfair, and undemocratic treatment of its own inhabitants reflect on International relations? Simply, if they do not respect the freedom and equality of their own inhabitants how can we expect them to respect the freedom and equality of the inhabitants of other Nations? If an individual does not respect the sanctity, freedom and equality of the human condition (s/he's own human nature) how can we expect him/her to respect the human condition of the Other. And if that human being just happens to be in a position of leadership, we are lost. The 'one thing' that unifies the whole world is not the different political ideologies in the world, its the human condition.

The word "democracy" is important; language is important, but so are the People

The word "democracy" is important; language is also important, and the most important aspect of the "word" democracy is each and every individual at the Bottom of the structure of democratic government. In other words, the People are the essence, in a very real way, of democracy. Democracy is more than a word, its an actual 'condition of togetherness'. The problematic is how do we retain that condition in a viable way. The only way is to constantly remember the integrity of the individual, or of ones own self, and all his/her attendant rights to a Free and Equal existence within any Polity. If we learn to respect the integrity of one's own individuality, we can apply that same attitude to the integrity of the 'Other'. I am as important as You; You are as important as I, and we both are as important as everybody else in the world. Its not the "I" or the "you" that is important, its the human condition and its integrity that's important. Being human and having 'life' is our condition; that condition needs government, but only a democratic government will suffice. No other form of government can have the required respect and integrity towards the human condition and no other form will 'allow' the People to govern. How can governments fight over their so-called political 'ideals' and in the process, take the lives of innocent men, women, and children? Children!!, Babies, 3,4,5,8, years old! For heavens sake, lets wake up to our corroded sense of what it means to be a human being. Unfortunately, Government is as 'good' as its People, but its individual leaders that lead Nations into war. Yes, Government must be structured to reflect the sanctity and integrity of the human condition, but how do we reach the 'sanctity' and 'integrity', that should lurk within the chests of our Leaders. I said "should", because sometimes it seems that it's really not the faults or failings of the structure of government, as the faults and failings of the human condition. ( God help us)

The importance of the People in a democracy.

Conceiving democracy as triadic allows the individual to see more clearly the importance of the Bottom. Without a Bottom one cannot have a triad. A triangle or triad reflects that the Bottom supports the Top. In government you cannot have a Top without a Bottom. The Bottom is essential to a Three Branch government and the Top wouldn't exist if there was no Bottom. People existed before governments existed. These issues can be perceived more clearly. It was the people who carved the structure of government. Once these relationships are perceived clearly, the individual can see the importance of the 'Peoples' in the crafting of government. Any individual can see these relations geometrically and this without having to take a 4 hour course in government at the university. In other words, an education is not required to see the importance of the Bottom, or the position of the People, in the governmental structure set forth in the Constitution. The triad simplifies the so-called dilemma of the One and the Many. Actually, there is no dilemma; only a real relation between the One at the Top and the Many at the Bottom. To be sure, the Top is conceived 'abstractly' while the Bottom is seen as real and constituted of each and every real individual, who is Free and Equal. Once each individual understands that s/he is the important aspect of government, s/he will understand that each individual in a 'condition of togetherness' can play a very powerful part in the act of governing. There is strength in numbers. That is the essence of democracy. Of course, government is important also, but only in relation to the duty it has to implement democracy. There are many individuals who become confused from reading the differently 'inclined' newspaper accounts of what is happening in government. Conceiving Three Branch government as a triad helps people determine whether the newspaper account is democratically correct. Its simple; democracy is "for the People"; its for the Bottom.

democracy has its own language.

