.

I know, crazy numbers right. We have not been informed about the derivatives market. It is really what took so many banks down so quickly. It is what has made velocity and volitility so strong. The good news is not many people know about it and second no one can understand it. To study the derivatives market is a study of the biggest fraud ever committed in history. And is a huge undertaking to understand, but is only a piece of the bigger picture. I want to help people to start to understand the bigger picture as it is understood with the history of power and money in the modern era. I am posting a audio that is a interview with people who do know, but are not Integrally informed. I would love to see Integral dialog with those that understand the LR but are not Integrally informed and the Integral Community who does not know the truth in the LR but has the awareness to honor all aspects of self and world. Please listen to this and suspend judgement on their person, cause Integral understands the emotional traps that go with first tier, but listen to the real world knowledge they are going through. Read the myth of the metals first and see how much of it is showing up in this interview.

http://integrallife.com/learn/deep-end/myth-busting-metric-making

http://rss.nfowars.net/20081020_Mon_Alex.mp3

Hello Shalk,

You wrote:

3. Regarding the voice that you quoted but seem to want to distance yourself from, that is fine. I am a little concerned that you originally seemed to cite this "voice" as something you agree with, and now want to make it seem that it is just one voice you decided to toss out there to add to the mix.

To repeat, those are the views expressed by a voice that I copied on the internet for a blogging idea the other day.  I included it to provide a contrasting view to your basic assumptions that appeared to make an eggregious oversight in ommitting the recent history of presidential elections and voter fraud committed by Republicans.  A "balancing of the books" was in order, for "fair and balanced reporting" and to get your response.  It struck me as highly erroneous and non-integrating to conclude smugly that a possible McCain win would be the result of a fair election through the support of its traditional base.

Because of the sweeping generalizations made in that comment above, I can't fully vouch for it but on the whole, it strikes me as being far more truthful, reasonable, and credible than your sweeping generalizations as to the reasons for a McCain win.  Your opinion and entire post appears to be based on the naive assumption that a McCain win would be the result of support by a loyal amber traditional base while ignoring the history of voter fraud and suppression by Republicans.  Almost, it seems, as if to be in anticipation of any possible controversy of voter fraud committed by the Republicans in spite of their history of voter fraud, to offer an excuse in advance to legitimate their cause.  For you to completely overlook or ever fail to mention once the voter fraud issue that went on in election 2000 as well as in 2004 on the side of the Republicans reveals your partiality and therefore, partisan preference.

So I ask once again, do you think that Republicans committed voter fraud and voter suppression in election 2000 between Gore vs. Bush to get Bush elected?  You state that I don't have anything to "back up" my arguments or claims which I've listed quite extensively, while failing to answer my one simple question that I posed to you.

 On the whole, your perspective strikes me as very logically-oriented and "Orange" (Modern Republican), so therefore, coming from a non-integrated, first-tier center of gravity in spite of your claims to be integrated and fully identified and fully integrated with your amber group-self.  So it appears that your argument, though projected through the amber views of others, is a projection of your own amber/orange hostility/partiality against the Democratic party or Obama campaign.  It would seem more authentic or integrating to "own up" to these hostilities and partialities rather than to attribute them to others on the traditional base. 

I may very well be stricken with a "blind-spot" and be partial, too.  It is not my intent to engage in partisan politics here, but to see things more integratively.  Yet I have good reason to suspect that something "bad" may possibly happen. 

Hi Schalk,

I will type in non-italicized (plain) text except in bold because I've skipped over quite a bunch, after having either no issue with what you had to say and/or I either did not understand what you "meant" and had to skip over it (such as your comment, "Do I need to....?").

Hi Barbi:

It is fun talking with you. Thank you for sharing.

I am going to push a little bit on things that I think are not supported in what you say.

(I'll write in parentheses on this post.)

6. When you put something like this out ... it is hard to take it seriously.

Please elaborate.

(Do I need to? The point is - words mean things, and when they are used in ways that don't correspond to anything we know about in the world, then ... it becomes hard to take the words seriously.)

