political system

by Joel S. HirschhornWith an endless futile and costly Iraq war a stinking economy and most Americans seeing the country on the wrong track the greatest national group delusion is that electing Democrats in 2008 is what the country needs. Keith Olbermann was praised when he called the Bush presidency a criminal conspiracy. That missed the larger truth. The whole two-party political system is a criminal conspiracy hiding behind illusion induced delusion. Virtually everything that Bush correctly gets condemnation for could have been prevented or negated by Democrats if they had had courage conviction and commitment to maintaining the rule of law and obedience to the Constitution. Bush grabbed power from the feeble and corrupt hands of Democrats. Democrats have failed the vast majority of Americans. So why would sensible people think that giving Democrats more power is a good idea? They certainly have done little to merit respect for their recent congressional actions or inaction when it comes to impeachment of Bush and Cheney. One of the core reasons the two-party stranglehold on our political system persists is that whenever one party uses its power to an extreme degree it sets the conditions for the other party – its partner in the conspiracy – to take over. Then the other takes its turn in wielding excessive power. Most Americans – at least those that vote – seem incapable of understanding that the Democrats and Republicans are two teams in the same league serving the same cabal running the corporatist plutocracy. By keeping people focused on rooting for one team or the other the behind-the-scenes rulers ensure their invisibility and power. The genius of the plutocrats is to create the illusion of important differences between the two parties and the illusion of political choice in elections. In truth the partner parties compete superficially and dishonestly to entertain the electorate to maintain the aura of a democracy. Illusion creates the delusion of Americans that voting in elections will deliver political reforms despite a long history of politicians lying in campaigns about reforms new directions and bold new policies. The rulers need power shifting between the teams to maintain popular trust in the political system. Voting manifests that trust – as if changing people will fix the system. It doesn’t. So voters become co-conspirators in the grand political criminal conspiracy. Those who vote for Democrats or Republicans perpetuate the corrupt dishonest and elitist plutocracy that preferentially serves the interests of the Upper Class and a multitude of special interests – some aligned with the Republicans and some with the Democrats. Voting only encourages worthless politicians and those that fund and corrupt them. Public discontent leads to settling for less through lesser evil voting rather than bold thinking about how to reform the system to get genuine political competition and better candidates and government. I understand why sane people would not want to vote for Republicans based on the Bush presidency. But I cannot understand why politically engaged people think that putting Democrats in power will restore American democracy and put the welfare of non-wealthy Americans above the interests of the wealthy and the business sector. Bill Clinton’s administration strongly advanced globalization and the loss of good jobs to foreign countries. Economic inequality kept rising. Trade agreements sold us out. And in this primary season talk about reforming our health caresystem among Democrats never gets serious about providing universalhealth care independent of the insurance industry. And why shouldcitizens be supportive of a party that favors illegal immigration – lawbreaking – that primarily serves business interests by keeping laborcosts low?Nor have Democrats stood up to challenge the official9/11 story that no longer has any credibility to anyone that takes thetime to seriously examine all its inconsistencies with what reallyhappened and the laws of physics. Whoever wins the Democraticpresidential nomination will not be free of corruption and lies. He orshe will owe paybacks to all the fat-cat campaign donors. Voters willbe choosing the lesser-evil Democratic presidential candidate. Is thatreally the only choice? Is there no other action that can advance thenational good?There seem to be just two other choices. Vote forsome third party presidential candidate but the downside of that istwofold. No such candidate can win in the current rigged system. Worse,voting gives a stamp of credibility to the political system as if itwas fair when it is not. Voting says that you still believe that thepolitical system merits your support and involvement. The secondoption is to boycott voting to show total rejection of the currentpolitical system and the plutocratic cabal using the two-party duopolyto carry out its wishes. When a democracy no longer is legitimate nolonger is honest and no longer serves the interests of ordinarycitizens then what other than violent revolution can change it? Whenthe electoral system no longer can provide honest corruption freecandidates with any chance of winning what can citizens do? Eitherstay home or just vote in local and state races and for ballot measures. Isay remove the credibility and legitimacy of the federal government byreducing voter turnout to extremely low levels. Show the world that thevast majority of Americans have seen the light and no longer aredeluding themselves about their two-party democracy. A boycott onvoting for candidates for federal office is a form of civildisobedience that has enormous power to force true political reformsfrom the political system. This is the only way to make it crystalclear that the presidency and Congress no longer represent anysignificant fraction of the people. This is the only way to show thatAmerica’s representative democracy is no longer representative and,therefore is no longer a credible democracy. Just imagine a federalgovernment trying to function in the usual ways when only 20 percent ofthe eligible voters actually voted. It takes more courage toboycott voting than to vote for lesser evil Democrats and in the endthis is the only way for people to feel proudly patriotic. This is theonly way to not contribute to the ongoing bipartisan criminalconspiracy running the federal government. We have brokengovernment because the spirit of Americans that gave us our revolutionand nation’s birth has been broken in large measure by distractive andself-indulgent consumerism. It is better to recognize that those whovote suffer from delusion than to criticize those who do not vote asapathetic. Non-delusional nonvoters recognize the futility of voting. Democratswill not restore our democracy. That is the painful truth that mostpeople will not readily accept. Such is the power of group delusion. Voting produces never-ending cycles of voter dissatisfaction with thoseelected both Democrats and Republicans. It is time to break this cycleof voter despair. Voters that bitch and moan about Congress and theWhite House have nobody to blame but themselves no matter which partythey voted for. Joel S. Hirschhorn observed our corrupt federalgovernment firsthand as a senior official with the Congressional Officeof Technology Assessment and the National Governors Association; reachhim through www delusionaldemocracy com. Yes. Joel. You've got it just right. It is as I wrote on Oct. 13: "In the light of known facts. Republicans’ refusal to address wreckage wrought by the Bush crime syndicate is unconscionable but understandable. Democrats who do likewise are utterly outrageous. There can be no forgiveness for them. Members of today’s Democratic Party are not American patriots. They are either shamelessly corrupt participants in a thuggish criminal enterprise or they are the stupidest people on the face of the earth. "On the vast stage of American politics no place to hide remains. It’s curtain-time folks. It is time to decide: Who and what and which are you? Why are you still a Democrat?"

