Have you ever imagined yourself living in a fortress surrounded by moats, steep walls, guarded by outposts and fortified with farms, water, and supplies in case of a seige?

Well, maybe the castle part but skip the siege!

The Romantic Road as it is called, is based loosely on an old Roman route. Post WWII Germany was desperate to rebuild a tourism industry and decided to make route this into a destination. It’s not hard to see the reason for the popularity - it combines historic cities, medieval walled towns, rolling countryside, forests and ends at the foothills of the Alps with the famous Neuschwanstein Castle. There is a bike path along the whole route that meanders away from the main highways through fields, forests, country roads, and pathways.


So listen in, look at photos, take a first hand tour of this area from our travel perspective.

"Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘‘the buck stops here.’’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better."

I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit.

It appears that once you get elected president, that your beliefs of what is detrimental to the USA society can change - drastically.

Listen to an impassioned speech delivered in 2006 by the current president insisting that increasing the federal deficit was a drastic and irresponsible mistake.

You may READ the entire text of the Congressional Record by clicking this link 
S2238 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE March 16, 2006

I'm still confused that some well intended politicians in 1949 got together after WWII and added The Geneva Conventions to the basic rules of war. It was the fourth treaty of such nature whose precedents were set in 1864, 1906, and 1929. These conventions provided for basic wartime rights of prisoners, established protections for the wounded and protections for civilians around the war zone.
You see why I'm still confused? We have a war situation. A country has chosen to sacrifice its citizens (or allow them to be killed) in order to defeat another army of another country (or with some justification 'fix' an evil regime), and 'they' (the other army) chooses to retaliate, AND 195 countries on this planet have agreed to some basic guidelines of war.
If the last one standing broke some rules, does it matter how people were killed? Those victims are just as dead one way or another.
And to top it all off, the use of chemical agents in war seemed so onerous that these same persons have placed a giant NO NO on their use as well as other weapons. This became called the Hague Conventions.
It's as if there is something way down inside of mankind that seems to have a shout out to our consciousness now and then. "Thou shalt not kill". We, so far, have seen this as too definitive, and way too narrow for wiggle room. 

Universal Soldier (Songwriter Buffy Saint-Marie: 1964)
 Sainte-Marie said of the song: "I wrote 'Universal Soldier' in the basement of The Purple Onion coffee house in Toronto in the early sixties. It's about individual responsibility for war and how the old feudal thinking kills us all. 
(Made popular in 1967 by Donovan)

Click to listen to her describe the song and hear her sing it!
He is five foot two, 
And he's six feet four, 
He fights with missiles and with spears, 
He's all of thirty-one, 
And he's only seventeen, 
He's been a soldier for a thousand years. 

He's a Catholic, a Hindu, 
An atheist, a Chein, 
A Budhist, and a Baptist and a Jew, 
And he knows, he shouldn't kill, 
And he knows, he always will, 
Killing for me, my friend, and me for you. 

And he's fighting for Canada, 
He's fighting for France, 
He's fighting for the USA 
And he's fighting for the Russians, 
He's fighting for Japan, 
And he thinks we'll put an end to war this way. 

And he's fighting for democracy, 
He's fighting for the Reds, 
He says it's for the peace of all, 
He's the one who must decide, 
Who's to live and who's to die, 
And he never sees the writing on the wall. 

But without him, how would Hitler 
Have condemned him at Lw'ow, (German concentration camp) 
Without him Cesar would have stood alone, 
He's the one, who gives his body 
As a weapon of the war, 
And without him all this killing can't go on. 

He's the universal soldier, 
And he really is to blame, 
His orders come from far away, no more, 
They come from here and there, 
And you and me and brothers, 
Can't you see, 
This is not the way we put the end to war. 

Anger starts from within each of us. Does it make it to the surface in the form of body language, words, or action?
Are we less angry than yesterday? Who or what has aided us in dampening or controlling our own potential anger? 
Personal anger expands into regions, nations, and the world like an invisible cancer. Do we add or subtract from the 'anger debt' that seems to show so clearly in our world media?
Are our beliefs subjugated to another's authority? Do we use this as the 'way out' from expressing disagreement on topics. It always seemed strange that a soldier gives up their free will to the directions of their commanders. Necessary when one believes that the killing is justified. Horribly tormenting when one sees the travesty of political abuse of war.
How do we use our talents, our intellect, our daily service within companies and corporations? Is the resulting service of labor and effort used for the purpose of furthering weapon development, contributing to 'hate' groups, adding to divisive thoughts, creating products or intellectual property that has little or no positive use?

What efforts are visible to teach our children about their potential choice of anger? 

Is Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) an increasing witness to the fact that we should not be killing?

Ask the dead about the morality of killing. I don't think I have an answer, just questions.

...
In reviewing the conflicts which have taken place between different interests in the United States and the policy pursued since the adoption of our present form of government, we find nothing that has produced such deep-seated evil as the course of legislation in relation to the currency. The Constitution of the United States unquestionably intended to secure to the people a circulating medium of gold and silver. But the establishment of a national bank by Congress with the privilege of issuing paper money receivable in the payment of the public dues, and the unfortunate course of legislation in the several states upon the same subject, drove from general circulation the constitutional currency and substituted one of paper in its place. 

I realize that this single change in the United States political system is a fantasy, a 'mind game' as one scientist called them. However, perhaps there may be a chord that can be struck for further analysis, resonating later in another idea. So, here goes.

Background:
It seems that to go forward with ideas and applying ones energy to beliefs is a continuous tone of political candidates. These promised changes would rectify given situations and give feedback to the voters that 'they' have indeed made a difference by voting for such a wonderful candidate.
Yet during their elected term, there is a clock ticking: "Re-election, Re-election, Re-election", subliminally at first and then with ferocity. The candidates promises were harder to keep than expected. Voter perception becomes a large elephant in the room, tilting the floor of decisions in ways that the elected official hopes will prove beneficial at next election time. Favors to return, lobbying pressures under which concession is often necessary for reelection, political blackmail from angry focus groups, personal laundry drying on the media racks.
Stumping from the heart during election time, mimicking teleprompters from another's speech in office. Sounds like a white collar prison.
So much energy looking backward and sideways, the elected official has made the error of choosing a 'career' instead of a service to their constituents. If making the correct, yet politically unfavorable, decision was possible from the incumbents's views, it is rarely spoken about again once elected. Let's face it, they live in a catch 22 situation.

Rule Suggestion Change:
Every elected official is only allowed one term for that position, under any circumstance. City, County, State, Nation. That's it! Perhaps the length of terms might need adjustment for the duties required, but only one term. 

Reflection:
• Could this actually assist those persons who truly wish to add their acumen into public service?
* How much money would I spend to get elected on a one term position since I am prevented from making a career in politics?
• What if public, elected positions were publicly funded?
• There would be NO pressure to concede to lobbying efforts that try to dissuade the official from the voter's wishes.
* We could have a negative effect where those elected take as much payola as possible since they can't be reelected.
• How would we amend the odorous 2 party system so that there would be a larger option of candidates from which to choose?
* Candidate credential testing would aid in supporting those who chose to enter public service and eliminating those who have not properly prepared.
* And.....