Now, before you accuse me of being a bleeding-heart "liberal," I'd like to address the following statement by Michelle Obama so you can label me "dark green":

"... for the first time in my adult life I am proud of my country because it feels like hope is finally making a comeback."

I'm neither black nor a "Born-In-The-U.S.A.," (I was born in Japan).  Yet, having grown up around people of different nationalities, I tend to see that remark from the eyes of the world rather than from the ears of a white amber or an African American.  So when I heard that remark, I heard it from the context of more recent global events in the past decade or so rather than from 1982-2008.  All of which have been events that have worked to greatly diminish the perception of America in the eyes of the world to overshadow any "positive feelings" that America could possibly elicit since 2003.  So the world tends to be far more skeptical and critical and wants to know, "What have you done for me lately?" 

I suppose that that is how I feel about America, too.  For the first time, I would be "proud", too.  Even Colin Powell said that an Obama presidency would electrify the country and would electrify the world.  It is true that we need a change and not just a "change," but a generational change, directional change, and an ethnic change, too.  America has moved far too far to the "right."  So I don't personally see Michelle Obama's remark as "selfish," although I do see how amber could view this as being "selfish" in thinking about only "her" people, the people of colour.

Let me just tell you something: the downfall of communism was a pretty big deal! Yes ma'am. It was a really really big deal! You have no idea how big it was.

Yes, I do agree that it was a very big deal.  Whether for the better or for the worse, I'm still trying to figure it out.  On the whole, however, I tend to agree that it was for the better for Americans.  It was also better for the world, because due to the spending of the Reagan administration, the Soviet Union went into bankruptcy and the Cold War (arms race and nuclear proliferation) was brought to an end.  However, from the context of empire-building and nuclear proliferation, both sides were evil, both American free-market capitalists and the Soviet communists.  These have nothing to do with communism or Marxism in and of themselves. 

In addition, I have read about the higher quality of life and/or standard of living that results from free market capitalist societies as opposed to socialist or communist governments, and the overall worker apathy, lack of innovation, and lack of quality that lack of achievement and lack of competetiveness brings in a communist society.  It is difficult for me to make a judgment on it until I look into the issues further. 

(I would sincerely suggest you do some reading about life as it was actually lived in the Soviet Union. Or China. Just start with Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archipelago, for example.)

(If you want, I have an 80 year old uncle in Slovakia who can talk for hours about how miserable life was under communism.)

(One example: you absolutely cannot trust anyone to not be a spy of the state. They are everywhere and they manipulate and create false accusations and you learn to keep your head down and just shut up. It is the worst form of Lower Left collective repression that history has every known.)

(Another example: according to my uncle, everyday was a long battle to simply round up enough food to make a decent meal. You want potatoes? You stand in line for 45 minutes and get 3 potatoes. Bread? You had better be in line at 0500 when the baker opens because it goes fast. God help you if you are a mother with children to raise. You learn to do favors.)

(Etc. You absolutely have to read about life under communism. Read Nieh Cheng's Life and Death in Shanghai.)

(It is hard to hear people toss off glib comments about how communism and unfettered capitalism are equally evil, by the way. We must be using a different definition of evil.)

(This is often a left-right difference. The left has great ideas. Ideals. The right has simple ideas. The left knows why something should work, the right demands to see if it does work. A lot of times, the right is unable to give the time that a good idea needs for it to work. They want to see things work now. And their low cognition doesn't sustain them through the implementation period of an Ideal.)

Ok.  I will have to read up on the evils or the cancer of the Soviet Union form of Communism, but let's agree for now that Michelle Obama was insensitive for saying that and turn the conversation to something mroe useful such as the current economic situation.

I think that America is far from being a form of "communism."  Nor anything "in-between" that of communism and capitalism, that of socialism.  In fact, I would say that aside from the government take-over of the banks, that we are still quite the "opposite" of "communism" -- which is capitalism.  Do you consider it "good" capitalism or "bad" capitalism?

