Society And Politics

Child Murder, Infanticide and Child Abuse

2013-07-26T20:20:00.001-07:00

There is not much difference between the three forms in the title of this article. Any blow against a child is abuse that can result in murder. A blow against a baby that kills it is infanticide. Society has a hard time dealing with these crimes and many parents, abusers, murderers and even governments get away with them. Children who complain or show symptoms of abuse can be completely ignored by the law and many within their communities who know of it fail to do anything that might save the child's life or at the least result in preserving it.

The tiny body that emerges into life and becomes for most parents a beautiful bundle of joy can, for others, represent something that is unwanted, even hated. The emotions run high against it if a parent does not bond with the infant. Step-parents may have the hardest time of all accepting the offspring of their spouse. In that case the jealous gene may emerge whose presence was never felt before-hand.

This condition is aligned to that seen in alpha apes and higher animals where harems are taken over by dominant males. The first apparent act of the new spouse is to kill all the babies in the colony prior to his mating with the females. It is thought that humans may carry the same gene tendency and certainly in many child murder cases it is the step-parent who commits the act. It might, however, also be the natural parent who becomes so frustrated with the tensions between them that sway the thinking against the young one. This is noticeable in cases where both adults are guilty of the crime.

It is extremely hard to look upon the bodies of young babies who have been bruised all over, have split faces or other horror injuries and who lie on a slab in the morgue. They represent loneliness, loss of love, hate, despair, and societies where everything is against them from birth. Some kind assistant might put a dummy in the mouth of such a corpse or wrap it in a blanket to make it look more human but the question hangs over them. Who could have done this and why? Unfortunately there is no easy answer and probably nothing that society can do will change the circumstances or the ignorance surrounding what must be a crime against all of humanity.

Even reading about child murder & abuse may reduce many to tears. How best to protect them is not always apparent.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Norma_Holt

Be Vigilant - Be Smart - Be Prepared

2013-07-26T20:19:00.003-07:00

The title of my article, "Be Vigilant... Be Smart... Be Prepared" reminds me of my eldest son who began his experience in Boy Scouts fully engaged, but as he got older, he began to lose interest becoming less vigilant to advancement deadlines and incomplete merit badges which as a result, almost prevented him from being able to get the requirements completed in time (before his 18th birthday) so he could receive the honor of the rank of Eagle Scout. After his Eagle ceremony he commented how he wished he had been smarter with the process and not have waited so long to receive this award.

This is a simple personal example of how we can easily allow complacency to creep into our lives and take up permanent residency before we know it. I read an article the other day that said that, "Violent Crimes occur every 17 seconds in this country." Staggering statistic for a society such as ours who prides itself on creating the coolest technological gadgets, colleges in every town promoting advanced education, and banks on every major street corner.

Its sad that within this advanced culture there still exists those who would willingly cause us personal harm if given the chance. Each of us have the right to protect ourselves and loved ones if put in a precarious situation. Do as much as possible to avoid a confrontation but if the situation progresses remember that body language conveys as much as words. Use distance from the aggressor as well as your relaxed composure to allow you to process things in your surroundings and the items which you hopefully have at your disposal.

Two items to always have in your possession are a pepper spray and personal alarm. Both of these items are priced under 10.00 in most cases and can be used to create a distraction to allow you to either get away or call public attention to the aggressor.

In the event you are held from behind, don't struggle forward, instead throw yourself backwards to surprise the attacker or stomp hard on their lower leg or foot. If you carry a stun gun, and if legal to possess in your state, after you've achieved your primary aim of stunning your attacker, get away as fast as you can. If you do manage to overcome their attack, don't attack again because you could end up putting yourself in more danger or could even end up being charged with assault yourself. The job of law enforcement is to apprehend and arrest, not you.

By using the motto: Be Vigilant... Be Smart... Be Prepared, the dangers that lurk around us can be avoided. Take care and until next article... Chadbourn Farriss

Chadbourn K Farriss
http://www.stunandspraydefense.com

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Chadbourn_K_Farriss

Society's Role In Combating Substance Abuse

2013-07-26T20:19:00.001-07:00

The Failed War On Drugs

Throughout the world drug abuse is reaching an all time high. In the United States, inner-cities are reporting multiple drug-related deaths and injuries everyday. The pervasive "illicit drug trade", continues to gain a strong hold on the global market. Children are using drugs at record numbers, partly due to easy accessibility. The cartels fight among themselves for the lion's share of the immense profits.

Global criminal justice agencies, cannot contain the narco-trafficking effort. Corruption is an important by-product that keeps the industry solvent. Innocent people are peripheral casualties, as cartel wars continue and bullets fly. Producer countries will continue to offer the "cash crops", and consumer countries will buy these drug commodities. A symbiotic relationship between producer and consumer, is at the very heart of this global drug cataclysm. Herein lies our moral dilemma.

These factors are all contributing to the deadly street wars, taking place in various locations throughout our world. Despite the successes international agencies may have, in terms of apprehensions and arrests, the illicit drug trade prevails.

I'm not suggesting giving up, and allowing these vicious cartels to win. However, the time has come for an all-inclusive international dialogue. Back in the nineties, the US assisted the Columbian government in eradicating coca agriculture, helping to bring some cartels to their knees. The initiative managed to slow down the production and trafficking of cocaine. In truth the effort was short-lived, as other producer countries filled the void.

Time to Re-Examine Our Approach?

Alcohol has been legal in many countries for years. We should use the lessons we have learned about alcoholism, while we look for solutions to today's problems. The illicit drug trade is a global issue, and had better be addressed by all participating countries. Producer countries could not exist, if the consumer countries would not cooperate. Countries are products of their citizenry and actions speak louder than laws.

The United States is the number one "consumer" country of illicit drugs worldwide. This may be due to our large middle class, and the freedoms that Americans enjoy. As China and Russia continue to grow their healthy middle-classes, they are experiencing a rapid and significant rise in substance abuse. They are well on their way to becoming huge consumer countries as well. Money motivates people and may lead to criminal behavior. As one cartel falls, there are countless others waiting to take their place.

What appears an endless cycle, will continue until all governments, show true leadership. Controlled substances are not legal for use or sale, but who's "controlling" these substances? Cartels! Yes, there are many drug seizures made constantly, but consumer countries remain saturated with these substances.

Is there an Answer?

The "G20", made up of the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Japan, China, Russia, Argentina, Australia, Saudi Arabia, India, Germany, Indonesia, Mexico, France, Brazil, Turkey, European Union, South Korea, Italy, and South Africa, are the major world economies. They are all to some degree, consumer countries. The only country that's a member of the G20, and is also a producer country, is Mexico. The producer countries are, but not limited to, Afghanistan, Myanmar (formerly Burma), Vietnam, Laos, Thailand, Mexico, Columbia, Peru, and Bolivia.

The revenue of these cash crops play an important role for these producer countries' respective economies. All fore-mentioned countries must sit at the "solutions table". There are other countries involved providing the processing of narcotics, trafficking, and the like. This issue is of great importance, for all responsible governments, and their citizens.

The Power of Mankind

Drug addiction is a weakness of character, a disease of the brain, and more recently, a pre-dispostion from birth? Scientist will continue to research this disease. Some people will drink themselves to death, while others enjoy alcohol only during holidays. The primary by-product of this industry, will always be the violence it generates. Addiction, death by over-dose, and domestic crimes are back-page news stories. Apathy is prevalent.

Granted we'd like to help those languishing within the self-imposed prison of addiction, but that's a healthcare issue. Or it should be!! Mankind continues to fight wars, against each-other, for a host of arbitrary reasons. People, nations, humanity have shown great strength, while coming together to survive natural disasters. We the "G195", must combine our power and join forces, to eliminate the illicit drug trade forever.

We could then re-habilitate addicts and re-educate our next generation. It would reduce the violence associated with the illicit drug market, and build stronger bonds with other nations. We, as a global society cannot continue to put band aids on gushing wounds. Countries around the world are evolving, we are all in this together.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Ernest_M_Latty

How Human Trafficking Has Become Such a Problem in Today's World

2013-07-26T20:17:00.001-07:00

Human Trafficking is fastest criminal industry in the world and a crime against humanity. It is an action of recruiting, transporting, transferring, harboring or receiving a person through a use of force, persuasion and other means, in order to exploit them sexually and/or put them into forced labor.

Every year, over 9 million men, women and children fall into the hands of traffickers, worldwide.

Human trafficking can range from domestic enslavement large-scale operations such as farms, sweatshops, and major multinational corporations like the chocolate industry.

Sex trafficking is one of the most lucrative forms of trafficking and includes any form of sexual exploitation in prostitution, pornography, and sexual abuse of children.

Just the other day I spoke to the owner of a corporate video production company who produced an amazing promotional video on human trafficking for Stop the Traffik and the United Nations during the 2012 Olympics in London, where he told me of a story of a homeless man who was tricked into working on a farm for over a month without getting paid a penny. The man had no idea of where he was and once his time was up the traffickers put him in the back of a van and abandoned him in the middle of nowhere.

Another huge issue we are facing and not many people are made aware of this is child labor within the chocolate industry, where boys from the age of 12 to 16 are being trafficked from their home countries and being sold to cocoa farmers in the Ivory Coast. They are forced to work on farms across the country, gathering the cocoa beans day and night, under appalling conditions. Most of the boys come from neighboring Mali, where they kidnap homeless and begging children. They promise the kids wonders and take them to Ivory Coast, and then the traffickers trade the children to farmers in need of low-cost labor (Raghavan, "Lured... ").

Holding a large pod in one hand, the children strike the pod with a machete and open it with the tip of the blade, divulging the cocoa beans. Each strike of the machete has the potential to severely cut a child's fingers, hand and legs. Nearly every single child has scars on the hands, arms, legs and shoulders. Adding to the threats of using a machete, children are also bared to agricultural chemicals on cocoa farms.
The sad thing about the kind of child slavery is that it is occurring with a product we generally associate with love and happiness... CHOCOLATE!

Have a look at this video filming website if you are thinking on producing a video to create awareness.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Eddie_Justo

Has The Arab Spring Been Mislabeled for What Comes Next?

2013-07-26T20:16:00.001-07:00

Is the Arab Spring (Arab Perennial) really about demanding democracy? It appears not, and to label it such is somewhat unjust. What it is, is a meltdown of society and massive civil unrest by the local inhabitance. Worse, it looks like there is a lot more to follow what we've seen so far. As society degrades into riots, protests, and tit-4-tat sectarian attacks between government military martial type law - one has to ask why things are not functioning well. The reality is, things have not been all that well for all of written recorded history in those regions.

The Arab Spring and perhaps the Arab Fall are too times when the temperature is decent enough to travel, be outside, and function normally as a human being - not to hot and not too cold, but these windows of opportunity - if you want to call them that - are not year round, even if the animosity, revenge seeking, and angst is. In the Economist July 13, 2013 issue there was an article titled "Has the Arab Spring Failed?" which stated "despite the chaos, the blood and the democratic setbacks this is a long process, do not give up hope."

First, we must understand that pure-democracy is not what those regions need, as that will only turn into a sort of mob-rule mentality and socialism - which as we know from other nations around the world - is not sustainable, probably even less so in the arid Arab regions where there is less agriculture, water, opportunity and a good deal of poverty due to lack of decent economic viability. Even if the people in some of those countries overthrow their heavy-handed governments - then what - do we really believe that more mob-rule and promising politicians will be able to give those rioting and protesting citizens all they want?

Of course, the new leaders can't, as once the riots have pillaged the treasuries, there isn't much left to give, nor will there be jobs as FDI (foreign direct investment) dries up like the water, as food and oil prices skyrocket due to supply and demand and transportation challenges. These types of violent demonstrations will not bring justice to the people, nor will they bring sustainability - sure they might bring temporary democracy, but really what good is an uneducated electorate that demands free-stuff of its leaders? Not much, and that will just be the new beginning of a socialist collapse ending. Why should we support that? Please consider all this and think on it.