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://www.atlanticfreepress.com/content/view/2814/81/

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

by Joel S. HirschhornWith an endless futile and costly Iraq war a stinking economy and most Americans seeing the country on the wrong track the greatest national group delusion is that electing Democrats in 2008 is what the country needs. Keith Olbermann was praised when he called the Bush presidency a criminal conspiracy. That missed the larger truth. The whole two-party political system is a criminal conspiracy hiding behind illusion induced delusion. Virtually everything that Bush correctly gets condemnation for could have been prevented or negated by Democrats if they had had courage conviction and commitment to maintaining the rule of law and obedience to the Constitution. Bush grabbed power from the feeble and corrupt hands of Democrats. Democrats have failed the vast majority of Americans. So why would sensible people think that giving Democrats more power is a good idea? They certainly have done little to merit respect for their recent congressional actions or inaction when it comes to impeachment of Bush and Cheney. One of the core reasons the two-party stranglehold on our political system persists is that whenever one party uses its power to an extreme degree it sets the conditions for the other party – its partner in the conspiracy – to take over. Then the other takes its turn in wielding excessive power. Most Americans – at least those that vote – seem incapable of understanding that the Democrats and Republicans are two teams in the same league serving the same cabal running the corporatist plutocracy. By keeping people focused on rooting for one team or the other the behind-the-scenes rulers ensure their invisibility and power. The genius of the plutocrats is to create the illusion of important differences between the two parties and the illusion of political choice in elections. In truth the partner parties compete superficially and dishonestly to entertain the electorate to maintain the aura of a democracy. Illusion creates the delusion of Americans that voting in elections will deliver political reforms despite a long history of politicians lying in campaigns about reforms new directions and bold new policies. The rulers need power shifting between the teams to maintain popular trust in the political system. Voting manifests that trust – as if changing people will fix the system. It doesn’t. So voters become co-conspirators in the grand political criminal conspiracy. Those who vote for Democrats or Republicans perpetuate the corrupt dishonest and elitist plutocracy that preferentially serves the interests of the Upper Class and a multitude of special interests – some aligned with the Republicans and some with the Democrats. Voting only encourages worthless politicians and those that fund and corrupt them. Public discontent leads to settling for less through lesser evil voting rather than bold thinking about how to reform the system to get genuine political competition and better candidates and government. I understand why sane people would not want to vote for Republicans based on the Bush presidency. But I cannot understand why politically engaged people think that putting Democrats in power will restore American democracy and put the welfare of non-wealthy Americans above the interests of the wealthy and the business sector. Bill Clinton’s administration strongly advanced globalization and the loss of good jobs to foreign countries. Economic inequality kept rising. Trade agreements sold us out. And in this primary season talk about reforming our health caresystem among Democrats never gets serious about providing universalhealth care independent of the insurance industry. And why shouldcitizens be supportive of a party that favors illegal immigration – lawbreaking – that primarily serves business interests by keeping laborcosts low?Nor have Democrats stood up to challenge the official9/11 story that no longer has any credibility to anyone that takes thetime to seriously examine all its inconsistencies with what reallyhappened and the laws of physics. Whoever wins the Democraticpresidential nomination will not be free of corruption and lies. He orshe will owe paybacks to all the fat-cat campaign donors. Voters willbe choosing the lesser-evil Democratic presidential candidate. Is thatreally the only choice? Is there no other action that can advance thenational good?There seem to be just two other choices. Vote forsome third party presidential candidate but the downside of that istwofold. No such candidate can win in the current rigged system. Worse,voting gives a stamp of credibility to the political system as if itwas fair when it is not. Voting says that you still believe that thepolitical system merits your support and involvement. The secondoption is to boycott voting to show total rejection of the currentpolitical system and the plutocratic cabal using the two-party duopolyto carry out its wishes. When a democracy no longer is legitimate nolonger is honest and no longer serves the interests of ordinarycitizens then what other than violent revolution can change it? Whenthe electoral system no longer can provide honest corruption freecandidates with any chance of winning what can citizens do? Eitherstay home or just vote in local and state races and for ballot measures. Isay remove the credibility and legitimacy of the federal government byreducing voter turnout to extremely low levels. Show the world that thevast majority of Americans have seen the light and no longer aredeluding themselves about their two-party democracy. A boycott onvoting for candidates for federal office is a form of civildisobedience that has enormous power to force true political reformsfrom the political system. This is the only way to make it crystalclear that the presidency and Congress no longer represent anysignificant fraction of the people. This is the only way to show thatAmerica’s representative democracy is no longer representative and,therefore is no longer a credible democracy. Just imagine a federalgovernment trying to function in the usual ways when only 20 percent ofthe eligible voters actually voted. It takes more courage toboycott voting than to vote for lesser evil Democrats and in the endthis is the only way for people to feel proudly patriotic. This is theonly way to not contribute to the ongoing bipartisan criminalconspiracy running the federal government. We have brokengovernment because the spirit of Americans that gave us our revolutionand nation’s birth has been broken in large measure by distractive andself-indulgent consumerism. It is better to recognize that those whovote suffer from delusion than to criticize those who do not vote asapathetic. Non-delusional nonvoters recognize the futility of voting. Democratswill not restore our democracy. That is the painful truth that mostpeople will not readily accept. Such is the power of group delusion. Voting produces never-ending cycles of voter dissatisfaction with thoseelected both Democrats and Republicans. It is time to break this cycleof voter despair. Voters that bitch and moan about Congress and theWhite House have nobody to blame but themselves no matter which partythey voted for. Joel S. Hirschhorn observed our corrupt federalgovernment firsthand as a senior official with the Congressional Officeof Technology Assessment and the National Governors Association; reachhim through www delusionaldemocracy com. Yes. Joel. You've got it just right. It is as I wrote on Oct. 13: "In the light of known facts. Republicans’ refusal to address wreckage wrought by the Bush crime syndicate is unconscionable but understandable. Democrats who do likewise are utterly outrageous. There can be no forgiveness for them. Members of today’s Democratic Party are not American patriots. They are either shamelessly corrupt participants in a thuggish criminal enterprise or they are the stupidest people on the face of the earth. "On the vast stage of American politics no place to hide remains. It’s curtain-time folks. It is time to decide: Who and what and which are you? Why are you still a Democrat?"