While not endorsing "socialism" (not that I have anything "against" it, personally) --my thinking is that we have moved too far right into the unfettered capitalism and have undergone a trememdous polarization of weath between the rich and the poor.  Under Bush, it has even become more polarized.  The middle-class is dwindling and we are fast becoming a rich/poor state.  It appears to me that the economic plan of McCain would be no different from Bush.  Under 8 years of Bush,  we of middle class or below have experienced no benefits from the supply-side, top-down economic system nor any trickle-down benefits from the generous tax cuts Bush has given to the rich and to big businesses.   Meanwhile, the rich have gotten richer and the corporations have gotten bigger.  It appears that whatever tax cuts are given to the rich does not go back to stimulate the economy -- but rather, goes toward increasing their profits and wealth via globalization and exploiting the natural resources and cheap labor of second or third-world countries.  Meanwhile, social programs such as Food Stamps have been slashed.  People on Food Stamps, for example, receive $3 per day per person to buy their groceries.  That is, $1 per meal per day.

Now, McCain wants to do the same thing as Bush and make these tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy permanent.  He claims that this would stimulate the economy.  But we have already done that for eight years and it has done nothing to help the middle-class and below.  Now, Obama wants to make the rich and corporations have a tax increase.  Republicans are now complaining that this would hurt the economy and turn America into a form of "Socialism."  Yet, the economic plan of McCain seems identical to Bush.  What are your thoughts regarding that?

I have read that there is both good communism and bad communism but that there has not yet been a "good" communism to come into existence.  I have also heard from former Nixon financial advisor (author of "Bad Money") in a conversation with Bill Moyers that there is also good capitalism and bad capitalism.  The problem with amber is that they are unable to distinguish between good capitalism and bad capitalism, thinking all capitalism is "good" and that all communism is "evil" out of country loyalty.  Orange is better at making the distinction between "good" and "bad" capitalism but because of its three-dimensional, spatial orientation (materialism), favors "unfettered capitalism," which is "bad"--and is capable at times as viewing communism as neither good nor evil--but will insist that it is "unworkable."

And it happened not too long ago. If you are not proud of the role the US played in preventing this cancer called communism from spreading across the earth, then our definitions of the word "pride" are poles apart.

I come from Gen X.  And while I don't claim to speak for everyone of "my generation," I came of age around the end of the Cold War era in the late 80s.  Thus, I admit that I did not take an interest in world events at the time, although my feeling about communism is that Americans feel that it is "evil."  I don't think that communism is necessarily any more "evil" than unfettered capitalism.  So I don't necessarily fall prey or "buy into" to the Cold War mentality of the previous generations.  I tend to think that many Americans "mix up" the "evils" of communism with Cold War propaganda.

There are hundreds of things that Michelle Obama should be proud of the US for doing. And if she is oblivious to these things, then this tells Amber America what she really cares about.

I think that Michelle Obama was speaking from the standpoint of a woman of colour.  And it that respect, she was amber.  I can relate to those feeling of amber being woman of colour myself and being bi-racial.  Obama is bi-racial, too.  And bi-racial means automatically way cooler than the rest of you. ;-P  (my "amber" pride coing out..).  But I do also understand the Amber indignation over such seemingly anti-American sentiments from the backdrop of a Cold War mentality and patriotism.  In that sense, her remark was insensitive.

(I understand. She was also speaking as a public persona in a public place on a National Holiday. One should remember these things when uttering remarks like that. What she was saying was - this is the first time "me" and "my people" have won something this big. With emphasis on "me" and not "my people." Condi Rice could have made her proud, but apparently she didn't.)

Of course, I realize, too, that your post is not in reference to "the world" -- who are ineligible to vote at any rate but to only a certain segment of the American population, who are amber.  Yet, in spite of the long history and power of amber in American politics, I don't think that amber has enough political force to decide the election this year, given the economic situation and the complete failure of the Bush situation.  The only recourse that McCain has at this point is to engage in voter fraud if he wishes to win, or to sink further and further into nasty personal attacks that question Obama's core values as "American" (by making racial attacks by association or by invoking the fear of Communism or Socialism in God-fearing Americans).

We need to be really clear when we use these colors. No one is amber or orange or green.