Lance Winslow has launched a new provocative series of eBooks on Future Concepts. Lance Winslow is a retired Founder of a Nationwide Franchise Chain, and now runs the Online Think Tank; http://www.worldthinktank.net

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Lance_Winslow

The Two Fathers, Mandela And Gandhi

2013-07-26T20:15:00.001-07:00

As Nelson Mandela lingered in twilight between life and death early this week, clearly to be remembered as one of the giant figures of the 20th century, I pondered who we could actually compare to him.

First I thought of political leaders whose passing left their countrymen feeling adrift and alone. There was Franklin D. Roosevelt, the only American president elected more than twice. He led our country through depression and war, remaking the people's relationship with the government and the federal government's relationship with the states. His Democratic Party has been trying to live up to his standard, or what it thinks would be his standard, ever since. But Roosevelt was in office only 13 years, and his prior positions as New York governor and assistant secretary of the Navy did not amount to very much on the national scale. Roosevelt was FDR, but he was no Mandela.

Next I considered Winston Churchill, who rallied his country through the Blitz and saw an exhausted Britain to victory, albeit with significant American and Russian help, over the Nazis. Yet by 1946 his own people had grown weary of his leadership and pushed him into retirement. Churchill was a great historical figure, but he was no Mandela.

Josef Stalin was no Churchill or FDR. He was a ruthless megalomaniac who brutalized his own country and made a pact with Hitler to divide Europe, before Hitler turned on him and drove him into the arms of the Allies. Yet Stalin ruled his country for about three decades and led it through the "Great Patriotic War," which killed 20 million Soviet citizens or more. When it was over, the Soviet Union had gone from Bolshevik backwater to Cold War superpower. His people must have wondered, with some anxiety, what would come after him. Some - those of skewed values or selective historical memory - still revere him today. Stalin would be at the head of any historical parade of prominent Soviets (it is incorrect to call the Georgian-born Stalin a "Russian"), but however prominent, he was no Mandela either.

Hirohito? His accountability for World War II crimes remains a matter of debate, unlike the indisputable reverence his country accorded him. By the end of his long reign, Japan had risen to global power, collapsed in the rubble of nuclear defeat, and risen once again. Japan might accord Hirohito a Mandela-like stature, but no other nation would consider it.

Mao? No. De Gaulle? Not even close. The Dalai Lama? Perhaps, if his Tibetan homeland were not just as badly off today as when he fled it in 1959.

Marcos, Sukarno, Khomeini, Ho Chi Minh? Dictators and personality cultists dressed up as independence leaders. The big names of mid-century Africa, such as Kenyatta and Nasser? Much the same.

Pope John Paul II is a possibility. So are Lech Walesa and Vaclav Havel. All came to symbolize Eastern European resistance to Soviet hegemony, and all are larger-than-life figures in their native lands (Poland in the cases of Walesa and the pontiff; the former Czechoslovakia for Havel). But outside their countries and, in the pope's case, outside Catholicism, none commanded Mandela's stature.

Israel would probably nominate Ben-Gurion. Turkey would offer Attaturk. They were founding fathers of their countries, but divisive figures beyond their own borders.

I thought of other personalities from the United States who symbolize freedom's march: Martin Luther King Jr., of course, but also Rosa Parks, Malcolm X, Medgar Evers and Jackie Robinson. All were important; none was a Mandela.

In the end I came up with only one name: Mohandas K. Gandhi, better known as Mahatma. Many of the individuals I considered and rejected were revered in their lifetimes by their own people. Only Gandhi and Mandela were similarly revered by all people.

To their own peoples, Gandhi and Mandela went by yet another set of names. Gandhi was "Bapu;" Mandela, "Tata." Both words mean "father." Both men were father figures to their nations while serving as inspirational examples to the world.

How often do global leaders like these come along? Maybe only twice in a century. When we lose one, it is worth reflecting on how much they meant to us.

For more articles, please visit the Palisades Hudson Financial Group LLC newsletter or subscribe to the blog.

Newsletter: http://www.palisadeshudson.com/insights/sentinel/

Blog: http://www.palisadeshudson.com/insights/current-commentary/

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Larry_M._Elkin

Do You Accept Full Responsibility for Your Personal Conduct?

2013-07-26T19:55:00.002-07:00

Recently, I was asked of the following qualities-integrity, accountability, results-oriented motivation, and ability to innovate-which is the most important in a leadership role and why? Without hesitation, my reply was integrity as it's my opinion you cannot promise or deliver the other qualities if integrity isn't first and you are unable effectively lead if you don't have and exhibit integrity.

In my 29 years as a credit union executive, plus the past few years as a certified business coach, working with ethical persons was an honor and its own reward. That wasn't always the case and in difficult economic times, personal conduct took a back seat to expediency. As I look back at those lapses of integrity that I witnessed in others, it begs the question, "Do you I have a clearly defined set of personal values. "Core Personal Beliefs", that are non-negotiable? My answer is yes. How about you?

Personal accountability is ignored by us in others when we allow excuses such as, he is naive, or innocent. Think about any leader you have ever known or read about that those attributes could be attributed. Did they try to impose their values upon others rather than leading by example? Of course not.

Being naive means that you don't know the difference between right and wrong vs. innocent which means you know the difference between right and wrong and chose the right action. Big difference isn't it? Now think about those leaders again. Do any of them strike you as naive? Accountability and personal conduct are choices and it is why ethical, successful leaders consistently make decisions based upon their values. Their values extend to how they do business.

We don't always see that in government and in elected officials, or heads of business and we may become indifferent to read of another lapse of personal accountability or integrity. That is unfortunate as accepting full responsibility for your own personal conduct should extend to that of others... especially those in your circle of influence. Holding others accountable is one way to curb undesirable behaviors and experience tells us that those persons will continue unrelenting until someone says stop. Whether that is a four-year old, an employee, or a boss (and sometimes they all act like a 4-year old, don't they?).

Our nation was formed under God and God isn't in the corner office, Washington, DC, or city hall. Without personal accountability and ethical behaviors, our conduct is likely to be unacceptable to others. Giving others a pass because they may be naive or innocent emboldens more poor decisions and behaviors.

"We are here to add what we can to life, not to get what we can from it." ~ William Osler

To receive a FREE Leadership Talents Assessment, contact us at http://www.kesgroupllc.com/index.php/contact-us

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Tom_L_Randle

Women and Our Society

2013-07-26T19:54:00.003-07:00

Violation on women is a paramount factor in our society. Ages changes and new centuries are born but solution to this problem is still uncharted. This may be subjected to lack of education and knowledge towards Islam. It is very simple to use religious extremism, fuddles and conservativeness against women in our society.

Women in our society are being pressurized right from the beginning of their lives, both emotionally and physically. Firstly, girls are not given any right to go to schools. Secondly, from cradle to grave, girl/woman is not allowed to take any of her verdicts all by her. Later is more common in our society as women are considered 'foolish' by our male class members. Thus imposing restrictions and rules in their lives. Their liberty is restricted in the name of modesty, protection, humility and prevention of immoral activities. A sexual raid on women including rape remains one of the leading problems in our society. Women are being continuously abused in the hands of men. Human Rights Commission estimated that rape occurs every 3-4 hours. No estimation can be done as there are hundreds of cases which are still not reported.

Killing in the name of honor is known as 'Karoo Kari'. Many women are murdered every year in the name of honor by their male family members. Today the meaning of honor is misused. One must understand the true and literal meaning of this word 'honor' because it is very obvious that honor doesn't have the meaning in its true sense. Not only freedom of women is affected in the name of honor but many are also put to death if they lose this 'honor'.

Apart from all this, name of Islam is usually used to impose restrictions on women. They are bound to obey their fathers and brothers and afterwards their lives are governed by their husbands. Later plays more dynamic role in our society. Women are forced to cover their bodies by their male family members and such type of covering is termed as 'niqab' or 'hijab'. Islam do teaches women how to dress properly but on the same side we also read about dressing of men in Islam. The sad part of this story is that men only know how to get their females dressed properly ignoring the fact that wearing long garments that hang below their ankles is forbidden in the religion. More effective way of describing is that women are pulpits in the hands of men. Men in our society decide zenith and nadir of women success and her fate as well.

Early marriages are one more genre of violation in our society. Girls are not allowed to say anything regarding their likes and dislikes regarding their marriages. In Sindh, marrying off a girl with Quran is a practice which is very prevalent. Marrying a woman with 'Maulana' takes place when a woman becomes widow or her age of marriage is passed. Her responsibility is to take care of that 'Maulana' for the rest of her life thus fulfilling his demands and needs. All these ways of marriages are totally forbidden in Islam.

The question still remains unanswered that why only girls or women have to suffer in our society? Why do men take their women as for granted? Why is there no law imposed for the protection and freedom of women? Why possession of women is considered to be the property of men? All these problems are blended into a loud solid endless line. There is so much to do against this violation by stopping the other gender class of our society by ruining many innocent lives.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Sehrish_Nida

The Goliath of Racism

2013-07-26T19:54:00.001-07:00

Today, a series of racial attacks on Indians in Australia is increasing everyday and it is a modern day manifestation of racism. The past two years alone can bear witness to these heinous attacks. The first victims were innocent Sikh cab drivers, which set the stage for all the horrors that would unfold in the following few months. Then, an Indian Physicist was accused of aiding a group of dangerous terrorists. However, the worst was yet to come. Twenty-five-year-old Shravan Kumar Theerthala, a student in Melbourne, was mercilessly stabbed with a screw driver that left him battling for his life. Later, a journalism student suffered thirty per cent burns from a petrol bomb attack from unknown assailants. In another incident, Baljinder Singh, another student, was robbed and brutally stabbed. The most recent man-handling took place on September 12th, where three Indians were physically assaulted and bashed by a mob of more than seventy people, leaving them with severe physical injuries and irreversible mental trauma. During the attack they were constantly told to go back to their own countries.

At the birth of the new millennium, India became a favorite destination for multi-national corporations for outsourcing purposes. This resulted in the booming of IT and BPO sectors, witnessing extensive growth and re-writing India's economic history. As a result, India was accused of stealing jobs from other countries because of its cheap labor and low efficient costs. Many people in various countries lost their jobs and unemployment rate rose steeply. This fueled up jealousy and hatred towards Indians and subsequently metamorphosed into a string of racism attacks.

On the other hand, globalization not only declined territorial boundaries, but also gave rise to the evolution of cultural conflicts. People from diverse cultures immigrated in staggering numbers to other countries, creating conflicting attitudes and behavior that was diametrically opposed to each other.

Now, most of the countries have passed certain laws to punish violence pertaining to racism. However, Australia does not have any laws as such. On the contrary, Simon Crean, Australian Trade Minister, stated that Australia is dedicated to offer quality education in a 'safe environment' and is committed for the safety of all its students.

Sadly, only four perpetrators of the September 12th attack were arrested. But then, they all walked free. There was no pressure on the cops for further investigation in order to avoid any publicity of this attack. In fact, the Australian Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, justified these attacks stating that Australia harbors multicultural society and it is not a perfect country.

The concept of racism has infiltrated into the sports and political realm as well. During the Sydney cricket test match, the steaming argument between opposition players, Harbhajan Singh and Andrew Symmonds is quite fresh in our memories. During Obama's Presidential election campaign, many opined that black Americans neither have the ability nor the potential to run their nation and hence they do not deserve to hold any authoritative position in politics. What do we term this as?

The racial discrimination against Indians has undermined Australia's reputation. It would probably take years to heal the wounds. Studies show that there has been 50 per cent drop in the enrollment of Indian students in Australian Universities, threatening its billion-dollar education industry.

The ultimate reality is, racism has spread out in many countries in various forms. Human beings by nature desire to exert dominion and power over each other. Some men have taken advantage of the color of the skin to accomplish this. What is so bad about being heavily pigmented by melanin? Is it a crime to have a heavily pigmented skin? Scientifically, dark skin is mostly considered as an adaptation to the external environment. But this tiny microscopic pigment had the ability to alter the course of history in a dramatic way. We all need to accept the fact that racism has always been there and it still lingers even today. However, we can't assuredly expect it to disappear overnight. Will it ever disappear? Only time will tell us the truth.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Raj_Gunashekar

Social Networking: Can Virtual Be the New Real?