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://www.atlanticfreepress.com/content/view/2814/81/

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

by Joel S. HirschhornWith an endless futile and costly Iraq war a stinking economy and most Americans seeing the country on the wrong track the greatest national group delusion is that electing Democrats in 2008 is what the country needs. Keith Olbermann was praised when he called the Bush presidency a criminal conspiracy. That missed the larger truth. The whole two-party political system is a criminal conspiracy hiding behind illusion induced delusion. Virtually everything that Bush correctly gets condemnation for could have been prevented or negated by Democrats if they had had courage conviction and commitment to maintaining the rule of law and obedience to the Constitution. Bush grabbed power from the feeble and corrupt hands of Democrats. Democrats have failed the vast majority of Americans. So why would sensible people think that giving Democrats more power is a good idea? They certainly have done little to merit respect for their recent congressional actions or inaction when it comes to impeachment of Bush and Cheney. One of the core reasons the two-party stranglehold on our political system persists is that whenever one party uses its power to an extreme degree it sets the conditions for the other party – its partner in the conspiracy – to take over. Then the other takes its turn in wielding excessive power. Most Americans – at least those that vote – seem incapable of understanding that the Democrats and Republicans are two teams in the same league serving the same cabal running the corporatist plutocracy. By keeping people focused on rooting for one team or the other the behind-the-scenes rulers ensure their invisibility and power. The genius of the plutocrats is to create the illusion of important differences between the two parties and the illusion of political choice in elections. In truth the partner parties compete superficially and dishonestly to entertain the electorate to maintain the aura of a democracy. Illusion creates the delusion of Americans that voting in elections will deliver political reforms despite a long history of politicians lying in campaigns about reforms new directions and bold new policies. The rulers need power shifting between the teams to maintain popular trust in the political system. Voting manifests that trust – as if changing people will fix the system. It doesn’t. So voters become co-conspirators in the grand political criminal conspiracy. Those who vote for Democrats or Republicans perpetuate the corrupt dishonest and elitist plutocracy that preferentially serves the interests of the Upper Class and a multitude of special interests – some aligned with the Republicans and some with the Democrats. Voting only encourages worthless politicians and those that fund and corrupt them. Public discontent leads to settling for less through lesser evil voting rather than bold thinking about how to reform the system to get genuine political competition and better candidates and government. I understand why sane people would not want to vote for Republicans based on the Bush presidency. But I cannot understand why politically engaged people think that putting Democrats in power will restore American democracy and put the welfare of non-wealthy Americans above the interests of the wealthy and the business sector. Bill Clinton’s administration strongly advanced globalization and the loss of good jobs to foreign countries. Economic inequality kept rising. Trade agreements sold us out. And in this primary season talk about reforming our health caresystem among Democrats never gets serious about providing universalhealth care independent of the insurance industry. And why shouldcitizens be supportive of a party that favors illegal immigration – lawbreaking – that primarily serves business interests by keeping laborcosts low?Nor have Democrats stood up to challenge the official9/11 story that no longer has any credibility to anyone that takes thetime to seriously examine all its inconsistencies with what reallyhappened and the laws of physics. Whoever wins the Democraticpresidential nomination will not be free of corruption and lies. He orshe will owe paybacks to all the fat-cat campaign donors. Voters willbe choosing the lesser-evil Democratic presidential candidate. Is thatreally the only choice? Is there no other action that can advance thenational good?There seem to be just two other choices. Vote forsome third party presidential candidate but the downside of that istwofold. No such candidate can win in the current rigged system. Worse,voting gives a stamp of credibility to the political system as if itwas fair when it is not. Voting says that you still believe that thepolitical system merits your support and involvement. The secondoption is to boycott voting to show total rejection of the currentpolitical system and the plutocratic cabal using the two-party duopolyto carry out its wishes. When a democracy no longer is legitimate nolonger is honest and no longer serves the interests of ordinarycitizens then what other than violent revolution can change it? Whenthe electoral system no longer can provide honest corruption freecandidates with any chance of winning what can citizens do? Eitherstay home or just vote in local and state races and for ballot measures. Isay remove the credibility and legitimacy of the federal government byreducing voter turnout to extremely low levels. Show the world that thevast majority of Americans have seen the light and no longer aredeluding themselves about their two-party democracy. A boycott onvoting for candidates for federal office is a form of civildisobedience that has enormous power to force true political reformsfrom the political system. This is the only way to make it crystalclear that the presidency and Congress no longer represent anysignificant fraction of the people. This is the only way to show thatAmerica’s representative democracy is no longer representative and,therefore is no longer a credible democracy. Just imagine a federalgovernment trying to function in the usual ways when only 20 percent ofthe eligible voters actually voted. It takes more courage toboycott voting than to vote for lesser evil Democrats and in the endthis is the only way for people to feel proudly patriotic. This is theonly way to not contribute to the ongoing bipartisan criminalconspiracy running the federal government. We have brokengovernment because the spirit of Americans that gave us our revolutionand nation’s birth has been broken in large measure by distractive andself-indulgent consumerism. It is better to recognize that those whovote suffer from delusion than to criticize those who do not vote asapathetic. Non-delusional nonvoters recognize the futility of voting. Democratswill not restore our democracy. That is the painful truth that mostpeople will not readily accept. Such is the power of group delusion. Voting produces never-ending cycles of voter dissatisfaction with thoseelected both Democrats and Republicans. It is time to break this cycleof voter despair. Voters that bitch and moan about Congress and theWhite House have nobody to blame but themselves no matter which partythey voted for. Joel S. Hirschhorn observed our corrupt federalgovernment firsthand as a senior official with the Congressional Officeof Technology Assessment and the National Governors Association; reachhim through www delusionaldemocracy com. Yes. Joel. You've got it just right. It is as I wrote on Oct. 13: "In the light of known facts. Republicans’ refusal to address wreckage wrought by the Bush crime syndicate is unconscionable but understandable. Democrats who do likewise are utterly outrageous. There can be no forgiveness for them. Members of today’s Democratic Party are not American patriots. They are either shamelessly corrupt participants in a thuggish criminal enterprise or they are the stupidest people on the face of the earth. "On the vast stage of American politics no place to hide remains. It’s curtain-time folks. It is time to decide: Who and what and which are you? Why are you still a Democrat?"

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://www.atlanticfreepress.com/content/view/2814/81/