Every form of government has its own language. The language is always about the particular government and its functions. Democracy also has its language. That language relates to the basic structure delineated in the Constitution. Of course, that language sets out a Three Branch government; the Legislative, the Executive and the judicial. Notice the order. The 'people part' of government is the first Branch. However, the 'not so recent' Linguistic Turn has 'compromised' interpretation. If the Linguistic Turn applies to all 'writings', it must also apply to the Constitution. But, even before the so-called Linguistic Turn, political language was already convoluted, confused, and used metaphorically to refer to political discussions about Parties and policies, Federal power vs. State power, and most importantly, Democracy. Obviously, political language was not taken by surprise by the so-called Linguistic Turn. Nevertheless, the Turn did not help these discussions. In fact it provided a barrier, behind which, most politicians, ably hid. That's precisely why government should also be perceived as a Triadic form. Well, you will say, that sounds like the same thing. But, its not. A Triadic government is perceived clearly as a geometric configuration that does not take anything from the Three Branch concept. In fact, it helps to clearly see the Three Branch concept as a triangle and the 'relation' between the Top and the bottom as a direct connection between the two points. Of course, one also sees the Judicial part, on the side, playing its interpretive function. But, in governing, that function, if its doing its job, must connect the Top and the Bottom. The only way to do that is if the 'interpretive function' applies to the whole bottom or all the People. The 'direct line to the Bottom must be 'expanded' to include the whole bottom of the triad; otherwise, you cannot have a Triad. All the Bottom must be included. This is why the Constitution places the Legislative Branch as the First Branch; then the Executive. We can better see that, because the Triadic form applies to geometry and mathematics and does not rely on 'linguistic meaning'; hence is not effected by the insidious Turn. The essence of Democracy is at the Bottom and everyone must be included.

Triadic forms of government require constant energizing.

A triadic form of government requires constant energizing or constant movement. It cannot be rigid. As difficult as that may seem, that is a must in democracies. Although the democratic form is set out in the Constitution, it is not a rigid form. That is why the essence of democracy is at the Bottom of the Triad, or 'with the people'. The Bottom does not have a 'structure' nor does it have anything that renders it rigid. The Bottom of government is where 'unconstrained life' is experienced by the People. That's also why we have a Republic, and that's why the Bottom has 'Rights'. The Top only governs, the Bottom 'lives'. Since the Top governs and the people at the Bottom are the governed, all, most, or suggested new changes in government should come from the Bottom, or from the Peoples Representatives. As we have said, the structure of the Top of government is set out in the Constitution. Of course, allowances are made for changes by providing time frames for elections. There is a 'rigid' period of time within elections where the People are 'somewhat' helpless; not entirely, nevertheless, People must wait until they can "vote the rascals out". Contrast the rigidity of an Autocracy with the flexibility of a Democracy, and the constant energizing or movement can be better conceptualized. An Autocracy is explosive, and the 'explosion' occurs at the Bottom. A democracy is creative, alive, with constant energizing from the Bottom. The Top must follow Constitutional Law, the Bottom passes 'necessary' laws. These laws allow for the 'full expression' of Life. But, the creative 'energizing and movement' of the Triad must be constant; it cannot atrophy. If the 'integrity' of all sides of the Triad are maintained, we can have a 'real' Democracy. If not, a 'new Egypt' will erupt. Egypt needs to find a basic 'structure' or 'leader' that comes from the People, not the Top, that will satisfy their 'sense' of a 'free' government. It needs a leader that will provide a new government. Until then, constant revolution will not provide 'answers', they need Government. That's why the 'integrity' of the Triad of government must always be equilibrated and in constant motion. No side of a 'happy' Triad must be 'unhappy'.

A democratic government has a theoretical and a practical side.

Every government should have two aspects. One is the theoretical aspect and the other is the practical aspect. However, in a democracy both of these aspects are always functional while in an autocratic government the practical side really doesn't exist. Why is it that autocracy does not have a practical side? Simply, because when the Top governs, it governs and no questions, no choices, no input from the Bottom is available. While, a democracy also governs from the Top but, feedback, choices, and input from the Bottom is available. Of course, if the activity being complained about cannot be stopped, there's always the next election. Theoretically, a democracy has a definite structure where the people at the Bottom elect the Office holders for a certain length of time. The form is Triadic and is set forth in the Constitution. It may not be a perfect government, but the People at the Bottom are in control of the government. The people never lose that control, except for the duration of office, after which someone can be voted out. The structure is fixed and power is clearly defined so as to insure the Freedom and Equality of the individuals at the bottom. The First Amendment protects the right of individuals to "assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances". In other words, all other 'controls' failing the Bottom has a Constitutional right to revolution. Properly organized, the Bottom can flex its muscle by 'coming together' to "petition for redress of grievances". By 'coming together', the People are merely expressing a fundamental basis of government, which is, the real relation that connects the One and the Many. The One governs; the Many are governed; but, the Many never lose the connection by which the Top governs and the means by which the Bottom confers power to govern to the Top. Otherwise, it would not be a democracy. The Top has power, but only because the Bottom confers it.

democracy, being a People government, depends on its leaders.