2013-07-26T19:53:00.003-07:00

Social media is here to stay!

It is the order of the day and the inevitable reality for one and all. No matter how much it has infringed upon the individual or the family space, we cannot totally ignore or avoid it.

New technology has always brought new social challenges while adoption. In many a case, these social challenges are external in nature with less or no impact on human relationships. For example, let us look at the advent of typewriters. With its arrival newer methods for restructuring of the publishing industry took place. Though the technology aided in proliferation of new breed of vocation and services, the impact of the technology may still be considered "external ".

The present technologies, such as, social media are different. They present challenges which are quite unique in nature as it invades the cognitive world of people. This affects the behavior and relationship amongst people leading to deeper impact on their psychological well-being. These are being contemplated by people from different walks such as parents, doctors, psychologist and sociologists.

What is social networking? And why is the present i-generation hooked to it?

Dictionary.com defines social networking as the use of a website to connect with people who share personal or professional interests, place of origin, education at a particular school, etc.

The driver of social media has been to facilitate connection amongst large distributed population of people with similar interests to synergize at a personal or professional level. The networking is useful and specific in its purposes. Respect for the medium is in place when its purpose is well understood such as for civic engagement, digital performance, or maintaining relationship. The virtual medium for social engagement is a welcome opportunity as long as it enhances the real relationship and results in effective beneficial outcomes. The challenge arises when its usage is diverted to more frivolous issues and made so rampant that the virtual reality starts pre-dominating the real life issues. The enticement that come as a package along with such mediums is capable of alluding the reality. This is an area of concern and the need to keep vigilance is imperative.

The effect of social media on the youth has been both positive as well as negative as revealed in the recent research findings by Dr.Larry D Rosen on the "psychology of technology". For those individuals who are shy to face real life situations, the virtual world provides platform for exercising their skills and talents. Validation from an unknown audience or virtual reality can become a booster for one's confidence. It also enables in building "empathy" as reiteration in the virtual world tends to extend itself in real life too, where mass social movement for positive change is possible.

At the same time, the very nature of virtual engagement brings itself a set of challenges that are unique and mostly, habit generating.

The foremost of all is the "addiction syndrome" wherein adolescent kids tend to be glued to the medium. They develop restlessness and can't do without checking status or notification every minute of their active time. This constant engagement with a world which is virtual in nature can adversely affect the social make-up of the individual. Research conducted by the American Academic of Pediatric has confirmed that Facebook addiction does lead to depression among the youth.

The second challenge is that of virtual identity seeking tendency. Lets take the instance of friendship as a powerful social interaction. According to the recent Pew Research Centres finding, an average Facebook user has approximately 300 friends which may include extended family, siblings and other association. The report further establishes the finding that majority of the teens use these sites to put up their profile and embellish it with information that look jazzy. There is a constant need for validation, acknowledgement and acceptance among the friends. This instant popularity, that one seemingly able to generate in the virtual world, may be vastly different from mechanisms in play in real life. This disconnect between the virtual and real can pose conflict, if the distinction is not properly understood. Also, embellishment of an identity and acknowledgement for the same from the peers does not help in identifying the true self.

Thirdly, overusing social medium on a daily basis has a negative effect on teens and young adults by making them more prone to anxiety, depression, and other psychological disorders such as anti-social behaviors, mania, and aggressive tendencies. It has oft been cited that these forums help in exchanging ideas and enabling better communication. However, in many a case, especially when concerned with youth, these exchanges are mostly at a surface level. The texting, messaging, the sharing that takes place on a day-to-day basis are largely very loose and frivolous. The superiority of the skill one develops while having a face- to-face communication and the kind of relationship that gets established cannot be replaced with online communication. The identification of these subtle realities between the virtual and real life is the education that the youth of today need.

Medical practitioners have identified some common goals among adolescence across the world. They include socialization with peers, investigating the world, trying on identities and establishing independence. These new horizon of the internet is the space in which adolescents are seeking to find themselves and technology in different ways is hounding them with all its enticement. A large part of the emotional development of the adolescent is happening online than offline. The keyboards, the cellphones, tablets and other gadgets help the youth to traverse across the virtual world.

However it cannot replace the existence of world which is made up of men, matter and mind. The constant touch and exchange between people, relationships and the society at large through hardcore and mutual contexts is indeed the lifeline of humanity. No amount of artificially created subsistence can overtake or overwhelm it.

The effort to wean the negative impact of social networking lies with the parents, teachers, guardians and those involved in the development of the minds of the younger generation. As Dr. Rosen has cited in his study, the crux of handling the issue lie not in disrupting the usage of the medium nor surreptitiously monitoring their networking sites, rather equip oneself with as much information and knowledge, engage in constant exchange of the same and have a continued discussion and communication with the group.

It is an accepted fact that social media will in its own way tend to govern some aspects of our lives. We need to welcome this change and work closely to ensure that the best is being extracted out of it. At the same time, it cannot become the new real as much of its existence is in thin air or probably no air!

Vatsala is a founder of Kalpa, a communication and design studio based out of Pune, India.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Vatsala_Ravikrishnan

The Art of Winning

2013-07-26T19:53:00.001-07:00

Everyone loves a prize, but perhaps we should ask who is dishing them out and on what basis? That curmudgeonly thought comes up each year as I watch the winning actors and actresses tripping up to the stage to accept their latest tinsel town prizes in Hollywood. The Golden Globe awards, for example, are voted by fewer than 100 members of Hollywood's Foreign Press Association, many of them part-timers whose day jobs range from electricians to hairdressers but who like to contribute the odd piece to often obscure foreign publications. The award ceremony is, in effect, a vast publicity jamboree conjured up by the major studios to promote their stars. Who minds? Not me. After all, few can resist actresses in gorgeous frocks emoting tears of joy.

I feel less indulgent about the plethora of hotel awards that keep on being invented. Lucy Madden, of HILTON PARK, in Co. Monaghan, Ireland, a country house hotel wrote about this phenomenon: 'We are told, and no surprises here, that airbrushed stars in magazines leave young girls stressed and wanting to drink. It's the same effect that the annual round of hospitality awards have on me... they swish around these awards and the categories become ever more obscure. Soon there may be an award for the receptionist with the best teeth.'

It is in that blithe spirit that I look upon recent travel website awards announced under a Daily Mail banner headline: 'World's best hotel? A £35 B&B in Llandudno.' The winner, 11-bedroom Lauriston Court, according to the Mail's report, 'beat 650,000 others world wide'. So far, so dandy, but how did Lauriston Court win its award? Apparently more than 400 people rated it as 'excellent'. How many of these people actually stayed there? Your guess is as good as mine. The travel website doesn't pretend to know.

That doesn't necessarily mean that its prize-winners are rubbish. Some are undoubtedly good places. But the basis on which these awards are handed out is distinctly odd. For instance, Rudding Park Hotel was fourth in the list of top world hotels after 1,397 people rated it as 'excellent'. Yet the Four Seasons at Hualalai in Hawaii, reckoned to be 'the best hotel in the world', was rated as 'excellent' by just over half as many as endorsed Rudding Park. So if it is not quantity, how are these awards decided? As the travel website doesn't know whether its correspondents are genuine, let alone reliable, it is clearly not quality. All this shows that you have to be careful what you read on the web.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Adam_Raphael

How to Celebrate the American Way

2013-07-26T19:52:00.001-07:00

When I was 11, we lived in Hampton, Virginia. My father was a major in the Air Force and he was stationed at Langley Air Force Base. I came into the kitchen one afternoon to find my mother at the sink, her shoulders bobbing slightly from her sobs, her head hung over her work of peeling carrots, I think. In the background, from the old stained Bakelite radio on the counter, the strains of God Bless America were playing.

I was stunned to crash this intimate and moving scene of my mother. I was speechless as she turned to reassure me. "I always get emotional when I hear this song," she said. Being in a military family, around this anthem a lot, I wondered why I never knew this about her. My mother was pretty reserved, so to see this side of her was huge. I appreciated being a part of this touching moment. It pierced my heart with a lasting memory of her patriotism and love of country. To this day I get emotional when I hear that song or the Star Spangled Banner, whether it's because of patriotism or because it reminds me of an infrequently occurring dear moment from my childhood.

Patriotism Defined

Webster's defines patriotism as "love or devotion to one's country." I certainly feel this toward my country. We've always been the most free and democratic nation in the world. We've been the greatest super power and the country that offers the most to people from anywhere else who might be seeking a safe haven. But that is changing. Trying times have altered that generosity; hopefully this shift won't be permanent.

I'm thrilled to have been old enough to appreciate JFK's words, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country." I believe he and his brothers contributed significantly to bolstering patriotism at home. Their words and deeds could make us believe in ourselves and in each other. I often wonder how our love of America might have been enhanced by his son's participation in the political arena also.

In Other Countries

But this post isn't about politics. It's about taking stock of our lives here in this land. Traveling outside the US places our lives in sharp contrast to other nations with little of the resources we take for granted. A recent trip to Bali hit home about the fact that people don't need a lot of 'stuff' to be content... to be proud... to be devoted. I can say unequivocally that I have never met a kinder or more generous people who smile genuinely and welcome our larger than life presence in their country. These are people without many traffic lights or lanes, no requirements to not smoke in certain areas, no myriad rules and laws to keep their personal space intact. When a funeral procession of many Balinese on foot takes over both lanes of the road, people stop and wait... they wait as long as necessary without complaint. This happened to me while I was there and we waited over 45 minutes. No one honked or yelled outside car windows. Afterwards we all went on without complaint. These are people who value highly their spirituality, their strong sense of karma, sincerely believing they do right by themselves and their country by doing good in the world.

We Can Always Learn From Others

To me, seeing the ways others are in the world heightens my sense of patriotism. I am proud to be an American when we use nearly unlimited resources to free a kitten trapped in a well. But learning from people in other countries also reminds me to let go of some feckless behavior and put the well-being of others ahead of my own. We can always improve the way we are in our immediate family and circle of friends, and opening our arms wider to embrace the qualities of those who are different from us can bring greater joy, humility and patriotism. This is how to celebrate the American way.

http://antoniasseniormoments.blogspot.com/

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Antonia_A_Albany

America Is On A Path To Something Far Worse Than Fascism

2013-07-26T19:50:00.001-07:00

Most people don't realize that the whole world is on a path to something that will even be far worse than Fascism. It is all happening right under our noses and most people either don't care, or aren't aware of what's going on or else are just afraid of telling or showing others what they are finding out to be true.

Folks, the beast is slowly revealing its face and it is a political system that is referred to as a Technocracy. According to most dictionaries, a Technocracy is a theory and movement which became prominent about 1932. It advocates a strong control of industrial resources, reform of financial institutions and a reorganization of the social system based upon the findings of technologists and engineers.

Notice the words "movement", "control", "reform" and "reorganization of the social system" in the above definition. There has been a movement in our nation going on for many years now to control, reform and reorganize our whole social and economic system. It has been slowly gaining momentum to the point where it is almost in place and hardly anyone has even really recognized how BIG this potential problem has become.

We are all like frogs in the water that is getting hotter and hotter. It hasn't gotten to the point yet where it is so hot that all of us are trying to jump out. If you remember this analogy about the frog - it eventually dies! Our freedom and liberty has been so slowly eroded away, that most of us don't even realize what we no longer have.

You Be The Judge...

Now it is time for YOU to come to YOUR OWN conclusion. You can read the actual definitions of these different forms of government and make your own educated guess as to where we are as a country right now and maybe even more importantly - where we are headed.

Below are a few of the defining characteristics of current philosophies of government in the world today. The only form of government that has the potential to not fall into tyranny is Capitalism. It mirrors openness and freedom and advocates responsibility and integrity.

Capitalism

It is best identified as a system in which money makes more money. It's where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. It mimics the natural selection observable in the wild which is a "survival of the fittest". The system works well whenever there are effective and tight regulations in place to prevent the wealthy and powerful from affecting the decisions of government.