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

by Joel S. HirschhornWith an endless futile and costly Iraq war a stinking economy and most Americans seeing the country on the wrong track the greatest national group delusion is that electing Democrats in 2008 is what the country needs. Keith Olbermann was praised when he called the Bush presidency a criminal conspiracy. That missed the larger truth. The whole two-party political system is a criminal conspiracy hiding behind illusion induced delusion. Virtually everything that Bush correctly gets condemnation for could have been prevented or negated by Democrats if they had had courage conviction and commitment to maintaining the rule of law and obedience to the Constitution. Bush grabbed power from the feeble and corrupt hands of Democrats. Democrats have failed the vast majority of Americans. So why would sensible people think that giving Democrats more power is a good idea? They certainly have done little to merit respect for their recent congressional actions or inaction when it comes to impeachment of Bush and Cheney. One of the core reasons the two-party stranglehold on our political system persists is that whenever one party uses its power to an extreme degree it sets the conditions for the other party – its partner in the conspiracy – to take over. Then the other takes its turn in wielding excessive power. Most Americans – at least those that vote – seem incapable of understanding that the Democrats and Republicans are two teams in the same league serving the same cabal running the corporatist plutocracy. By keeping people focused on rooting for one team or the other the behind-the-scenes rulers ensure their invisibility and power. The genius of the plutocrats is to create the illusion of important differences between the two parties and the illusion of political choice in elections. In truth the partner parties compete superficially and dishonestly to entertain the electorate to maintain the aura of a democracy. Illusion creates the delusion of Americans that voting in elections will deliver political reforms despite a long history of politicians lying in campaigns about reforms new directions and bold new policies. The rulers need power shifting between the teams to maintain popular trust in the political system. Voting manifests that trust – as if changing people will fix the system. It doesn’t. So voters become co-conspirators in the grand political criminal conspiracy. Those who vote for Democrats or Republicans perpetuate the corrupt dishonest and elitist plutocracy that preferentially serves the interests of the Upper Class and a multitude of special interests – some aligned with the Republicans and some with the Democrats. Voting only encourages worthless politicians and those that fund and corrupt them. Public discontent leads to settling for less through lesser evil voting rather than bold thinking about how to reform the system to get genuine political competition and better candidates and government. I understand why sane people would not want to vote for Republicans based on the Bush presidency. But I cannot understand why politically engaged people think that putting Democrats in power will restore American democracy and put the welfare of non-wealthy Americans above the interests of the wealthy and the business sector. Bill Clinton’s administration strongly advanced globalization and the loss of good jobs to foreign countries. Economic inequality kept rising. Trade agreements sold us out. And in this primary season talk about reforming our health caresystem among Democrats never gets serious about providing universalhealth care independent of the insurance industry. And why shouldcitizens be supportive of a party that favors illegal immigration – lawbreaking – that primarily serves business interests by keeping laborcosts low?Nor have Democrats stood up to challenge the official9/11 story that no longer has any credibility to anyone that takes thetime to seriously examine all its inconsistencies with what reallyhappened and the laws of physics. Whoever wins the Democraticpresidential nomination will not be free of corruption and lies. He orshe will owe paybacks to all the fat-cat campaign donors. Voters willbe choosing the lesser-evil Democratic presidential candidate. Is thatreally the only choice? Is there no other action that can advance thenational good?There seem to be just two other choices. Vote forsome third party presidential candidate but the downside of that istwofold. No such candidate can win in the current rigged system. Worse,voting gives a stamp of credibility to the political system as if itwas fair when it is not. Voting says that you still believe that thepolitical system merits your support and involvement. The secondoption is to boycott voting to show total rejection of the currentpolitical system and the plutocratic cabal using the two-party duopolyto carry out its wishes. When a democracy no longer is legitimate nolonger is honest and no longer serves the interests of ordinarycitizens then what other than violent revolution can change it? Whenthe electoral system no longer can provide honest corruption freecandidates with any chance of winning what can citizens do? Eitherstay home or just vote in local and state races and for ballot measures. Isay remove the credibility and legitimacy of the federal government byreducing voter turnout to extremely low levels. Show the world that thevast majority of Americans have seen the light and no longer aredeluding themselves about their two-party democracy. A boycott onvoting for candidates for federal office is a form of civildisobedience that has enormous power to force true political reformsfrom the political system. This is the only way to make it crystalclear that the presidency and Congress no longer represent anysignificant fraction of the people. This is the only way to show thatAmerica’s representative democracy is no longer representative and,therefore is no longer a credible democracy. Just imagine a federalgovernment trying to function in the usual ways when only 20 percent ofthe eligible voters actually voted. It takes more courage toboycott voting than to vote for lesser evil Democrats and in the endthis is the only way for people to feel proudly patriotic. This is theonly way to not contribute to the ongoing bipartisan criminalconspiracy running the federal government. We have brokengovernment because the spirit of Americans that gave us our revolutionand nation’s birth has been broken in large measure by distractive andself-indulgent consumerism. It is better to recognize that those whovote suffer from delusion than to criticize those who do not vote asapathetic. Non-delusional nonvoters recognize the futility of voting. Democratswill not restore our democracy. That is the painful truth that mostpeople will not readily accept. Such is the power of group delusion. Voting produces never-ending cycles of voter dissatisfaction with thoseelected both Democrats and Republicans. It is time to break this cycleof voter despair. Voters that bitch and moan about Congress and theWhite House have nobody to blame but themselves no matter which partythey voted for. Joel S. Hirschhorn observed our corrupt federalgovernment firsthand as a senior official with the Congressional Officeof Technology Assessment and the National Governors Association; reachhim through www delusionaldemocracy com. Yes. Joel. You've got it just right. It is as I wrote on Oct. 13: "In the light of known facts. Republicans’ refusal to address wreckage wrought by the Bush crime syndicate is unconscionable but understandable. Democrats who do likewise are utterly outrageous. There can be no forgiveness for them. Members of today’s Democratic Party are not American patriots. They are either shamelessly corrupt participants in a thuggish criminal enterprise or they are the stupidest people on the face of the earth. "On the vast stage of American politics no place to hide remains. It’s curtain-time folks. It is time to decide: Who and what and which are you? Why are you still a Democrat?"