If democracy is as good as its People, then democracy depends on the People elected to positions of leadership. Actually even those leaders who are elected depend on the Bottom of Triadic government or on the People who elected them. Of course, this is obvious. The question becomes, how do the People control the leaders who govern them. Of course, we know that answer also. In the Executive Branch we lose control for a period of Four years; maybe for Eight years. Likewise, in the Legislative Branch. Some State Judicial posts are also dependent on elections within a certain time frame. The big issue that arises when one contemplates the need for constant 'democratic' activity is that most 'leaders' cannot be replaced, if necessary, until the subsequent election year. Although we have to live with wrong decisions in the selection of leaders, at least we know they can be replaced the next election year. But, how about the Federal Judiciary? They are appointed for life. Also, the person appointing them is a member of a political Party, hence Party ideology kicks in, and hence, we have Party-decisions coming from the Supreme Court that are 'tempered' for a 'long range purpose'. Consider the Supreme Court decision that first held that corporations are 'persons' and the more recent decision in Citizens that extended their fictitious nature into a Constitutional right that includes 'a freedom of speech', which translates into more money for politicians, when everyone knows that they don't even speak. How can the people keep some degree of control over obvious Judicial behavior that is not based on a democratic value system? At first it was thought that Federal Judges needed to be sequestered for a lifetime to stabilize the constant democratic ideology that should emanate from the Court. What happened? Simple! They divided into Parties. Now, the Supreme Court is at 'war' with itself. Do they have coffee together, or is that also a Party function?

Improvement rests with the People and the Statesmen.

If democracy is to be improved, it rests with the Statesmen and with the People. Unfortunately, choosing a knowledgeable Statesmen rests with the People at the Bottom. I say unfortunately because it does not always pan out. Of course, the framework for a democracy has already been given to us; that framework resides within the words and structure of the Constitution. That framework cannot be improved although, its functioning sometimes doesn't work as it should because of the elected individuals driving the 'ship of State'. For example; Jurists who interpret Constitutional terms to fit a Party agenda or jurists who interpret it with a value system that is not democratic. That interpretation can assume an 'economic value system' or a purportedly 'moral value system'. In neither case is the interpretation based on all the people at the Bottom. Hence, if decisions and laws don't apply to everyone, they cannot be democratic. The top of government only governs the People, it does not create them hence cannot demand a certain 'moral' or 'economic' standard of life. Its up to the People to acquire individual morality and to acquire the economic necessities required for living 'in a condition of togetherness'. Government only regulates, by means of law, the 'order' necessary to continue living in 'togetherness'. Its up to the individual to get along with his/her neighbor( or be in violation of law) and its up to government to regulate the interactions of each and every individual at the Bottom(That means everyone). That is done by law. The bottom should be characterized by Number, hence is easily 'countable', which makes government more accountable. No one can be left out and no sector or individual can be favored. If law 'favors' any one sector or individual, it is not Constitutionally legal. Law sets guidelines and parameters for everyone to better live in a 'condition of togetherness'.

How does anyone improve democracy?

How can democracy be improved? Of course, democracy is a political theory that arises from the Constitution. But, if democracy is only as good as the people who practice it, how can the operation of the political system be improved? Those who assume positions of leadership, within a democratic society, must implement a democratic, political, value system in the operation of the system. In other words, they cannot be guided by economic values or values that deviate from the democratic political structure. How about moral values? Democracy is a political ideology and politics cannot incorporate the value system of a morality or of the capitalistic economy. Morality and economics are important, but they do not guide government. Certainly, morality always come into the picture when an individual acts. But, democracy is about democracy and not about morality or economics. Although, these other two systems are conflated within the political, a democracy must follow the political values of a triadic democracy as set forth in the Constitution. Democracy, at its fundamental base, is about governing the freedom and equality of each individual. Democracy is a process and is never fully achieved. Its an on-going activity that continually renews itself. Its not a fixed ideology. However, it always includes all the people at the Bottom of the structure. It's never dependent, on or upon, a particular type of individual, or Party; its a political ideology that is always in activity. It cannot stop, it cannot falter, it must legislate laws, adjudicate activities, and execute actions; all with the consent and participation of all the people. The People must be made aware of the activity at the Top of government, so as to be aware of the 'goings-on' of government. Government cannot function in secret; it cannot function without the consent of the People and it must strive to achieve the maximum degree of freedom and equality for the People at the Bottom. Democracy must inform its people. Why should any of its activities be secret and why should any of its activities be for the benefit of the select few. That would not be democracy, it would be a different form of government.