It is an economic system in which a majority of the modes of productivity are privately owned and controlled. The investment of capital and the production, distribution and pricing of products or services are established primarily in a free market system rather than by the state. Investment strategies are decided by personal choice based upon prices.

Socialism

This is a kind of government whereby the government owns and controls the economic power and industry of a nation. Property and wealth are distributed equally among the citizens. The national economy develops much more slowly as a consequence of diminished incentive and motivation to work harder.

The methods of production, distribution and exchange are mainly owned by the government. Socialists maintain higher taxes as well as government welfare spending on the population of the nation.

Listen to someone who has lived in a Socialistic society in Romania. This may come as a shock to you, because she recognizes many of the signs that she saw in her former country becoming evident in her new country - The United States of America.

Fascism

This is definitely a system wherein the citizens hold no control over the management of businesses while having no share in the profits. Under this system, the federal government quickly starves the people, expecting them to work for increasingly lower wages for the benefit of the wealthy.

Great pride in the country and often a predominant race of people is required. There is also an absolute rejection of parliamentary democracy. There is a cultivation of military attributes, a powerful government along with a loyalty to a strong leader.

It is characterized by a government wherein the corporations control the government. The government is united with the major businesses and their wealthy owners, and the function of government develops into an instrument to reward the wealthy and the corporations. Everything is taken away from the citizens to ensure that this happens.

Communism

This is often a governmental system wherein there are actually no classes of people and everybody is compelled to be equal socially and economically. Communist nations have invariably devolved into oligarchies or dictatorships wherein the wealthy and powerful turn into oppressive and ultimately merciless dictators.

It is a system wherein goods are owned in common and are offered to everyone as needed. It is a totalitarian structure of government wherein only one authoritarian party directs state-owned modes of production. It requires that no individual may own anything exclusively or privately. All materials are centralized and distributed by legislators.

The whole objective of Communism, in general, is to not grant more social and political power to the citizens but to instead eliminate alternative possibilities and concentrate power into the hands of a chosen few. The Soviet system is the ultimate in centralization. Every aspect of economic life is determined by the federal government, from industrial input and output, to investment, to food production, to rationing, to wages and to retail pricing.

One of the most important tenets of The Communist Manifesto was the establishment of a central bank which is used to maintain firm controls over currency issuance. The presence of a central bank rapidly thwarts any opportunity for a true free market.

Capitalism fits well within both Fascism and Socialism but is in direct opposition to the true tenants of Communism. Fascism is really just Capitalism out of control and Socialism is just well-regulated Capitalism. Regardless of which route is taken, the end result is tyranny.

Where Did Our Free Market System Go?

True free markets in America went away many years ago. The nature of a free market society defies the utilization of centralized planning. There cannot be planned systems of monopolized production or manipulated capital flow within an economy and still be able to allege that it is a "free market".

Ever since the inception of the Federal Reserve through a subversive collusion between banking interests and shady politicians in 1913, America has not enjoyed a free market system. From that time until today, every economic change has been scientifically and technologically engineered.

Heavy taxation on companies not lucky enough to be included in elitist's circles has erased any incentives for manufacturing entrepreneurship. Meanwhile, members of insider groups and companies are being given government subsidization while they simultaneously outsource manufacturing contracts to Third World countries.

Then "public works projects" were introduced by our federal government, which give the illusion that they are able to create jobs. Governments never can and never will be capable of creating wealth or jobs. They can only make it seem like they are achieving economic progress while they siphon wealth away from private citizens.

Our current President's executive order called "National Defense Resource Preparedness" allows, under a "national emergency", for the confiscation of any and all private resources including farms and businesses. These resources are to be redistributed by the government to ensure security conditions. The President can declare a national emergency for any reason that he pleases. This is definitely a Stalinist model in its purest form.

The Stalinist Model

For a Soviet configuration to flourish, poverty among regular citizens must be institutionalized. Dependency demands a continuing presence of despondency and despair. In The United States, this is being achieved by means of a combination of inflated pricing and lowered wages together with the deterioration of employment alternatives.

In a Soviet type of system, an intelligent person is not allowed to accomplish anything of any significance. Citizens must conform to the ideologies of the educational system. This type of market strategy necessitates a continual theft from citizens. Diminished employment opportunities, reduced wages, minimized resources, increasing taxes, greater price controls as well as a significantly ignorant population allow this type of tyranny to flourish.

Conclusions

Regrettably, the United States is well on its way in all of these areas. You may have noticed that our country has begun to show a lot of the same characteristics evident in these other forms of tyrannical governmental philosophies.

All of the leaders of these governments would have loved to have had the technological resources available today to control their people. A Technocracy is taking shape in this country which will far surpass any form of tyranny ever experienced on earth before. Not only will we be forced to comply with government systems of education, health care, taxation, welfare and pricing but we will be constantly monitored technologically to ensure that we do what we are told to do so that we avoid falling into our corrupt legal system.

Robert Bradshaw is a student of Biblical research and has focused recently on crucial issues in our society today that people must become more aware of so that they don't stumble in their path to success.

For more information on other Shocking Fact-Based Questions that we should know the answers to, go to: Shocking Fact-Based Questions to Not Ignore or for more information about Becoming More Successful in Life, go to: THE SECRET TO SUCCESS

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Robert_Bradshaw

Reason for Democracy

2013-07-26T19:49:00.003-07:00

I'd like to start my first substantial post with a disclosure about my feelings regarding trust in the democratic process. Now, when I say trust in the process, I'm not referring to congressional approval ratings or the idea that individual votes don't matter (both issues which need deep discussions which I will get to at another time). I'm talking about the notion that political discourse in this nation seems to have no respect for not only the opinions of the majority, but even the idea that majority rule has a place in society.

There is in our, as well as many other representative democracies, an idea that there is a bright line between where majority opinions hold sway over the rule of law and where fundamental rights take over despite the views of the majority. This, of course, is truly necessary. However, when I look at current agendas on both political sides, there seems to be this overwhelming sense that nearly all social issues can be solved by clearly defined rights and rules. When we look at issues ranging from immigration to legalizing marijuana in various stages, the debate always focuses on the rights of the individuals. We've become a nation of absolutes, and these absolutes rule the political discussion. It is no longer a question of American citizens choosing based on personal impact how the nation they live in is run; it's become an argument about which absolutist dogma meets the fundamentalist criteria of whichever idea set is pulling the strings, and I think that's a shame.

More than just a shame, I think it is incredibly dangerous to the political process. Not only does it limit individuals from believing they live in a society they truly have no control over, it is one of the most factional elements in modern political discourse. The two (primary) party systems already seem to limit the choices of average voters to an extreme extent, but an even deeper seeded idea that the opinions of individuals MUST be right or wrong destroys the concept that one really has the ability to make a choice. Being part of the complex, wonderful political process which governs your society is an incredible thing. It allows for the evolution of culture and the feeling of responsibility and connection to the society we live in.

So my point is this: not every issue HAS a fundamental right or wrong, and even the process of deciding which issues do fall in that category requires a society engaged in the political process. The alternative is a series of dogmatic rules and laws which govern not because we as a people chose to live in that society, but because we are bound to it. In a nutshell, it eliminates the purpose and reason for a democracy, and there could be few greater shames for us as a collective people than that.

http://onlyfearitself.com

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Christopher_P_DeLozier

Direct Democracy Definition: The Fascinating Advantages and Disadvantages of Direct Democracy

2013-07-26T19:49:00.001-07:00

The current political system does not work. A small economic elite wield a disproportionate amount of power. They have the power to bring powerful lobbying forces to the doors of the political hierarchy. In turn, the politicians work within an adversarial political system that, not only stops the best from influencing policy, but also compels the rest to tow a party line.

They do this rather than properly represent the concerns and aspirations of the people who installed them. What's worse is that the party machines that enforce brand loyalty, both figuratively and literally, are themselves totally beholding to the economic elite who lobby them.

We, the electorate, though we suffer their decisions, have little say in any of this.

The result of this catastrophe is that we are powerless to stop obviously destructive, illogical and poorly evidenced decision making. In the Four or Five year intervals between election, where we can vote for a slightly different style, we may as well abandon reasoned debate for all the good it does us.

The thing is, it's not the fault of the bankers, the politicians or the oil producers that we're in this mess. They are simply the individual cells of the same cancer.

It's our fault! Yours and mine.

For too long we've trusted our lives to distant bureaucrats because we believed they took decisions, broadly speaking, in our best interests. Very clearly that is no longer the case, if it ever was.

But it does not have to be this way. We can be in charge. We can have a democratic system that allows us to represent ourselves fully and completely. Both at a local and a national level. That way is call Direct Democracy (actually I favour a more participatory model of representative democracy myself but lets' check out DD here)!

Direct Democracy Definition.

Direct democracy is a form of democracy that affords the electorate far more influence in policy making. In direct democracy policy is driven by the concerns and desires of the people rather than party leaders and their influential backers. This is quite simply achieved by asking the people what they want to happen far more often.

In addition, if the politicians that make decisions make one that the people really don't like they can use something called "recall" to both stop that decision and, if necessary, force a new election to remove that politician from power.

So this means that the politicians power is reliant upon public support, not only at election time, but also on a continuing basis throughout their period in office. The decisions they make must reflect the considered wishes of the electorate not, as is currently the case, the vested interests of global corporations who's only concern is profit.

In actuality democracy ([demokratia] meaning "rule of the people") is only defined as the people being able to control the rule of law. This means that the political systems we mostly live in are, in fact, not democracies at all. By electing people to represent us we are devolving power to a selected elite. In effect, at every election, we give away, rather than exercise our democracy.

Direct Democracy vs. Representative Democracy.

In our current system, called representative democracy, every four or five years we elect people to our Parliament, House of Representatives, Bundestag or whatever. The people we elect to represent us have many names (especially in private) but are collectively referred to as politicians. Whilst some of them are capable of some pretty inspiring stuff most of them seem to be either corrupt or incompetent.

Generally speaking the problem seems to be that once they get into power they start to invent "career paths" which are carefully managed to ensure they stay in power as long as possible, within their respective parties. In turn this enables them to "have influence" and makes the really rich people want to make friends with them. Once they've made friends with the rich people they then represent their interests rather than the poor people (relatively speaking) who elected them in the first place.

Direct democracy on the other hand means that "politicians", as we know them, would pretty much cease to exist. They would instead be replaced by a constitutionally defined legislative administration. The sole purpose of this administrative body would be to implement the rule of law. In turn the rule of law would be controlled solely and exclusively by the will of the people.

Therefore when questions arise like "should we bomb some people we don't like?" Or others like "shall we build some houses for people to live in?" We would all have a vote to decide what we should do. Once the "politicians" have understood the will of the people it would be their task to administrate the implementation of policy based upon that decision. This is the way that all decision making, from international accords through national legislation to local funding allocation would be decided. The concept's pretty simple really.

Direct Democracy Advantages and Disadvantages.

Firstly the possible advantages of direct democracy are that we can make some decisions in our interests occasionally. Massive corporations will still exist, I'm sure we will all still want the occasional bottle of the real thing, but they won't be able to influence political decision making.

Decisions could be taken following an evidence based, reasoned, public debate focused upon the pertinent issues. Party politics would be almost meaningless and elections would serve only to ensure that the administrative body remained skilled for the task. Politics would be about issues and solution focused policy rather than tribal loyalties. Leaders would still emerge but would do so because they demonstrate that they have the best ability to implement the wishes of the people rather than the will of their party.

The disadvantages of direct democracy could be pretty bad. If the people have direct control of all policy then we could decide to bomb people we don't like after all. A majority of us may decide that God was right and all gay people should be killed. The possibility of majority rule becoming mob rule would exist. Although we all have our opinions we currently have a system that has safeguards within it designed to protect minorities from oppression. Critics of direct democracy claim that it lacks these safeguards and would, almost certainly, lead to the collapse society and, ultimately, anarchy.

Another major criticism of the direct democratic system is that people have neither the time nor the inclination to engage with policy debates, especially if they are required to regularly vote upon them. With current election turnout often as low as 30%, some argue that people are simply not interested in politics and would prefer others to make decisions for them.

Examples of Direct Democracy.