True, no one is strictly amber or orange or green or any other colour.  But there is a center of gravity in structures or stages which are pretty-well defined and to which most people gravitate.  Were it not the case, your post wouldn't have been entitled "Amber '08."

(I agree. But it is very useful to try and be specific about the line we are talking about. Cogntion is often higher than other lines, and if we don't tease this out, we can't make sense of why people do one thing when they knew another thing.)

The colors are most properly used in reference to lines of development.

Are amber voters (Traditional Republicans) amber because of individual lines of development, or because of overall center of gravity and full stage-level differences in consciousness-development?

I tend to think the latter.

(I disagree. I believe that votes are primarily dictated by values and notions of self vis a vis a group (that is something less than the whole of mankind).

There is actually a great deal more involved in a party affiliation than values and notions of identity.  Ken Wilber divides these four political subgroups into the following categories:

Traditional Republican (amber)

Modern Republicans (orange)

Modern Democrats (orange)

Postmodern Democrats (green)

I will go into these basic difference in a different post.

When I am talking about "amber voters", I am talking about people who identify themselves ... as SELVES ... with America. I am talking about people who have values that instinctively put ... AMERICA First! I am talking about people who, when visiting a foreign land, will instinctively feel more comfortable around ... OTHER AMERICANS.

These are non-cognitive lines.

Yes, they are below the level of cognition.  Identity with group is a mythic-membership realization.  It is a more primitive realization than orange cognitive lines or mentality.  It is therefore a stage-level difference. 

When I feel crushed that my football team lost, this is my Amber Self. It is alive and well.

I never understood football games or pep rallys and why people always made so much racket all around me.  It bothered me greatly as a teeenager, and made me feel like an oddball.  Perhaps because of being on the autistic spectrum disorder, the mythic-membership and amber part of me did not develop fully.  I cannot feel a solid identity with anything or anyone, really.  But when Obama began to run, I could feel a certain identity with him.  I feel that a lot of Americans today who are bi-racial can feel a certain identity and pride with seeing someone like themselves becoming a political force.  It says a lot for America in the way of development, although for myself, it is an amber-identity.  Does it put me back in development?  I'm not sure.  However, it isn't called a "developmental disorder" for nothing.  So I believe I may be arrested or frozen at a fulcrum somewhere and possibly unbalanced.

(Been to a political convention?)

(If we like Obama because he is bi-racial, you know what, we are doing the same thing as people who don't like him because he is partly black are doing. The exact same thing. Empowerment of an ethnic group. A shift in the balance of power. If you identify with someone who shares your racial composition, that is singing straight from the Amber Oratorio that I am waving.)

No, that is incorrect.  If we like Obama because we feel a certain identity with him because he is bi-racial, it is different from hating Obama because he is bi-racial.  There is a qualitative difference between liking and disliking, after all.  Or between identification and dissociation, or loving or hating, after all. 

To identify with one's ethnic background and take pride in one's racial or mixed heritage is a healthy form of amber.  To identify exclusively with one's ethnic background or racial heritage is an unhealthy form of amber.  BIG DIFFERENCE. 

Whereas the identification with the former is merely a form of identity with mythic-membership belongingness or "pride" (often, just as strong as one's family, community, nationality, religion, gender, and so on (none of which I personally could "identity" with or feel a strong sense of "belongingness" in), the latter is a form of group-identity based on intolerance toward those outside of one's group.  There is no difference between identifying with one's racial heritage than there is in identifying with one's father land.  They are both amber.  The key is not to identify with one's group-identity (whatever form it may be, whether football team, nationality, race, religion, or so on--) exclusively but to identify instead, with the highest possible being--be it pre-egoic (magenta-red), mythic-membership (red), worldcentric self-image (orange-green), or beyond such as universal, self-actualization, or self-transcendent.  The more inclusive, the better.  And to transcend and include.  Not exclude.  Perhaps we were talking about  the same things, levels of being, and integrating lower aspects of being, but perhaps sounded to be talking about different things at first.

It is necessary in the 21st century to elect someone who can break the boundaries of racial or ethnic identity. 

