[tranquildrifter]

I don't want to sound rude right off the bat, but I fail to see why, through all you have said, society itself is corrupt. You have done a very good job at pointing a finger at many things that are harmful to society, but have proved little by the effort. What I do see is an indictment on the short-comings of the system in which we live generally. You mention 'the media,' which has rightly been described above as a business by Lonely Stranger, and a very clear product of 'the system.' You mention abortion (heaven forbid!) which is only a contention that 'the system' was never meant to handle and as such is doing very poorly with it. Then you throw out the government, 'the system' itself, which is only a rather peculiar grouping of political elites - but as elite as they maybe, they are still parts of the whole, parts of the very same system.

What you see as rampant corruption would, I think, be more properly understood as a very large and diverse population attempting to conform to a somewhat archaic mould. So far, the US has done well for itself - you don't become the richest most powerful nation on accident (or do you?). But don't get caught up thinking that our time is the only one that has had problems. This nation has, in fact, been crowded with all sorts of problems since the very beginning. Thanks to a very clever little 'system' it has managed these two-hundred some years to survive them (at times, just barely).

I would say, in a very, very general sense, 'the system' has persevered because of institutions (yes, I call it that) such as the First Amendment (sorry Evrviglnt). Not because licentious offending of the masses accomplishes anything in itself, but because it allows for severe juxtaposition. You can refer to JS Mill or Marx, whichever makes you more comfortable, but it is very important to realize that we move forward in this country when we see to very different views and then move toward one of them. The two-party system is built to function in this very way. If we only had democrats, they would always be right even when they are wrong. The reverse is true as well. Rap music? It is terrible. And as a black American who has spent a good deal of time trying to reconcile myself to my so-called race, I feel that it is an amazing step backward in so many respects. But. It is the radical, the outrageous, the blasphemous, that brings contrast to an issue. I would say don't be so worried about the government being corrupt, worry instead the day that democrats and republicans stop fighting. It is that fight against what you see as wrong (dems if you are a rep. reps if you are a dem. Rap if you are an Elvis man and country if you like Dr. Dre.) that eventually results and moderate policy, moderate understandings.

So what am I saying to you? The issues that you point at are certainly issues, but they are issues to be subsumed in the future. You think rap is doing terrible things to society, then one must raise up an alternate flag for other to follow in order to contend with it. If the media is corrupt (remember it operates like a business) then a new demand must rise up for change. Don't get caught up thinking that there is going to be some way to legislate the negative elements out of the system... because there isn't. And if we try, it ends very badly - prohibition, for example. Which brings me to abortion.

Abortion is a question that was never meant to be dealt with by law. It simply wasn't. But it serves as a modern day example of what happens when the law attempts to work in areas that it was not designed for. Laws are meant to govern reasonable things (that is understandable) by reasonable means. They are to be rational and logical. They, by their very nature, do not function when confronted with irrational men and women. This is important when considering abortion because, and I know you will all hate this, attachment to human life (or the idea of human life) is an irrational one. That is not to say that someone is stupid for valuing another life, or that the attachment to it is not real. What is meant is that the attachment itself, the feeling of love or identity or connection, is not one that is established by reason. It is very similar, though distinct from, religious identities. Faith is not a reasoned decision, it is a felt power. How many times have our dear philosophers and theologians told us that faith through reason is no faith at all (indictment on organized religion... sorry)? This is the same process by which the pro-lifers find themselves valuing the life of the fetus. I am not saying that it is wrong to do so, but do not lie to yourself and others and say that it is a feeling you achieved through reason. Back to the law. Laws, which are nothing more than logistical forms by which we maintain order, are not meant to handle subjects that are not based upon the same logic and reasoning. Anyway... this will probably always be a political issue with a great deal of salience until we either all die in a nuclear holocaust, or until our population reaches the billion mark.

I didn't mean for this to go on so long. The point of the story is - be careful pointing a finger anywhere and saying "post hoc ergo propter hoc," because almost always that is not the case. You are right to be worried, you are right to question, but remember, the times that try men's souls where then, are now, and will be tomorrow. That we cannot change. But for those of you who can maintain some degree of faith in this country, place you stock in the Constitution and pray that it does not collapse. It is archaic, we can only hope.