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://www.atlanticfreepress.com/content/view/2814/81/

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

Imagine this. You’ve worked hard for 25 years building your company. You undergo an excellent product good corporate structure hard-working employees everything going for you except one thing. Your company’s going down the tubes. Debt is building and you must now downsize. You’re going bankrupt. But wait. You’ve just learned that your purchasing manager has been taking money from your vendors on the side and giving away affiliate assets in go. Skimming profits. More assets are going out the door than money coming in. You can’t believe it. You hired this guy as a trusted leader to protect and back up grow your company. At the very least you’re going to fire him maybe even have him jailed for theft. Well this may not be happening to your company but it is to your state and country. The politicians you elected to serve as your trusted management team are on the take. Deficit spending replaced common comprehend and taking money on the side is the norm. Just as corrupt CEOs have taken over many corporations and changed the rules to let them drain the company so have our politicians changed the political rules to course the taxpayers. Business leaders who would not accept corporate corruption are willing to accept even participate in political corruption. We need massive. The elimination of this legal bribery can be accomplished with of campaigns. A strong and independent ethics commission is needed (call it a board of directors for politicians) so we don’t have to vote for the lesser of two evils. A “None of The Above” choice so we can eject bad but uncontested incumbents. The banning of voice votes so we can track our politician’s votes. And a solid yet incorruptible voting system. change surface term limits. Though I’m generally opposed. I’d evaluate them until we get the old-timers out and the system fixed. Or I’d apply them only to those politicians who refuse public funding. But all of this reform requires politicians interested in cleaning up the system and they are too few and far between. Not even Republicans can be happy with this corruption even though it has benefited them more than Democrats in the past. But now the special interest money is going more to the Dems. How’s that for “fair?” The first go must come from the very people giving the campaign contributions that alter the system. They (and their families) will have to live with the outcome too. They must quit funding the elections and force the system to public funding of campaigns. If private money dries up public money will be substituted. The second step requires the voters themselves. We must force a major turnover both in Madison and Washington. The trick will be identifying the honest politicians and keeping them in. They are few so it should be easy. Usually following the money works but change surface they must take private money under the current system. “It never ceases to amaze me the amount of energy that cango into a project just to forbid doing the right thing. The best,simplest least costly most effective thing we could do isexpand what has been working so well for years. Medicare. You get sick you get care and the caregiver gets paid. Nothing could be simpler. But follow the money and you’llfind why the politicians don’t like it a bit. They get their money from insurance interests.” bring up Lohman "Privatization is the political preference because private corporations can give campaign contributions and government entities can't. We are paying ten times the dollars for Blackwater. Bechtel and Halliburton to perform the same functions our troops could be performing in Iraq. Why? Because the US Army cannot give campaign contributions. Get the political money out of the system and if privatization continues because it makes more sense than creating another government bureaucracy then fine. But if it continues because political cash is flowing then it likely wasn't needed in the first place." bring up Lohman

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://moneyedpoliticians.wordpress.com/2007/11/09/perpetuating-a-corrupt-political-system/

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