Amber self and amber values and amber interpersonal lines have tremendous political force. In every place in the world.

I wouldn't define amber as a "self."  Gebser says that "ego"-development does not occur until the self is differentiated from the group in the three-dimensional mental-rational structure of development, that is, orange.  Therefore, the "self" of amber (two-dimensional mythic polarity) is actually, "group-self" but not a fully-formed ego-identity who is fully individuated.

(Good point. We have to get right on this. For me, self and ego are not the same thing. Ego is a stricter notion of "where do I stop recognizing "me" - a very strict sense of "how much of what I see do I think is "me"? Self is a broader notion of "who do I share identification with, who has attributes that I regard as similar to mine and that I can be confident will support me (or feed me). To that group I identify my self. I realize I am making this distinction myself. But I see it as a useful one.)

So I guess I have to disagree with what you said about Obama losing the election as a consequence of amber coming out in opposition to express their outrage or indignation.  I think that amber is slowly dying out as a political force and as a species as they continue to age and "die off";  and as the younger ones either quickly or slowly evolve into orange.  Of course, there will always be  amber in American politics and amber in every single one of us.  And there could always be a "backlash" or regression back to amber or red such as during 9/11.  Yet what you say seems to contradict the news and the overall findings of integral studies, especially considering the exponential rate of change in things today.

If we are to take Integral seriously, then it makes no sense to say that amber is slowly dying out. Proper Integration of Amber means that it will always be alive in his healthy aspect. Of course, when orange emerges, we get orange built on amber.

I don't mean to say that amber is dying out literally.  Amber is alive and well in each and every one of us.  Unless we are small children.  Amber is not yet developed in small children but begins some time around adolescence or pre-adolescence.   So not that it is "dying out" literally; but only to point out that as a "center of gravity" in developed countries, it is diminishing in percentage of the population. 

Amber needs to be integrated into the overall consciousness but in a more healthy and positive way.  A healthy way of integrating amber, for instance, is retaining family values, having patriotism for the "fatherland," and loyalty to group -- while also, at the same time, maintaining a worldcentric perspective without falling into the value-less relativism of green, value-less irresponsibility or mob fanaticism of red, nor into the absolute-values, irrationality, and intolerance of amber.

(Yes, I agree. But what you said refers to things I cognitively know. Yes, respect laws ... even when they harm me or my group. Yes, love the country but apply the same standards to other countries. Cognitively, we know these things. Or many of us do.

Have you ever seen someone make a decision based on emotion. Stupid question. Of course. It happens all of the time.

I am asking that we consider whether that emotion is firing a orange hot flame. Or a seering green flame. Or is it red hot?

Have you ever seen people engage in arguments that are utterly stupid ... from a cognitive line assessment? They accomplish nothing. They establish nothing. And yet, they do it. And they know it is stupid. But they do it.

Have you ever seen a drug addict. He knows the junk is killing him. But, he cannot overcome the jones.

Have you ever felt a surge of andrenaline that was vastly out of proportion to the amount you actually need to prepare for a crisis or challenge. Where is that coming from?

Etc.)

Agreed.

Amber as a center of gravity in America, however, is diminishing in percentage overall.  Of course, the reactivation of deficient (negative) "magic" one-dimensional (red) distorts the picture but, overall, amber is dwindling as a center of gravity in most developed countries.  It seems to be occurring at an exponential rate of change, too.  I will re-post these figures on my new post, previously entitled, "Sorry."

(I have found that to get real orange, you have to read a lot. There are few communities where you can get soaked in orange, let alone green, without reading a lot.

And you know what, there are buttloads of people in America who read almost nothing each day. They could not find a library book if it had a winning Lotto ticket in it!

So where are they getting their information from? You Tube, Yahoo front page, the news, their co-workers.

There are not really a lot of people who have a really principled approach to obeying the law. It seems funny to say. But, the orange principle of "laws apply to all equally" - we "know" it but ... we do not follow it. In a million small ways. We are not compelled to follow laws because they are laws. And if we were, then we would be highly disturbed by laws that are really quite stupid or enforced unfairly (steroids in sports), etc.