Democracy is as good as its people

Democracy is as good as its People. How can that be the case? Simply, democracy is a government "of the People", "by the People", and "for the people". OK, but isn't that first sentence a little simplistic? Not really! Consider an Autocratic or Divine structure of government. That government is as good as the person on Top. How can it be otherwise? Of course, that position of power can, and in most cases, is abused. How many 'autocrats' are concerned with the welfare of the people? None! Nevertheless, democracy can also have People problems. Normally, the problematic in a democracy is that the People themselves choose, by the electoral process, who is to govern them. But, how are they educated about the person who wishes to govern them? Usually, the candidate himself or herself, speaks on his, her behalf. There is lots of publicity about the candidate; some is favorable, some unfavorable. The masses have to choose the 'right' person. All candidate come from among the ranks of the People whom the candidate will govern. Usually, they come from the 'moneyed ranks'.(not necessarily the most wealthy group,the 1%, but certainly from a financial 'level of comfort'). How often do the People choose the 'wrong " person? Or, how often are they mis-informed, mal-informed or just plain 'not informed' about the real wishes or goals of the candidate? Who does the, not, mal, or mis- informing? Well ,here's where the Party mentality kicks in. The electoral process is not perfect, but it needs less party devotion. Parties choose candidates and their selection follows the Party platform, which is based on the Party ideology. Party ideologies have many different approaches to the same issue. However, the basic issue in a democracy is the Freedom and Equality of all the people. Of course, its not the only issue, but, if that position is respected by the Party, the Party can claim to be democratic. If not, the Party is only seeking to put one of theirs in a position of power from which the members of the Party can gain. Unfortunately, that is about power. Hence, real democracy is about People. Imperfect as they may be, they are our only hope.

Democracy can be real

Democracy can be real, if it is more than just a word. The word is abstract, but the reality should be real. Of course, I understand that its necessary to use words to organize and establish a government. But, we don't have to allow the government to just remain on the level of words and not on the level of activity. Every word must be made real; experiential. Otherwise ,we are just babbling about political theory. If democracy is a government "of People", "by People", and "for people", it should be obvious that the 'creators' of government and the 'operators' of government are the same People who are to be governed. But, the cycle "of", "by", and "for" must be precise, stable, and inclusive. These are well defined delineations and if a government is trying to undergo changes or to revamp its leadership, it must do so pursuant to the rules of change inherent in the democratic form. There is nothing more clear, that in the democratic form, the originators of change must be the people. Organized political Parties or the Military do not have a say so in this function of change. That would only substitute one organized faction in place of an existing one already in power. That's not a revolution; a revolution begins and ends on the outside of government but from the Bottom; its a 'People' thing, not a different political Party or the organized Army, that starts the process. If its a Political Party on the 'outside', that's just 'sour grapes', if its the Military, it doesn't understand its proper function. An army is never established to govern; its established for a different purpose, and if they are involved in trying to bring about political change,( as an Army) they just don't understand their function. There is no end to mayhem in a wrongfully brought about power struggle. In a democracy, the proper way to create change in an established government is by the People; not a competing Political Party or a Military Unit.

The abstract nature of the word "democracy" is captured in the following sentence.

The abstract nature of the word "democracy" can be captured in a sentence taken from President Obama's book "The Audacity of Hope". I paraphrase, " the problem is between the magnitude of the challenges and the smallness of our politics". Truly, the 'view' from above is always enormous. While the 'view' from below is always very small. The view from the Top is a general abstraction that should apply to the 'span' of the abstraction. While the view from the Bottom is generated in a specific manner, which arises from the trouble area, but should apply to each and every aspect of the general abstraction. There is too much 'wiggle room' between the two views. Nevertheless, 'politics should be tapered to fit the problem and should not leave out any areas of the 'trouble area'. That omission is what renders the politics "small". Even if the linguistic formulations address each specific area, the Parties get too caught up in preferences and selective politics. Hence, the problem may not be between the "magnitude of the problem and the smallness of our politics". The problem may be between the division into Parties and the different perception by each Party. How can both Parties be democratic and yet emphasize different aspects of the same political problem? Could it be that one of the Parties is not as democratic as they claim? If the "magnitude of the problem" is the issue of democracy, that should be simple. There's no room for disagreement. Both Parties need to see that the people at the Bottom who are effected by the problem are the key to its solution. The People are sovereign, period. Parties are too concerned with their own power struggles and pet policies. Hell, they wouldn't have positions of power if it wasn't for the People. Maybe its time for the people to 'assemble' and let them know the People are sovereign. The Top can divide into Parties, but democracy cannot be divided. The word may be an abstraction, but the reality is in the numbers at the Bottom.