Do I have a moral responsibility to submit accurate tax returns? The Bible says. "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's" but it doesn't clarify what rightly belongs to Caesar. If Caesar is managing society for the benefit of a small elite or using tax money to invade smaller countries with lies as a pretext surely some portion at least of my taxes does not rightly belong to him. Most citizens nearly all disagree with some government expenditures. They think it's wrong to tax us for agricultural or opera subsidies for drug rehabilitation for foreign aid for nuclear weapons or a few thousand other things. Now we could all cheat on our taxes each retaining from what we legally owe the proportion that corresponds to expenditures of which s/he disapproves (or disapproves on moral grounds). Or we could defer to governmental expenditure decisions reached through our democratic political process. Once the issue is presented in this more general way it is clear that there is moral reason to comply with majority decisions one disapproves of -- even morally disapproves of. In a democracy if you find laws or policies morally objectionable you ought to present your arguments to your fellow citizens and persuade them to change such laws and policies with you. To be sure such efforts often fail. But the whole point of democracy is that we defer to majority decisions. Without such deference there would be little point in voting in the first place. This presumption in favor of deference becomes weaker the less democratic the relevant political system is. If it is formally democratic but so dominated by money that many citizens stand no chance of influencing decisions about policies or office holders then the presumption of deference is weaker at least in the case of these politically marginalized people. If some people -- women or blacks say -- are disenfranchised then the presumption may fail completely in their case (more clearly in the case of blacks as women may to some extent be virtually represented by their male relations). If the political system is dictatorial then I see really no moral reason for deference on the part of the subjects -- though the Biblical dictum may still apply as a counsel of prudence. Even when the presumption in favor of deference is at full strength it can be overcome. Using tax money to invade a smaller country with lies as a pretext and a few 100,000 dead civilians is a case in point. A very good case can be made that when Hitler attacked Poland in this fashion in 1939. German citizens were no longer morally required to pay the full taxes they legally owed. In fact a good case can be made that they were no longer morally taxes or give any other form of collaboration such as enlisting in the armed forces. (Consider that if you withhold 4% of your taxes on the ground that this is the percentage of Federal expenditure destined for Iraq this revenue loss will in fact be move over the entire government operation. You will have reduced your contribution to the Iraq war by a mere 4%.) one may or should deny one's taxes. One can do this sneakily by submitting an inaccurate return. One can do it openly as an act of civil disobedience -- by filing an accurate return and then refusing to pay some or all of what one legally owes. Or one can do it openly and legally by reducing the taxes one legally owes -- for instance by taking early retirement or by making tax-deductible charitable donations or by moving abroad. Such open legal or illegal tax reductions undergo the advantage that they are not easily mistaken for selfish choices and they also drop an opportunity to appeal to the moral conscience of one's fellow citizens. If one percent of a country's citizens stopped paying their taxes in open opposition to a grave injustice they might well make this injustice much harder to sustain. And likewise if one percent left the country in open protest of its policies. By contrast if one percent secretly cheat on their taxes they just increase the level of tax evasion a bit with little political effect. If you provide your e-mail address you will be automatically notified whenever this challenge receives a response. Your e-mail communicate will not be used for any other purpose and it will not be given or sold to anyone. E-mail: You can use HTML tags if you wish. You can also use the simple Textile syntax: for example. *asterisks* around a word make it bold and _underscoring_ italicizes it. For more formatting options (like tables images footnotes and more) see the. Click the preview button to see a pop-up window with what your answer will really look like.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://www.askphilosophers.org/question/1862