Well... er! There's like Iceland and Switzerland, some U.S States ( see below for more.) Then there's the British Prime Minister's laughable promise of direct democracy. This actually amounted to a spurious claim from Mr Cameron that he would allow people have some of their concerns listened to in the British Houses of Parliament. He didn't though.

The only true democracy that ever existed on this earth occurred in Ancient Greece around 480BC. Every other so called democracy, since then, has progressively moved us towards what we now call "representative democracy." To be clear, and if you don't get anything else from reading this rubbish then remember this; our system is not a democracy and anyone who tells you that it is either mistaken or lying. If your conclusion is that they are lying then you need simply ask why.

Countries With Direct Democracy.

There aren't many countries on the world that operate direct democracy. There are political, practical and socio-economic reasons that partially explain this fact.

However Switzerland operates something closer to a direct democratic legislature. People are consulted on important policy decisions. They take an open and free vote following a public debate on the issue. Unfortunately this has resulted in some less than edifying decisions such as the outlawing of Minarets. But they're sticking with it. Time will tell.

Perhaps more interesting is Iceland recent move towards direct democracy. This resulted in electoral success for the Pirate Party to the Icelandic legislature called the Althing. The Pirate Party in Iceland support a range of libertarian principles including complete freedom of information, online privacy and progressive civil rights. However they also propose and support direct and participatory democracy. Whilst the Althing is controlled by a centre right coalition of the Independence and Progressive parties, shortly before the 2013 Icelandic elections, the people of Iceland formed a peoples National Assembly of 950 citizens randomly selected from the over 18 population.

In October 2012 this assembly convened and elected 25 members to a Constitutional Council who were tasked with presenting constitutional reform to the Althing. The National Assembly produced a model for a new Icelandic constitution that proposed, amongst other measures, the nationalisation of all natural resources, increased voting rights for the people (more frequent plebiscites) and the power for the Icelandic population to force a referendum on any issue that gains sufficient public support.

Perhaps most surprisingly direct democracy (or rather a more participatory democracy) has actually been implemented in 24 U.S states; introduction of a more direct democracy in the U.S has met with varying results, it has to be said.

The constitutional amendment initiative has been introduced in states including California, Florida and Illinois. These states have set a precedent whereby the electorate assumes the power over the national legislature to call for referendums on state law and recall elected officials if they fail to represent the will of the people.

Direct Democracy Disadvantages.

Yes I know I've briefly touched on this topic earlier in this article but I thinks it's important to look at these disadvantages in more detail.

In 1787 the United States Constitution defined and implemented a representative democracy. The signatories of the Declaration of Independence did so having carefully considered direct democracy as a viable alternative. Broadly speaking they identified a "trilemma" of concerns which they agreed made direct democracy not only unworkable but also potentially dangerous.

This trilemma identifies three elements for the full implementation direct democracy which present significant challenges.

Participation of as many people as possible in decision making presents a number of problems. Firstly it is argued that only those interested in a particular issue will be bothered enough to vote on that issue. This raises the potential that the views expressed will actually be more polarised than under the current system.

More concerning perhaps is the danger that the direct rule of the majority will actually lead to mob rule and the oppression of minorities. John Witherspoon said "Pure democracy cannot subsist long nor be carried far into the departments of state - it is very subject to caprice and the madness of popular rage."

The third concern regarding participation is that people are generally disinterested in politics. They want to devolve power to a representative body who will run their lives for them. Given the profound lack of engagement in current politics some argue that asking people to vote even more frequently would be a none starter. Finally, but certainly not least, full participation in 1787 would have been extremely expensive to administer and scrutinise. The potential for electoral fraud would have been almost impossible to mitigate against at the time.

The second problem identified concerned deliberation. People have suggested that, if informed evidence based decision making is wanted, it would be necessary to present a balance of evidence, to the population as a whole, prior to any subsequent referendum. Critics of direct democracy suggest that this would be exorbitantly expensive and long winded. They further suggest that many people lack sufficient understanding to be able to make a balanced decision. This, they claim, again raises the increased possibility of oppressive, mob rule and ill informed essentially reactionary decision making.

Finally a significant argument against direct democracy seems counter-intuitive because it suggests that equality would be undermined rather than promoted under true democracy.

Firstly many have stated that the concept of involving all of the population in decision making on a more frequent basis would be both impossible to achieve and result in incredibly slow and inconsistent decision making. Even more concerning, critics claim, is that direct democracy leads to increased social inequality. The argument is that no state would be able to compensate people for their time debating important issues. Therefore, they suggest, only those who could afford to do so would be able to participate in the decision making process.

So, as you can see, there are apparently some significant obstacles to the implementation of direct democracy. However, whilst these criticisms are merit worthy, they do not reflect the modern reality of the multi-media societies we live in. Furthermore they suggest that representative democracy successfully addresses these concerns.

Exponents of direct democracy would argue that it is the singular failure of representative democracy to encourage participation in government, to produce effective evidence based decision making following open debate and to address the increasing inequality in our societies that warrants the adoption of direct democracy.

I will be addressing these arguments in more detail in other posts but will briefly touch on them here. Whilst full participation of the populace in decision making was almost impossible to envisage in 1787 (from a practical and economic perspective) the advent of ever improving communication technology means this objection no longer stands up to scrutiny. It would now be both entirely possible and relatively inexpensive to frequently consult the population on policy.

Secondly the objection that people are not sufficiently well informed to take balanced decisions is not only elitist and condescending in the extreme but also raises two significant questions.

Foremost, if people lack the empirical evidence necessary to make a balanced decisions then what educational and media reforms do we need to ensure that they don't. Additionally what evidence is there to suggest that representative democracy leads to sensible decision making?

We only need to look to the so called WMD debacle that led to the 2nd Iraq war to seriously question where evidence based decision making exists in the current system. Had we a direct democracy at the time, then the millions that marched on the streets of our major cities, pleading that the weapons inspection teams be given a chance, would have been able to effect the decision making process.

Despite massive public opposition our representatives went to war on the basis of no evidence whatsoever. Hundreds of thousands of people, including our brave troops, have died as a result. How many people seriously believe that this war was about anything other than the protection of the multinationals oil profits?

And finally that brings us to the question of equality. Whilst the potential for direct rule to become mob rule would require the agreement of constitutional safeguards prior to adopting a more direct democracy, are the detractors seriously suggesting that representative democracy promotes equality?

Currently our representative democracy takes all power away from the electorate and places it in the hands of the political and economic elite. Following the economic collapse of 2008 the banking industry, who were entirely responsible for mess we found ourselves in, simply told our governments to protect their shareholder profits by taking all of our money and giving it to them. On the whole this is exactly what our own representatives did.

Whilst the people have lost so much the bankers have continued to make gargantuan profits. Direct democracy would have completely changed this power dynamic. The lobbying power of global corporations would remain significant but so would that of the public. The corporations would no longer be able to simply dictate policy, as they currently do.

So, in conclusion, whilst the adoption of direct democracy presents significant challenges these are not insurmountable. It would mean massive constitutional reform (not least of all having one - which those of us in the UK currently don't.) A tremendous amount of thought and debate would be required to ensure that the liberal values and freedoms we currently enjoy are not only protected but enhanced under a new system. The electoral reform needed would be revolutionary and the transition would be fraught with problems but is, nonetheless, entirely feasible.

If anyone ever tells you that representative democracy is the only way forward then simply ask yourself who's interests they are representing. They are not representing mine! Are they representing yours?

So get involved and make direct democracy a reality. If you want to start somewhere then go here to learn more about how you can really make a difference.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Ian_Richard_Davis

Heated Political Debates

2013-07-26T19:48:00.003-07:00

As members of the 21st century, we tend to believe the political discourse of this country has reached new heights. The sad reality though is we pale in comparison to our predecessors. For example, the parallels between the Obama era and that of Jefferson is actually quite remarkable. To illustrate, I recently completed Jon Meachum's book, "Thomas Jefferson: The Art of Power" (2012) and read about the presidential election of 1800 pitting Jefferson against his old friend, John Adams (the second President). Like Washington before him, Adams had been a Federalist. Jefferson, on the other hand was a Democrat-Republican (the origin of the Democratic Party as we know it today).

By 1800 there were already sharp ideological differences between the parties. Whereas the Federalists sought a strong federal government patterned after the British monarchy, Jeffersonian Democrats were more in favor of states rights and upholding the rights of the common man. The Federalists controlled New England, while the Democrats controlled the South. The disparity between the two parties is essentially no different than the Democrats and Republicans of today. Interestingly, Jefferson won New York which ultimately broke the log-jam (and edging out Aaron Burr).

Both parties controlled different newspapers, thereby providing a vehicle to attack each other and communicate their positions to the public. This was long an accepted form of communication until 1798; as the country approached the election of 1800 where it became apparent the Democrat-Republicans were gaining momentum, the Alien & Sedition Acts were passed by the Federalist controlled Congress, and signed into law by Federalist John Adams. The Sedition Act prohibited criticisms of the government and was viewed as a serious threat to the First Amendment by Jefferson and Madison who fought to overturn it.

The Federalists also tried to pack the courts. There is no clearer example of this than Adams picking his Secretary of State, John Marshall, to become Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Interestingly, even though Marshall didn't share Jefferson's views, he was a cousin and administered the oath of office to Jefferson. The Federalists also passed the Midnight Judges Act which made sweeping changes to the judiciary before the Democrat-Republicans took control of both the executive and legislative branches.

The discourse in Congress was much louder and violent than what we are familiar with today. To illustrate, in a Congressional debate in 1798, Democratic-Republican Congressman Matthew Lyon implied that Connecticut Federalists, including Roger Griswold, were corrupt. Hearing this, Griswold called Lyon a coward on the Senate floor. Lyon responded by spitting in Griswold's face. Following this, a motion to expel Lyon from the Senate failed. Two weeks later, Griswold charged across the Senate floor and began striking Lyon with a heavy wooden cane about his head. Lyon retrieved hot tongs from a nearby fire pit and defended himself. However, Griswold was able to disarm him. The two exchanged blows briefly until they were finally broken up. This was not the first or last time, Congressmen would physically fight on the floor of the Capitol, but it gives you an idea of the heated passion of the day. Despite today's political hyperbole, I am not aware of an incident in recent memory involving fisticuffs on the floor of the House or Senate.

Such incendiary oratory has actually been with us for a long time. For example, consider the debates over issues such as the Missouri Compromise, the Kansas-Nebraska Act, Jackson's dismantling of the National Bank, and just about every other argument leading up to the Civil War. All were just as inflammatory as the discourse of today, maybe more so.

I just wonder what effect television has had on Congressional arguments. I cannot help but believe it has somehow calmed the passions of the speakers. Without it, I can well imagine some rather loud and visceral arguments, with maybe some canes and tongs thrown in for good measure. Hmm... sounds like a good angle for reality TV doesn't it?

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Tim_Bryce

What Is Next for Egypt? Navigating Through Reality and Fantasy

2013-07-26T19:48:00.001-07:00

Social, political and economic turmoil is part of building up the state apparatus. Societies go through these necessary evils in order to arrive at the mature point of governing themselves through consensus and mutual social contract. Perhaps this is what Egypt is going through.

Perhaps bloody violence, anger, frustration, desperation and disappointment experienced by the Egyptian people is a regular process of trial and error of creating an entity where different fractions of the Egyptian society can come together for a common good. Or perhaps, this is just a fantasy and the Egypt will continue to sock in violence, anger, frustration and economic chaos for generations to come. Perhaps...

The underlying causes of this chaotic current situation are there for anyone to see. Chronic unemployment; economic and currency collapse; inflation of basic necessities such as fuel and bread and you mix that with large number of young and unemployed people and you have a very volatile situation in your hand. That is the reality of the Egypt.

Morsi came into power with a fanfare and huge amount of expectations to improve the economy and put Egypt back into some type of economic healing mode. But that did not happen or should I say that it did not happen quickly enough for an average Egyptian. So the streets in Cairo filled up again- this time against Morsi. On the surface, as many commentators and media pundits have identified in the global media, it was a clash between secular and religious forces. But the reality is different. You see, for the last 8 years, the Egyptian economic growth has been a failure- to say the least. Inflation has been rising and unemployment has skyrocketed.