The word "Democracy" is just a linguistic abstraction.

An abstraction is only as 'good', 'proper', 'useful' and effective, as its rendition into activity. The word "democracy " is such an abstraction. Of course, it can be called a 'political ideology' or a 'system of government' or a 'form of government'. I, personally, like " the ideology of a form of government". As such, it is effective only to the extent it 'reduces' its linguistic generalizations into real activity. This also applies to its 'specific' linguistic usages. Just because, language makes a 'specific' ( as distinguished from a generalization) reference does not mean that it is, or was, applied in any 'real' specific manner. The first is political mumbo-jumbo the latter is a real, actual application to a real situation. If it's 'mathematical, it will work!! if, it's not just a 'political ideology' or a case of 'politically correct' usage. Language can be made real. Words ( which are always about something other than itself) must 'mean' things, but real democracy is a 'thing', a real thing. So, we must be careful not to be caught in the 'webs' of linguistic usage. Proper language use is particularly important in the understanding that we are a Country established by different races. Of course, I prefer the term a 'Country of many different human beings'. The human condition is the same. The word 'races' calls for distinctions. There are no distinctions in the human race as there are no distinctions in the actual application of democracy. I understand the need for individuals from different races to publish and circulate news and information within its particular linguistic grouping. For example; the recent Blog, Latino Rebels.com by Julio Varela recently given coverage in the magazine entitled PODER. The Blog is striving for 'content' as opposed to just being 'influenced' by Brands, PR, or Advertising. A genuine, democratic goal that can be established, and is being established by other Races with their own publications. The important part of the enterprise is to balance out the inequalities that exist between the two linguistic terms "race" and "Human being". We are all human beings and this Blog stands for the proposition that we are all Free and Equal.

Racism can upend the Justice System

Racism can upend the Justice System because the standards set for judging cases doesn't allow for the possibility or the 'control' of racism. Everyone knows that in a criminal case the standard is a factual finding of guilty 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. In a civil case the standard is a factual finding 'by a preponderance of the evidence'. Well, if in a criminal case jurors must 'find' beyond a reasonable doubt and one or several jurors are 'racist' or 'mildly prejudice', the juror is going to lean in the direction of his or her prejudice. Lets face it! Any resulting judgment from that will not be Just. In other words, if a juror cannot establish the existence of a reasonable doubt based on factual findings, that juror will find a reasonable doubt based on 'racist' reasons. If a Nation cannot 'control' racism within its own Justice System, how can it control it on the International sphere? Its ok to have an 'American system of justice', but we must insure that prejudices do not creep into the system. Since the history of America is rife with racial discrimination, its time to start thinking in terms of Human Justice. Its not about American justice, its about Human Justice. It will not be easy, but we have to start somewhere and someone has to start the process. Maybe racism can't be abolished( lets hope that it can) but, it can be abolished in the American Justice System. That would be a beginning. And its not just American, its world wide. Lets stop thinking about the different Races in the World and start thinking about all the human beings in the world. An individuals Race is important to him or her, but it should never be a standard for 'better' or 'superior'. We know what can happen with the 'superior race' phenomena, so why even go there. There's nothing wrong with starting 'small' and going 'large'. After all, we are all in the same boat.

Democracy can escalate its problems by neglecting the human condition.