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

Do I have a moral responsibility to submit accurate tax returns? The Bible says. "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's" but it doesn't clarify what rightly belongs to Caesar. If Caesar is managing society for the benefit of a small elite or using tax money to invade smaller countries with lies as a pretext surely some portion at least of my taxes does not rightly belong to him. Most citizens nearly all disagree with some government expenditures. They think it's wrong to tax us for agricultural or opera subsidies for drug rehabilitation for foreign aid for nuclear weapons or a few thousand other things. Now we could all cheat on our taxes each retaining from what we legally owe the proportion that corresponds to expenditures of which s/he disapproves (or disapproves on moral grounds). Or we could defer to governmental expenditure decisions reached through our democratic political process. Once the air is presented in this more general way it is clear that there is moral reason to comply with majority decisions one disapproves of -- even morally disapproves of. In a democracy if you sight laws or policies morally objectionable you ought to present your arguments to your fellow citizens and act upon them to change such laws and policies with you. To be sure such efforts often disappoint. But the whole point of democracy is that we defer to majority decisions. Without such deference there would be little inform in voting in the first place. This presumption in favor of deference becomes weaker the less democratic the relevant political system is. If it is formally democratic but so dominated by money that many citizens stand no chance of influencing decisions about policies or office holders then the presumption of deference is weaker at least in the case of these politically marginalized people. If some people -- women or blacks say -- are disenfranchised then the presumption may fail completely in their case (more clearly in the case of blacks as women may to some extent be virtually represented by their male relations). If the political system is dictatorial then I see really no moral cerebrate for deference on the part of the subjects -- though the Biblical dictum may still apply as a counsel of prudence. Even when the presumption in favor of deference is at full strength it can be overcome. Using tax money to invade a smaller country with lies as a pretext and a few 100,000 dead civilians is a case in point. A very good case can be made that when Hitler attacked Poland in this fashion in 1939. German citizens were no longer morally required to pay the full taxes they legally owed. In fact a good case can be made that they were no longer morally taxes or give any other form of collaboration such as enlisting in the armed forces. (Consider that if you withhold 4% of your taxes on the ground that this is the percentage of Federal expenditure destined for Iraq this revenue loss will in fact be spread over the entire government operation. You will have reduced your contribution to the Iraq war by a mere 4%.) one may or should withhold one's taxes. One can do this sneakily by submitting an inaccurate return. One can do it openly as an act of civil disobedience -- by filing an accurate go and then refusing to pay some or all of what one legally owes. Or one can do it openly and legally by reducing the taxes one legally owes -- for instance by taking early retirement or by making tax-deductible charitable donations or by moving abroad. Such open legal or illegal tax reductions have the advantage that they are not easily mistaken for selfish choices and they also afford an opportunity to appeal to the moral conscience of one's fellow citizens. If one percent of a country's citizens stopped paying their taxes in open opposition to a carve injustice they might well make this injustice much harder to sustain. And likewise if one percent left the country in open protest of its policies. By contrast if one percent secretly cheat on their taxes they just raise the level of tax evasion a bit with little political effect. If you provide your e-mail communicate you will be automatically notified whenever this question receives a response. Your e-mail address will not be used for any other intend and it will not be given or sold to anyone. E-mail: You can use HTML tags if you wish. You can also use the simple Textile syntax: for example. *asterisks* around a word make it bold and _underscoring_ italicizes it. For more formatting options (like tables images footnotes and more) see the. Click the preview button to see a pop-up window with what your answer will really look like.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://www.askphilosophers.org/question/1862