Anyone who has read the economic and political history must know that these are exactly the type of conditions which create chaos and turmoil in any society. For Egypt, the economic problems have been compounded as the population growth has been high. That is the reality of the Egypt.

So, while the global media, mostly, argue over, the merits of a recent coup and the shortfalls of the democracy in Egypt, I am more preoccupied with the conditions on the ground - and how those conditions will continue to play a crucial role in the Egyptian political framework. Egypt urgently needs an economic revival of an epic proportion. That is the reality. The rest is just a fancy discussion for political pundits. Democracy on shaky economic grounds is worse than a dictatorship which rests on solid economic grounds.

As of now, the Army has intention of organizing elections in 2014 and lets assume that elections do happen (The Muslim Brotherhood has rejected the timetable offered by the Military). What if the Muslim Brotherhood comes into power again? What then? What if another party or coalition of parties forms the next government and still do not provide workable solutions to Egypt's chronic economic issues, what then? Will there be protests again? What I can say that until the elections happen, Egypt will remain on a violent course unless the Army can show that it could provide a role of an honest broker. It remains to be seen.

In that manner, it is in the interest of the Egyptian political class to comes to terms with what ails Egypt. The aid and bailout financial agreements can make a country float for a short-term but it is not the way to run an economy or a country. Still, the Governor of the Egypt Central Bank made a quiet but very important trip to UAE yesterday. We can imagine what that trip was all about. The central bank has run through two-thirds of its cash reserves in defending the Egyptian pound since early 2011 as foreign investment dried up and the economy reeled after the uprising that toppled former ruler Hosni Mubarak.

Whoever comes to power in the next election must make an economy the priority. This and this issue alone must be dealt with right away. There is a huge entrepreneurship spirit among Egyptians who are eager to see their nation grow prosper. But that will not happen until the detailed and action oriented economic plan is initiated specially in regards to jobs. Recall how the Arab Spring started. A vendor in Tunisia resort to self-immolation because a municipal worker confiscated his belongings as he was selling the fruits and vegetables illegally. In many societies, economic discontent among population has a power to change history and it has. Egypt is no different.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Raja_Kadri

The (Un) Democratization of Australian Politics

2013-07-26T19:47:00.001-07:00

In the build up to Australia's forthcoming federal election, many citizens are questioning our democratic process. How democratic are we really? You cannot blame people for asking, as our Federal Parliament has experienced constant instability and even chaos, throughout the term of the present parliament. Our previous election saw the Rudd Labor Government take office from Rudd's predecessor, John Howard. In June of 2010, a coup took place, within the Labor Party and from it emerged our first female Labor Prime Minister, Julia Gillard. The public had little warning of a change of leadership in this instance, and people justifiably felt that their democratic rights had been somewhat eroded.

Australia's system of government is founded on the liberal democratic tradition, uniquely Australian. In 1901 the Commonwealth of Australia was created after the previous English colonies agreed to amalgamate. Although Australia is a totally independent parliamentary democracy, Queen Elizabeth II retains the title 'Queen of Australia'. The voting public basically have four main parties to choose from. These are, the Australian Labor Party, which sees itself as a social democratic party; the Liberal Party which aligns itself with the centre right; the National Party, formerly the Country Party, which represents primarily rural interests and is considered conservative; and lastly the Australian Greens which is an environmental, left-wing organisation.

Naturally, people have been concerned about their democratic rights, since the internal upheaval in the Labor Party took place. By electing Mr. Rudd into office, we the people, exercised our democratic right, yet his replacement by Ms. Gillard, was orchestrated by a faction within the Party without recourse to the voting public; little wonder then, that it would be perceived to be undemocratic. Can such tactics form part of the electoral process in a genuine democracy? Clearly it was possible but it remains an open question as to whether it should be permitted. Recently, the leadership has reversed back to Mr. Rudd when he was voted back into the position by a secret ballot of Labor parliamentarians. This second contest for the leadership came about because of low polling by Ms. Gillard. Mr. Rudd was considered to be the better choice to lead the Party and avoid an electoral rout in the forthcoming federal election, against Mr. Abbott. Rudd's return has come at a time when there has been a noticeable shift in the rhetoric in parliament. The tide has changed. Popularity contests have taken centre stage, at the expense of policies and a vision for Australia's future. There has also been a concerted media campaign in the conservative press, scathing of Labor's values, principles and policies, with undue attention being placed on the personal life of Ms. Gillard, rather than focussing on her record in office.

During the last four years, very little attention has been focussed on issues facing Australia, such as global warming, over exploitation of resources and Australia's place in the world economy. All of these topics have taken a back seat to the interminable in fighting which has characterised political discourse in that time. The people of Australia elected a party to govern, not to become absorbed in personal denigrations and smear campaigns which have for so long, dominated and denigrated the Australian political landscape.

The term "democracy" originates from the Greek meaning "rule of the people". Our democratic process enables certain procedures to be carried out, in which a Prime Minister is elected. It was the result of the coup in June of 2010, which caused consternation and confusion amongst many members of the Australian electorate. A process by which a sitting Prime Minister can be ousted by a group of parliamentary members, appears incomprehensible. Yet, it did happen, and with no knowledge of the events for the public, until it made headlines in the following morning's news. Mr. Rudd is now crusading against this form of old style political power play, in the belief that an elected leader should not be able to be unseated by Caucus or factional 'back seat' boys who may parachute in an alternative party member for leadership contention, during a Prime Minister's parliamentary term.

Young people, in particular, have turned their backs on politics, and who can blame them? With so much dissention, and vitriol on public show, during Parliamentary Question Time and broadcast on the media, it is not surprising. People want a return to a more democratic process, in which a Party is chosen by the people on its platform and policies to lead and govern the country until the next election. This was the original "charter" for Federation and is how it should be. We need to return to a system where the policies and positions taken by parliamentarians are transparent and easily accessible to the public and where ideas and visions are thrashed out in public debates, rather than political point scoring by parliamentarians solely focussed on re-election. This is what a democracy should be all about, not personal assassinations and innuendos. The voting public want to and deserve to hear about the policies and visions which each party adheres to, rather than slanging matches and sloganeering. The public needs this information in order to make responsible decisions, about which party they believe should lead our country into the future.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Pamela_Smit

A Precise Definition and Explication of Federal Tyranny

2013-07-26T19:46:00.001-07:00

The American Republic of the 50 United States was forged as a constitutional republic, as a immaculately planned experiment in republican government, and, as such, was given a very specific rulebook by the Republic's Framers, the U.S. Constitution, which, as the highest law of the land, governs the proper manner in which the federal government should operate in order to preserve the freedoms and liberties of the People, or the States. The checks and balances, and the specific separation of powers for Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches of the federal government, contained in the U.S. Constitution, were placed there through the collective wisdom of the Framers, in 1798, in order to ensure that tyranny would never grip the Republic. The specific functions of the various key officers of the Republic's federal government, and their duties and obligations to the People of the fifty States, are set forth in the Constitution simplistically and unambiguously.

The U.S. Constitution requires that the each of the fifty States elects federal representatives and senators to the U.S. Congress (the House of Representatives and the Senate) to represent the majority voices of each State electorate. The elected U.S. Representatives and U.S. Senators swear verbally before God and man, after being elected to their offices, that they will preserve, protect, and defend the U.S. Constitution, the federal rulebook, against all enemies foreign and domestic; and that they will protect the People of their respective electorates, and of the combined national electorate, from tyranny in furtherance of the goals of the U.S. Constitution. Those goals are stated specifically in the Preamble of the U.S. Constitution. They are, to establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote (not provide) the general welfare, and to ensure the blessings of liberty to the People and their posterity in perpetuity. That means forever. This assurance of liberty simply means the preservation of the liberties and freedoms enshrined in, and protected by, by the first ten amendments of the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, through the legislation of federal laws created to protect those sacred amendments. It is as simple as that. Freedom and liberty are to be maintained by the federal government by it properly establishing justice, ensuring domestic tranquility, providing for the common defense, and promoting (not providing) the general welfare. If these elements of federal government are wrongly construed by the elected and appointed federal officers to mean something that they are definitely not, and, by tyrannical laws, thrust upon the People at the dire expense of their personal liberty and freedom, the underlying premise for their implementation, to preserve the Peoples' unalienable rights, is abrogated. Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin worked together very closely to construct, in the Declaration of Independence, the simplest explanation of the purpose of government. They said,

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

To what specific rights were Jefferson and Franklin referring in the first five words of the above excerpt from the Declaration of Independence? Undoubtedly, they were referring to the same rights enshrined, and protected by, the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights, which, summed up, simply meant life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is good to remember that the U.S. Constitution was framed through explicit and direct reference to that glorious Declaration, which set all Americans free from a tyrant British king, George III. Federal government then, and now, was meant to secure those basic unalienable rights of freedom and liberty. These protected rights, provided by nature's God and not by man, were intended to empower the People to use their freedom and liberty to regulate themselves and to be free of unnecessary government regulation. This premise coincides with one of the powers of the Legislative branch, in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18 of the U.S. Constitution.

"The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

You see, the U.S. Congress was given certain powers in order to create "necessary and proper" laws for carrying into execution, by the Executive branch (the President), the requisite laws created through their legislative powers. The word necessary, as used in this particular clause, is defined as "that which is utterly essential," not merely convenient; and when it is connected with the word proper, the word necessary explicitly conveys the precise meaning of the clause. That is, the maintenance a very limited, or small, federal government. There aren't too many things necessary for allowing all American citizens the freedom and liberty to pursue happiness in their own unique way. All it takes is for the federal government to refrain from interfering in, and attempting to regulate, the free-market economy, to establish and maintain federal criminal and civil justice, to allow the States, or the People, the liberty to attend to all matters not specifically designated to the federal government, according to the 10th Amendment, to provide for a federal military only for defensive purposes, and for Congress to exclusively coin money and determine its value.

Now that a proper foundation has been laid in order to properly understand what is, and is not tyranny, which may be imposed upon the American Republic by government, a discussion of the current N.S.A. debacle may be more clearly understood in its light. This morning I heard a fellow on radio provocatively comment on the 1975 statement of Sen. Frank Church about the National Security Agency (NSA). Sen. Church had said that, "The [National Security Agency's] capability at any time could be turned around on the American People, and no American would have any privacy left... there would be no place to hide. If a dictator ever took over the N.S.A., total tyranny could be imposed, and there would be no way to fight back." This fellow quoted Frank Church and then ridiculously asserted, as a perfect non sequitur, that federal contractor Edward Snowden's public disclosure of the NSA's tyrannical surveillance program, which has totally undermined the 4th Amendment, was an act of treason. Yes, that's right! Snowden was called a traitor by this fellow because he blew the whistle on the tyrannical behavior of a federal agency implementing a tyrannical law. I considered this commentary disgustingly ludicrous. What sincere patriot, federal contractor or federal employ, would not cry foul, and disclose to the public the clandestine tyranny imposed on the nation by a federal agency, and allowed by the U.S. Congress? Under this standard of patriotism, it is presumable that 99.9 percent of all the federal employees and federal contractors employed by the NSA, much like the thousands of civilian employees who worked for Hitler's Nazi government, have inured themselves to the tyranny that the NSA, and its intelligence cronies, regularly dispenses upon the American People.

