Back in *Reporting 0001* (look it up), I proposed the method of spreading good news rather than the bad news that constantly surrounds us. We need only set our minds to it.

Let us look at medical practice as an example.

It is well known that there are doctors —and even entire countries— that do not provide sufficient information to patients regarding their ailments and potential solutions, effectively positioning themselves as high priests of those individuals' health. Yet, there are also doctors and countries where the law mandates full disclosure to patients—in terms they can understand, avoiding technical jargon —so that they may make informed decisions.

A similar dynamic often plays out within families, where children and the elderly are shielded from negative information to preserve their peace of mind.

But which approach is correct? Is it right to strip a patient of hope for survival simply to comply with the law? Is it right to withhold crucial information about a person's condition? And what of the well-documented placebo effect, where people have actually been cured after being prescribed bottled water labeled as genuine, effective medicine?

All of this demonstrates the diversity of the world —a diversity so vast that every doctor and patient requires a cautious approach, one that avoids aggressive imposition.

Consider the following hypothetical scenario:

A person is suffering from tuberculosis. Despite the doctor's best explanations, the patient fails to fully grasp that they have a deadly disease —one that can be treated according to the doctor's prescription. To ensure understanding, the doctor begins submerging the patient's head in a barrel of fresh water for two minutes every day —bringing them to the brink of drowning— hoping to shock the patient into realizing they have tuberculosis, understanding the implications, and accepting the recommended treatment.

Is such an aggressive approach toward the patient justified? What if their condition worsens?

Now, let us apply this example to the realm of politics. Many people spend their lives warning others about the poor quality of their lives —attributing it to a lack of freedom— and relentlessly hammering home ways to achieve that freedom, almost always through violent means.

Is that right? Should one incite a civil war or provoke foreign intervention just to make people realize that their loss of liberty, their deprivation, hunger, and misery stem from their own governments?

Is this learning the hard way? Is it spreading terrible news and promoting disastrous ways of solving problems?

Do they not see that they are paving the way for the darkness of governments that are external and alien to the very countries they seek to liberate? In many cases, these same people criticize their own governments yet believe that imposing their methods on others will solve everything.

Since the dawn of humanity, those at the top have lived better than the general population —whether through belief systems, as in ancient Egypt, or through endless reigns where power is inherited within the same family. This practice continues to this day, even within Western democracies; after all, who chooses the families that wield economic power while often remaining hidden in the shadows of public policy?

Once again, I urge you to spread good news throughout the world —as it should be and always will be— for the betterment of the human race and to help us better cope with hunger, misery, and deprivation. While ending wars, invasions, and interventions of all kinds—including economic ones—will be difficult, it is not impossible.

That concludes "Reporting 0002."

I look forward to your comments...