No, we are below orange on that. Collectively. When was the last time you heard someone say, "dammit, you do it because it is the law. If we don't have law, society falls apart." I speed all of the time. And I see others do it too. I don't slow down for speed bumps.

But, you know what else I do? True story. I bought $50 of stamps at the post office the other day. I paid $50 and the clerk gave me $100 worth of stamps. I went outside, discovered the mistake, and guess what I did? I returned the stamps. It was a no brainer. I didn't even have to think about it.

And you know what, there are a lot of people who would have regarded the mistake as Xmas gifts from the federal government.

These things I know from watching my world.

When I am talking about Amber values and self, a lot of the people in this crowd are the ones who keep the stamps. Period. They keep the overages. They accept the unearned bennies. It is about self first.)

I agree with you that there are people who like to believe that their amber truths no longer exist. They are not Integral. They are mostly mean green exclusionary flatlanders.

Yes, I agree and it's a shame that it has to be that way.  For so many self-proclaimed "enlightened" or "liberated" intellectuals, environmentalists, academics, hippies, or peace activists to be in denial or ignorance of their amber truths.  At the deficient stage of mental-rational, that is, at the end-stage of "green," everything becomes relativized to the point of reactivating deficient one-dimensional magical unity (red).  Which is magic in its deficient form.  Not to say that everything about green or orange are bad because there are obviously many good things about everything.  And bad things, too.

They are not the majority by any means.

Agreed.

I am prepared to find that amber self and amber values no longer dominate the majority of American voters. This will be wonderful if it is true. But I will tell you a secret: I look around the world that I live in and I do not see this happening! I see notions of patriotism, and group loyalty, and group struggle, and shifting balances of group power still alive and well.

I would say that amber is no longer dominant in developed first-world countries, although it is occasionally re-activated during times of strife.  However, in second- and third-world countries, it is the center of gravity.

Heck, look at the media, the media that is pro-Obama. That is a living and breathing exemplar of amber values and amber self. They are utterly partisan and identified with solely one "collective holon" that is less than all of mankind.

"The liberal media" is mostly conservative propaganda.  If anything, the mainstream media is mostly orange and is not really representative of the views of the "cultural creatives," according to those who study "cultural creatives" (green).  If anything, the media, at least, the American media -- is biased to be "pro-American" more than anything (remember their hawkish coverage of the Iraq War)?  Thus, if anything, they tend to be more conservative than liberal.  Noam Chomsky (an academic so a postmodern liberal, no doubt) has spoken extensively about the "myth of the liberal media."  Thus, I would say that the media has a Modern Republican "Orange" orientation or Modern Democrat "Orange" orientation, from a strictly political standpoint.

(I don't agree. There is a very clear predisposition on the part of most major media to support Democrats. Media likes free speech. The conservatives tend to hold information tight to the vest because they lack the cognitive development to explain what they are doing in ways that can be defended. The media gets a better relationship with liberals because liberals can explain themselves better and are more willing to share information.

I use Yahoo! There has been an absolutely undeniable, and almost shameful, pro-Obama slant to the stories they tend to put on their page. Anything about Palin will be something to do with her being stupid or saying something stupid. The things Palin says that are not stupid do not make it to their page.

CBS, NBC, CNN, have all leaned farther to the left. Fox is an embarrassment of course in its right leaning.)

Regarding Obama's "pro-terrorist" associations... I am surprised that there has been virtually no media coverage of the long friendly personal relations of McCain with a "terrorist," G. Gordon Liddy.  So there appears to be a double-standard insofar as coverage of politicians and their associations with "terrorists."  Primarily, because the "terrorist" thing is mostly championed by neo-conservatives.

(I would suggest that the media has avoided this because the topic does not help Obama. There is a question whether Obama has a cousin in Kenya named Odinga. It is not clear. But Odinga says he is a cousin. Obama admits talking on the phone with him. And Obama has appeared with him in public. Odinga is a suspect in a genocide campaign from around 1997. Hmm? Not sure where the truth lies, but ... a major Libby expose goes straight to Odinga too. Not a good topic. You think the media would be leaving Libby alone if Obama could score on it? Honestly?)  