Since early 1996, the NSA has been monitoring, recording, and cataloging every electronic communication (email and attachments, cell phone, and land-line telephone calls) made by American citizens within the United States. These egregious violations of privacy are actually tantamount to agents of that federal agency barging into a person's house, without a warrant, to pilfer through file cabinets and desk drawers for personal papers and records. Congressional officers, like Sen. John McCain, have been acting like it's no big deal. It all really started around 1947, when the federal government (mainly Congress) intimidated the private telecommunications industries into fully cooperating with intelligence organizations under the 1947 National Security Act. Domestic spying by the NSA probably began shortly after its creation, in 1951. I mean, the NSA has been spying on innocent American citizens long before 9/11; and, since 9/11, Congress has allowed the NSA to use the 2001 Patriot Act, a piece of legislation that wasn't even read, or openly debated, by all of the U.S. Representatives and Senators before it was passed and signed into law, to greatly intensify its surveillance and monitoring efforts. The Patriot Act Bill wasn't even written in the wake of 9/11, but 9 years before that tragic day. Appropriations were even approved for the building of a 2 billion dollar data-fusion facility in Utah (and it is almost finished), which will use the world's most powerful supercomputer to electronically monitor all phone calls, emails, Internet usage, purchases and rentals, and break all existing forms of encryption in order to store everyone's data permanently. The fact that the elected representatives of the People have allowed such unconstitutional things to occur is utterly treasonous under Article 3, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution, which states, "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them (the People), or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

The National Security Agency, an independent federal entity, has essentially declared war on the People of the United States by illegally intercepting their electronic personal papers and effects, and Congress has empowered, comforted, and aided them in doing so by appropriating funds for the NSA to carry on its treasonous acts. Was it legally constitutional for only a small handful of U.S. Senators and Representatives to enact a law that would desecrate the 4th Amendment by allowing the NSA to spy on all American citizens? No, it was not! Were FISA courts constitutional without open debate on the House and Senate floors? No, absolutely not! A congressional oligarchy does not rule the American Republic under a fascist mandate that supersedes the U.S. Constitution. Instead of the Doberman watchdogs of the Republic, which the Framers intended Congress to be, in order to vigilantly guard against tyranny, Congress has undergone a dire metamorphosis, in the Kafka tradition, into chambers and committees of scurvy spiders spinning their webs to the detriment of the American people.

Now think seriously about this. In previous essays, I have shown conclusively that the federal government's published explanation for what happened on 9/11 is scientifically impossible. It was the federal government that planned and orchestrated the murders that occurred on 9/11, as the doctrine of resipsa loquitur demands. So, if the federal government secretly orchestrated the WTC and Pentagon bombings, they, the feds, have actually created and maintained the terrorist threats that the American people have faced since 2001, in order to maintain their planned control of the American people. If the U.S. Representatives and Senators have taken an oath to protect the People, and the U.S. Constitution, against all domestic enemies, then the real domestic enemies, those enemies within the federal government, have declared domestic war on the unwitting People of the United States. Much like the "see no evil, hear no evil, and speak no evil" council of primates in the original "Planet of the Apes" the federal representatives and senators have sat uselessly in the sacred chambers of Congress while the Executive branch of the federal government, in league with the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission, has proliferated their terrorism, and allowed to NSA, the CIA, the FBI, and DIA to freely continue their terrorist agenda and the evisceration of the freedoms and liberties of the American People. Remember, Congress appropriated the money for the construction and operation of the aforementioned Utah data-fusion facility by the NSA, which is now being readied for use, and they didn't tell the People that they were doing it.

Now, for a little 20th Century history that will probably make the readers of this essay even more provoked and indignant than they are presently. The awful things that Congress has deliberately allowed to happen to the Republic go back to the second decade of the 20th Century, and I have discussed in detail the actual beginnings of unconstitutional U.S. Congressional legislation, from 1910 through 1947. But the first actual death and despair waged on the American people, and deliberately allowed by Congress, by it not doing anything to prosecute the people who were responsible for it, was documented in the 1975 book by Anthony Sutton, Doctor of Science (D.Sc.), "Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler." In that immaculately researched book, Dr. Sutton, a long-time professor of history and government in the California State University System, documented treason against the United States by General Motors, General Electric, IT&T, Ford Motor Company, Chase Manhattan Bank, the Guaranty Trust Company (over which George Herbert's daddy, Prescott Bush presided), and Exxon, in that these corporations financed Adolf Hitler and provided him the weapons and supplies he needed to wage World War II. Dr. Sutton did his immaculate research and discovered, in the Colonel Edward House Papers at the Yale University Library, that five years before the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, which was actually prompted, and encouraged, by the Roosevelt foreign policy in the Pacific, the U.S. Ambassador to Germany, William E. Dodd, sent several urgent letters to the U.S. Department of State anxiously wanting to know why American corporations were building and cranking-out weapons for Adolf Hitler, when they couldn't get their profits out of Germany because of the exchange controls. Congress, comprised then, from 1934-1936 mostly of do-little representatives and senators who were supporting those American corporations in Germany, did nothing to prosecute those corporations. And alas, the greatest accumulation of tanks, armaments, and munitions, which were directly responsible for the deaths of most of the American soldiers who fought the Nazi Reich after 1941, were produced for Hitler by those American corporations between 1936 and 1941. None of the people who ran these corporations were ever indicted and prosecuted for treason; and those despicable corporate suits undoubtedly knew about the crimes against humanity Hitler was inflicting on the European Jews, and his wars plans for invading Russia and Britain.

Now, here's some much sadder history, much closer to the current day, which has been deliberately omitted from most university-level political and economic history textbooks. The fact that such important historical facts, and the vital conclusions garnered from them, were not disclosed in major universities should really disturb and offend the senses of prudent and patriotic Americans. In another of his well-documented multi-volume books, "National Suicide," Dr. Sutton presented definitive research showing that, during the period of time the Vietnam War was raging, 1964-1975, the U.S. Congress turned their heads to billions of dollars of military aid provided by American corporations to the Soviet Union. Congress had fully realized during the 15-year Vietnam-era that over 80 percent of the weapons used to kill American GIs in Vietnam were coming from the Soviet Union. So, why Congress silently allowed corporate investments to go out of the United States to Soviet Russia is unfathomable. Yet the following facts illustrate the gist of Dr. Sutton's contentions.

An article appeared in the "New York Times," on January 16, 1967, that carried the headline, "Eaton Joins Rockefellers to Spur Trade with Reds." In sum, the story had said the following. "The ensuing story noted that the Rockefellers were teaming up with tycoon Cyrus Eaton, Jr., who was financing for the Soviet block the construction of a $50 million aluminum plant and rubber plants valued at over $200 million." He added, "The Chase, which maintains a branch office at 1 Karl Marx Square in Moscow, has gained notoriety for financing projects behind the Iron Curtain." According to former Sen. Barry Goldwater, Chase Manhattan Bank built a truck factory in Russia, in 1968, that was also used to produce armored vehicles such as tanks and even rocket launchers. "American technology helped the Soviets construct the $5 billion Kama River truck factory... [which was] successfully converted by the Kremlin to military purposes." Dr. Sutton researched and wrote the compelling three-volume history, "National Suicide," while at the Hoover Institute in 1975, but, because his obvious conclusions were too true and correct, and not well-received and appreciated by his academic peers at the Hoover Institute, he was subsequently asked to leave his position there. In many ways, Dr. Sutton was an individual very similar in his thinking to former-U.S. Rep. (TX) and former U.S. Presidential candidate Ron Paul. Sutton, like Paul, did not believe in calling a spade anything but what it was. If the correct facts supported a less-than-popular conclusion, Sutton fully believed that the students studying economic and political history had a fundamental right to know the facts and the truth about them.

When Ron Paul wrote "The Revolution: A Manifesto," in 2008, his facts and predictions, in the book, were as correct as they were in 1980, when he presented Ronald Reagan to the nation as a Presidential candidate and the economics of Adam Smith and Milton Friedman as the true basis for Reagan's platform. That's why the U.S. flourished during the 1980s. Paul's assertions about the need to abolish the Federal Reserve and restoring Congress' constitutional mandate to coin money and to determine its value, the paying-off of the federal debt with gold, the pressing need for the elimination of hundreds of federal regulatory agencies, and the cogent facts he presented to support his conclusions, were somehow much too correct for his compromising fellow Republicans, who denigrated him because of his correctness. So, continuing on, Dr. Sutton, in his book, adduced abundant proof that Wall Street continued to aid the Russian communists as they supplied the Vietnamese communists, the communists Americans were fighting in Vietnam. In the late 1960s, Rockefeller and other industrialists built synthetic rubber plants and an aluminum factory totaling about 250 million dollars. Professor Sutton observed, "these American capitalists were willing to finance and subsidize the Soviet Union while the Vietnam War was underway, knowing that the Soviets were supplying the other side." If Congress knew that these corporations were providing aid and comfort to America's enemies, why weren't the corporations, and their operators, indicted and prosecuted for treason? Good question, huh? Were the representatives and senators somehow paid-off by these corporations to remain quiet about their treason?

Getting back to the NSA dilemma, it can only be decisively said that Congress has not been following, and adhering to, the federal rulebook, the U.S. Constitution, during the last 70 years. This is especially true if secret oligarchies within the House of Representatives and the Senate have enacted, and are currently enacting, illicit laws allowing the NSA, and its culprits, the CIA, the DIA, the FBI, and Homeland Security to violate the right to privacy under the 4th Amendment of the Bill of Rights for all American citizens. Every legislation that directly, or indirectly, affects the American People, especially proposed laws regarding "real" issues of national concern, should be openly debated on the House and Senate floors, and decided by votes of each entire legislative chamber. House and Senate "select" committees should not, in seclusion, vote to enact laws, rules, and policies affecting the freedoms and liberties of the people of the American Republic.

In the recent words of the very distinguished Christian evangelist, lawyer, and author, Pat Robertson, "You know they revolted in Egypt against the oppressive actions of the Muslim Brotherhood, and this example of state socialism is something that Americans should rise up against." The celebrated founder of the Christian Broadcasting Network, and of Regent University, is saying exactly what is fomenting in the minds of millions of American patriots who utterly deplore what Congress has deliberately allowed to happen to the Republic in the last 70 years; and what Presidential usurper Obama, and his congressional minions, have done and are doing to stamp-out the freedoms and liberties of the American People under his pathetic socialist ideology. Remember it was German National Socialism, Nazi socialism, which turned freedom-loving Germany into a police state with a fascist information gathering Gestapo, what was primitively no different than the high-tech NSA. The Republic desperately needs 200 million more patriots like Edward Snowden, within the national electorate, to rise-up to depose federally planned tyranny in the USA. Let your indignant voices be heard and counted. God save the American Republic!

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Norton_Nowlin

Slow and Painful: How The American Public Education System Has Gone Socialist

2013-07-26T19:45:00.003-07:00

They'll tell you that "the times are changing", but what does that really mean? Sadly, not many people know. Even worse, they think that the change is for the better, when in reality it is not. The American people have been hearing about these supposed "changing times" since the revolutionary leftist 1960s. As with all liberal Progressivist agenda, this societal reform has been slow and gradual. Our grandparents scoffed. Our parents unknowingly accepted. We are now the bearers of ass-backwardness and our children will be the next generation of defenseless victims. So what changes have occurred? What policies implemented? For what reasons?

Well the best way to understand how "the times are changing" is to look through the lens of the public school system in America. The public school system is the perfect microcosm of American Progressivism from the 1960s to today. Public education is so much so a mirror image of American Progressivism in society that it somewhat muddles which influences which; public education on society or society on public education? Did the government and society decide to change the public school system or did academia have an influence on the kids who then went on to create society in a Progressive image?

It all starts with elementary school. Around this time, kids are getting interested in playing team sports. Team sports allow kids to hone their motor skills and coordination, teach them the importance of physical health, and learn valuable life virtues that can't be learned in a classroom. One of those virtues is that of competition. Competition really exemplifies what life is all about. The harder you work, the greater the reward. You reap what you sow. Competition is the fuel of capitalism and free enterprise, the system that made America great. Today, teachers and coaches crush that lesson by eliminating the reward. There is no sole trophy for first place. You get a trophy just for participating. The incentive of working hard is taken away. Subliminally, they are knocking at capitalism and promoting socialism.

The socialism continues on into middle and high school. Schools across the country have started taking away the class ranking system. Now all you know is the salutatorian and valedictorian. At what point will they take away the salutatorian? At what point will they do away with both because it symbolizes competition and inequality? The Progressive liberals preach "equality" as if it is a natural right. They fail to understand that punishing the achievers because the underachievers fell short of the standard is still an act of injustice. This is the exact fiscal policy that the liberal elite brain trusts follow religiously; tax the wealthy and redistribute to the poor. Taking the fruits of ones hard earned labor and giving it to a bum is a moral injustice, but that absolute truth is adulterated and twisted by Progressive liberals.