Democracy can escalate its problems by ignoring the Freedom and Equality of the human condition. Of course, by 'ignoring' I mean that a Nation that neglects the Freedom and Equality of any one of its different, constituting races, is asking for internal problems. Why? People in the world are not alike. The United States was founded by peoples from many different Nations. At the same time, People are all humans no matter what race, color or creed. The United States houses many different races, colors, and creeds and each is entitled to Constitutional protection. In the International sphere, each Nation is different and follows different creeds. In a democracy, all individuals are to be treated equally. The neglect or the ignoring of the freedom and equality of any one individual or race, issues from the Top (which governs the Many at the Bottom inclusively but, abstractly), but, nevertheless, applies at the Bottom (where the millions of people actually live.). The impact of the neglect at the Bottom is not linguistic, its real. It has real human consequences. The Bottom lives a real life and not an abstract life. The bottom will 'feel' the impact of the neglect, hence is allowed to assemble and to petition for redress of grievances. When any one human being or race is singled out by the Top for unequal treatment, the Top of organized government is going to experience a revolution. But, keep in mind, the Bottom can 'petition' the government legally or illegally. If it acts illegally, the action will not be effective. But, if it petitions legally, the 'neglect' must be corrected; this, whether the neglect was the result of incompetence or intentional. If the neglect was due to unfair laws, they must be changed or improved. If the neglect was the result of incompetence in carrying out the law or policy, the incompetent individuals must be replaced. Neither unfair laws nor incompetent enforcement of the laws is to be tolerated in a democracy.

The problems of democracy.

The problems of Democracy are the problems of the integrity and sanctity of the individual in its 'condition of togetherness'. Of course, every single Nation or Country in the world is constituted of human individuals. The "condition of togetherness" of each and every Nation or Country is generally perceived as constituting the 'concept of the State' for that particular Nation or Country. The 'State' is a larger 'political entity' housing human individuals in the 'condition of togetherness'. In the old days of the Founding; first 'curiosity', then land, then gold, helped to expand the parameters of the 'early groupings' called 'Colonies'. From there we expanded into the different 'States', then into the 'Nation' and now, thanks again to land, oil, gold, and (this time we add, oil and the internet) even into the International sphere. However, we are now more influenced by the political power housed in the 'larger political entities of togetherness'. (that does not mean they are no longer influential) Now, we are engaging in 'power struggles', in the local as well as the International sphere. Gone, or at least attenuated, is the urge to 'colonize'. That initial urge to 'help and assist' has been replaced with the urge to conquer. Now, the issues are issues of power. How shameful! Nevertheless, our progress into the International sphere has left behind National, State or local issues that also need to be addressed. One important aspect of democracy is the right to speak and the right to select leaders for the States and the Nation, i.e. the right to vote. That right has been attenuated and compromised by re-districting and local laws related to voting procedures. The candidates 'compete' to get the vote by redistricting and sometimes by passing restrictive laws related to voting. Since the Individual has 'progressed' into the International sphere as a result of the Internet, why can't s/he vote by mail or the computer? We take a census, we can determine who is an eligible voter and then determine to either use the mail or the computer to request a vote. Each individual is responsible to vote without having to comply with restrictive conditions at polling places and restrictive laws set by local authorities. We should look into that possibility.

The relation between the Top and the Bottom must be real.

A very important aspect of government is the relation that connects the Top with the Bottom. The usual 'connection' between the Top and the Bottom is linguistic. In many cases its just a lot of empty political talk. That's a huge problem that arises in the Executive branch. Many of the laws and much of the policy implemented by the Top of government remain general, empty, linguistic, political slogans. I do not mean to isolate the linguistic problematic to the Executive branch since the laws are passed in 'linguistic form' by the Legislative Branch and interpreted by 'interpretive practices' by the Judicial Branch. Hence, the Executive Branch implements those policies and laws, but it does not have to apply them merely in 'linguistic' fashion. By this last statement, I mean the application can be direct and can 'touch' the individuals effected and not be merely 'politically correct'. By direct I mean it must 'touch' each and every individual to whom the policy or law applies. It cannot 'carve-out' the application to preferred sectors of the polity. In other words, it cannot merely be a linguistic application, it must apply, in a real way, to each and every individual covered by the statement. For example; the freedom and equality of everyone is an undisputed characteristic of a democracy, hence when freedom and equality are issues covered by policy or law, each and every individual must be assured of his/her freedom and equality in a real manner. This can only be done if the Bottom of democracy is quantified and the actual individuals to whom the statement is applied is actually 'counted' as having individually received these rights or as having been 'touched' by them. Its very difficult to delineate the distinction between 'just a political slogan' and the actuality. Of course, politicians rely on these difficulties to abuse the system. Remember the bombing of Iraq; remember the question, "why are we bombing Iraq?"; remember the answer? "We are bringing them democracy". hell, we were killing lots of innocents! Political slogans can be used to muddy the waters and politicians know that. That abuse exists in all the Three Branches of government. That's why we need Statesmen, not politicians.