Oh, that is absolutely silly.  Just because someone is related to a terrorist and talked to him on the phone because he is is "cousin" is no reason for the press to avoid bringing up the the McCain-G. Gordon Liddy terrorist association.  McCain and Liddy were quite chummy, so I hear.  Does that mean that I think McCain is a "terrorist"? Of course not.  Yet it does still make me wonder why the press has not brought up the much closer, much longer and more recent connections between McCain and Liddy.  I would rather they bring "all of it out" in the open (including McCain-Liddy and the so-called terrorist connection of Obama with his "cousin") rather than  to be one-sided  and report only on the so-called "terrorist" connection of Obama with Ayers, who blew up a statue.

In espousing orange and green cognitive truths, they demonstrate utterly amber selves and values.

Yes, I agree to a certain extent in the sense that a certain intolerance is expressed from whatever center of gravity.  This is because three dimensional mental-rational is not yet integrated.  Therefore, each stage thinks thinks that only "their" truths are truth.  However, the media is not liberally-biased.  People who determine the content of the media are not the news anchors, journalists, or reporters themselves, who on the whole tend to be "liberal."  Rather, the content is determined by ratings and free-market capitalism.  It is therefore capitalism which determines mostly the content of mainstream media, not political ideology -- because capitalism is the most "profitable."  To do so, it has to appeal to the widest audience.  However, the media outlets themselves are primarily owned and operated by those who are conservative, that is "Modern Republicans" (Orange).  Additionally, Zeitgeist: Addendum mentions that all of the mainstream media outlets -- CNN, FOX, ABC, NBC, CBS -- are owned by four corporations, who filter and distort the news information to favor their products (primarily, oil.  Did you notice all the "greenwashing" going on in commercials for oil, natural gas, and "clean coal" during every single one of the presidential debates?  When "We Can Solve It" (a non-profit environmental organization begun by Al Gore) tried to run a similar ad on CBS, they were turned down.

So, we all learn. I can't wait to see how this election comes out. I am holding the "higher" side, the Democrats, to a higher standard of civility and decency if they lose. Adults are supposed to behave better than children, right?

You seem to suggest that Democrats have no right to be outraged or upset if Obama loses in spite of the polls showing otherwise that he is winning, and in spite of past voter election fraud committed by Republicans.  Given these factors, I would say that the Democrats are fully justified to be upset and call for an investigation were McCain to win, as the Republicans will do when they call for an investigation when he loses.  Obama would lose as a consequence of an unfair and/or fraudulent election.  You seem to operate from a level of pure logic or orange to insist on technicalities or legalities.  If you wish to honor your amber truths, as well as your orange truths, you will admit that in spite of its legalities, the rules and regulations governing the voting process in general serve to disenfranchise a certain segment of the population, the poor and African Americans to the Republicans' favor.  I still maintain that the only way that Obama can lose is if Republicans engage in voter fraud and voter suppression on a massive scale.

(We have the world's best court system. Our judges are the fairest in the world. Please don't point to Florida and the Supreme Court. I am confident that if voter fraud is perpetrated in any way and there is evidence to support, with this god blessed Internet, both parties, if it tends to impact the results of the election, will be all over it like flies on you know what! So, let's just see if it happens, instead of assuming it will happen.

McCain may win 53-47, and there could have been massive voter fraud in North Carolina. He is President, and yes, an investigation and prosecution is in order in North Carolina. But until it happens, shouldn't we avoid saying unsupportable things like the fix is in?)

Well, all I can say is that our Supreme Court failed us the last time.  Your argument that McCain would win democratically through a strong amber base seems rather bizarre in light of the voter suppression and fraud of the Republicans committed during the last two presidential elections to get Bush elected.  In light of that, we have every right to be concerned.  Obama is leading by at least 5-7 points, last time I checked, in the polls.  That alone should lead you to think otherwise about  McCain's victory, unless there is voter fraud once again.