This idea of punishing the perceived "privileged" group to better the perceived "encroached" group starts to seep into the lessons. Liberal teachers will romanticize feminism as a necessary movement. They will paint a picture of America as a male chauvinistic society in which women are oppressed and unfree, yet refuse to admit that women are freer in America than in any other country in the world. Liberal teachers depict the American power structure as racist and biased against anyone who is not white. However, they refuse to see racially based education and employment opportunities (affirmative action) as a failure to provide equal services to whites. Liberal educators will use revisionist history to create the world in a light more preferable to their liking. For example, Christopher Columbus was a fascist, Hitler-esque dictator who enslaved Native Americans and treated them with cruelty. To liberal teachers, the writers of the Constitution were bigoted rich white men who wrote a paper 237 years ago and should not be taken seriously. Don't be fooled. They know what they are doing. Every liberal group from the feminists to the gays is pushing an agenda and will rewrite history and teach it to naive schoolchildren to promote said agenda. The liberal elite will only tell you the merits of learning about feminism, revisionist history, and diversity. What they won't tell you is the damage done by replacing the fundamental learning of reading, writing, and mathematics with such liberal studies. It is this very negligence that has cost America her footing as a respected superpower.

So are the times really changing? No and yes. No because the left-wing dream of turning America from an equal opportunist to an outcome equalist, a center-rightist to a far-leftist, Puritanical to godless, has been achieved more than imagined. Yes because the change seems to keep continuing without end everyday. Not just in public schools, but in every other facet of America. The most obvious examples can be seen in gun control legislation, gay marriage legislation, immigration reform, the left-wing media, universal healthcare reform, increased welfare dependency, and the daily intensive exercise of political correctness.

America is supposed to be a place where the next generation will be even more prosperous. Now, it seems only the losers prosper. America was the land of innovators, go-getters, and free market capitalists (not necessarily the very wealthy, the common man benefits too!). Now, she is the land of the lazy, incompetent, and the apathetic who insist things be handed to them rather than worked for. America was the leading global superpower, the benchmark other nations looked to for guidance. Now, we struggle to keep up culturally with other developed countries on a micro and macro level. This train of thought starts at the public school level and continues through the life of an individual. American schoolchildren are bred to become good little Socialists who reject competition and aspire for equal outcome, thus becoming registered Democrats voting in favor of teacher's unions and continuing the vicious cycle. The teachers are then given raises based on tenure as opposed to merit, and the cycle of "loserism" continues. This is what keeps liberals in power.

If America wants to heal, the times really do have to change. It needs to starts with school. We need to take politics out of education and let kids think independently. We can't feel bad for people because they lost. You can't always win in life. You need competition to better yourself as a human being. Competition builds character, merit, and morals. Getting a trophy for being in last place may in some sick way make you feel better for a short period of time, but it won't make you a better person, nor is it healthy for society as a whole.

Messina, Christopher S. "Slow and Painful: How The American Public Education System Has Gone Socialist". July 8, 2013. New York.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Christopher_S_Messina

Political Correctness Is Censorship

2013-07-26T19:45:00.001-07:00

So you say that I offended you. I say that is impossible. I cannot offend you. Being offended is something that happens in your head, and I have no control over that. I can push you, I can strike you, I can do all sorts of things that will injure you, but I cannot offend you.

I will go further and state that your declaration that you have been offended is cowardice or at the very least weakness on your part. Cowardice in that you do not have any logical retort to counter whatever statement I made to offend you. You are surrendering your side of a disagreement. You claim to be offended as a shield to hide behind, and I am calling you out as a coward. If you think I am wrong, or you think I am mislead, then use your words as a rational being would, and tell me why I am wrong. Do not throw up the "offended" flag and expect that your claim of offense has ended the conversation. I am telling you that ending the conversation by becoming offended is your admission of the weakness of your argument.

For many years, people who had no logical point to make have shut down discussion under the guise that someone taking offense to a topic or idea was in some magical way a reason to stop talking. This is nonsensical. This is the core of modern censorship and I am appalled by it. There is zero reason that any idea no matter who it offends should be censored. That is exactly what we have done. You can't talk about race or religion or politics because someone might be offended. I say to you now, and I will echo these thoughts for decades to come, that the person who is offended is the problem, and they need to sort it out. If my religious beliefs offend you, then you have a problem not me. There is no logical reason for me to be censored, either by my own self-imposed will to not offend, or by group or government pressure to respect you imaginary right to live free from offense. If my political views offend you, then, under what thinking man's banner can you possibly expect to shut down my opinion? In reality the offense lives in your brain not in my speech. If I am offended by your conduct or speech, do I have the right to stop you, just because I clam an offense, when we know that the only place offense lives in inside of my skull. The only logical answer to that question is no.

What is worse still is that offense is not an equal quantity. Some people can be offended and others cannot. People who are of the majority opinion cannot be offended. That is actually not true, the majority can be offended, but nobody cares. It is the people in the minority who cannot be offended. It is as if some difference in the quality of the human who is offended, not a difference in the opinion or point of view. Our founding fathers were brilliant men. They anticipated the bullying of the majority by groups of the "oppressed." The author of Animal Farm, George Orwell also predicted this special treatment for any group or individual who will claim to be offended.

I for one will not stand for this societal tyranny. I will not abide by these false rules. I will not be censored. If my speech offends you, I don't care, that is your problem. I encourage each and every person who reads this article to make it your mission to go an offend someone and then explain why the problem is all in their head.

America represents freedom. That freedom used to extend to the arena of political, religious, and any other sort of speech. We used to be allowed to criticize and disagree. We used to be able to sort out our differences without some crying that they were offended. As long as we allow the offended to shut down conversations, we will never be a free country again. At some point I will eventually become enraged enough to run for Congress, until then keep an eye out for my future articles.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Joshua_T_Caldwell

American Politics: Our National Well-Being Depends Upon Both National Parties Governing Responsibly

2013-07-26T19:44:00.001-07:00

The Current Political Posture of Our National Government

We have a politically divided national government. The President is a Democrat and the Democrats are in control of the Senate. In the House of Representatives Republicans are in control. Some are members of the "Tea Party" faction, while the rest align themselves with more traditional Republican policies and ideology. Unfortunately this usually results in partisan gridlock with little or nothing being accomplished for the Nation.

In this article our focus will be on the Legislative Branch - the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives. We begin by sharing results of a Gallop Poll establishing the July 2013 approval ratings for the Congress:

Congress' approval rating is at a dismal 15%, just five points above the all-time low. Some members of Congress are aware of the institution's poor standing with the American public and say they are trying to address it. For instance, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in a speech earlier this week mentioned that partisan gridlock and not getting things done are driving Congress' low approval -- factors consistent with Gallup's recent findings on the top reasons Americans disapprove of Congress.

Why Isn't The Congress More Effective?

The electorate expects both political parties to work cooperatively for the good of the nation by entering into bi-partisan agreements but this rarely happens in the present Congress. There are a number of reasons why we arrived at this point but before going any further let me hastily add that both parties are at fault to some degree and any assessment of which of the two should accept most of the blame depends upon one's point of view and political affiliation.

The Senate

It is tempting to think that since the Democrats "control" the Senate they don't have any difficulty conducting Senate business, but that isn't the case. To illustrate my point, here are three ways in which a determined minority delays or prevents a President's appointees from taking office or keeps a bill they don't like from becoming law.

Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, requires that the President's Cabinet Members, Supreme Court Justices, other members of the Federal Judiciary and some other Presidential appointments must have Senate Confirmation or approval before they can take office. Committee hearings participated in by the committee members of both parties are held to decide a nominee's qualifications and these can sometimes be lengthy. Floor debate follows with sixty votes needed in the Senate to bring about cloture - end debate - and vote to confirm or reject the nomination. With sixty votes needed for cloture, it allows the minority party, in this case the Republicans to have much influence over the confirmation process and delay the approval of the President's appointments any time they want to. Note this comment of George E. Condon, Jr., White House Staff Writer, taken from his July 18 article entitled Why The Confirmation Process Is Completely Broken:

There can be no doubt that the process has slowed down. As of July 14, the White House counted 192 nominations pending in the Senate. Thirty-one of them are for judgeships, which is a totally separate problem. (Two successive chief justices have warned of a crisis in the judiciary.) But even more troubling is the relatively new phenomenon of an increasingly leaderless government bureaucracy. Of the 161 executive-branch nominations pending in the Senate on July 14, 45 were for Cabinet departments, 34 for independent regulatory agencies, and 11 for other independent agencies. The remaining 71 nominees in limbo were either ambassadors or members of boards or commissions. Of these, 141 were still mired in committee-and some had been stuck for more than a year.

Delays of this kind are completely unacceptable and those responsible for this partisan gridlock are not serving in the public interest.

Filibustering: Senators who wish to prevent the passage of legislation, especially those in the minority, will often "filibuster" attempting to talk it to death on the floor of the Senate.

The cloture rule-Rule 22-is the only formal procedure that Senate rules provide for breaking a filibuster. A filibuster is an attempt to block or delay Senate action on a bill or other matter. Under cloture, the Senate may limit consideration of a pending matter to 30 additional hours of debate.

Use of the Senate Rules: A minority also makes its presence felt by raising a procedural "point of order" during Senate Debate. This interrupts the flow of business and diverts the Senate's attention from the business at hand to settle some technical matter involving an alleged violation of the Senate Rules.

The United States House of Representatives

Members of the House of Representatives must run for re-election every two years while Senators serve for six years. To avoid opposition in Republican Party primary elections from their very conservative Tea Party wing, traditionally minded Republican members of the House running for re-election are under pressure to take extreme conservative positions more agreeable to that wing of their party than they would otherwise adopt. Tea Party Republicans are rigid and inflexible on issues, showing little or no interest in negotiation and compromise. Noting that the Boston Tea Party took place on December 16, 1773 its namesake, the members of the Republican Tea Party Wing should give up their rebellious ways and join the rest of us in the twenty-first century. The difficulties of moving the nation's business forward under the existing circumstances since legislation requires the approval of both the House and Senate before it can become law, is next to impossible. This especially applies to appropriation matters almost always opposed by Tea Party members ready to shut the government down, rather that reach an understanding with the Democrats and other members of the Republican Party in the House needed to conduct the Nation's business. The Republican Tea Party members in the House seem to say "no" to practically everything. This does not serve the public interest well. Just saying "no" is not responsible legislative action on behalf of our people, it is irresponsible obstructionism that warrants election defeat.

Conclusion

For the Senate and House of Representatives to conduct the Nation's business properly and fulfill their duty to the electorate, they need to set aside partisan politics and make reasonable compromises with one another for the good of the Nation. As noted by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid partisan gridlock and not getting things done are driving Congress' low approval. Unfortunately posturing for political advantage seems much more likely to continue with the present party membership breakdown, especially with the significant Republican Tea Party participation in the House of Representatives. If the Republican Party is unable or unwilling to reign in their Tea Party members so the nation's legitimate business resumes in the House, then the electorate should return control of the House of Representatives to the Democratic Party in the next general election. Our country has too many unresolved problems to allow this foolishness to continue any longer.

Douglas M. Midgley, J.D. is the Author of this article and the retired Public Defender of the Twentieth Judicial Circuit of Florida encompassing Lee, Charlotte, Collier, Hendry and Glades counties located on Florida's southwest coast. He took office at age 29 on July 1, 1969 standing for election at four year intervals, and retired from that office thirty years later on June 30, 1999. He no longer practices law and has placed his Florida Bar license on inactive status. Fully retired, he now lives in Lake Wales, Florida and sometimes writes articles for publication through EzineArticles.com.

To have the opportunity to read more of Doug's articles please visit: http://doug21740.blogspot.com/ For additional information on this article:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/163550/congress-approval-remains-dismal.aspx
http://www.senate.gov/reference/reference_index_subjects/Cloture_vrd.htm

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Douglas_M_Midgley,_J.D.