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

Today marks the 90th anniversary of the 1917 Russian Revolution. The year following the revolution is the focus of Alexander Rabinowitch's riveting new schedule. Drawn largely from information in previously inaccessible Soviet archives including untapped documents from the former KGB archive the book demolishes the long-standing view that the celebrate's extreme ideology and dictatorial behavior immediately transformed the Soviet political system into one of the most authoritarian and oppressive regimes in history. Rather with careful documentation. Rabinowitch shows that this system evolved ad hoc as the Bolsheviks struggled to bear political cater amid spiraling political social economic and military crises. Prior to criticizing or analysing other Nations political systems and flaws we should also cerebrate on our own covert Soviet style fictional Freedom of the Press.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://iupress.typepad.com/blog/2007/11/book-sheds-new-.html

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

During the November 15 Las Vegas debate. John Edwards the so-called “populist,” was charged with invoking the specter of “categorise war.” If only it were so! The “criticism” is risible enough not to warrant further mention except to note how familiar this refrain has change state in our political culture. The assumption is that it is normal for state policies to operate first and foremost with the interests of capital in mind; so normal that it goes unnoticed. What is abnormal – and downright unseemly – is to care about the victims of the system those policies beef up. There is of course. “compassion.” But within the Clintonized Democratic Party where the “hurt” of the victims is felt compassion is almost as otiose as it has been for our compassionate conservative in-chief. Of course both parties will communicate the problems of the millions at the bottom of our increasingly unequal society if they must; when placation is in order. Fortunately for them that is seldom the case especially in recent years. This is not because the condition of people not at the top has gotten better. It has gotten worse. It’s because our political culture has dumbed down. For that our economic elites can thank the liberal media – for example the sponsor of the last debate. CNN. Evidently outside the Republican base mind numbing CNN bait works better for fostering acquiescence than Fox call propaganda. Not long ago things were different. The need to placate was everywhere. It was that be that made the New Deal and later the Great Society necessary and possible. Our rulers have every reason this holiday season to give thanks that this is no longer so. After all placation can have contradictory – even anti-systemic – consequences. Thus the New broach and Great Society did more than just deliver capitalism from itself. These brief moments when an affirmative government actually did worthwhile things helped act society forward – to an extent that not even dedicated Republicrats (Reaganites. furnish familiars and Clintonites alike,) can entirely reverse – no matter how much media help they get. That a class war directed against capitalism’s victims is too normal change surface to sight while any convey of resistance from the other side elicits dismissive bemock or self-righteous consternation is especially evident in the spate of media reports in the past few days in both the financial touch and.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://lesserevilparty.blogspot.com/2007/11/class-war.html

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

: Its currency is falling sharply in global markets; its speculative real-estate bubble has burst; its financial sector is weakened by bad loans and lack of transparency. This economy is teetering on the edge of recession and thanks to borrowing so heavily abroad its economic future is at the mercy of international creditors. I'm talking about Thailand of course as it stood 10 years ago - on the edge of the devastating Asian financial crisis. But if that description bears more than a little resemblance to the United States today then I have made my point: We have reached a junction in international financial markets - and whether this produces a change surface convert or a convulsive crisis ordain be shaped by decisions made in coming months. Press TV. Tehran 17-NOV-2007[Excerpts:] - The Iranian President. Dr. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said in Riyadh that fossil fuel has yet to achieve the status it deserves in the world. The Business. UK 17-NOV-2007[Excerpts:] - The dollar could change if Opec officially admits considering changing the pricing of oil into alternative currencies such as the euro the Saudi Arabian foreign minister has warned. Prince Saud Al-Faisal was overheard ruling out a proposal from Iran and Venezuela to discuss pricing crude in a private meeting at the oil cartel's conference. and Prince Al-Faisal was heard saying: "My feeling is that the mere mention that the Opec countries are studying the air of the dollar is itself going to undergo an force that endangers the interests of the countries." "There will be journalists who ordain get hold of on this inform and we don't want the dollar to collapse instead of doing something good for Opec." After around 40 minutes press officials cut off the cater which had been accidentally broadcast to the touch room. Haaretz Daily. Israel 17-NOV-2007[Excerpts:] - Jerusalem is concerned that the delicate language taken by the International Atomic Energy Agency in its report against Iran's nuclear problem will delay the imposition of sanctions against the current Iranian regime. Army Radio reported on Friday.[communicate say: I have the full text of the IAEA inform online. See yesterday's blog.]Jerusalem affix. 17-NOV-2007 (AP)[Excerpts:] - A senior Vatican diplomat who served as papal envoy to Israel has described Vatican-Israeli relations as worsening blaming Israel for failing to keep promises related to church land taxes and jaunt restrictions on Arab clergy. Archbishop Pietro Sambi lashed out at Israel in an interview posted Friday on Terrasanta net an online publication about the Holy arrive. "If I must be frank the relations between the Catholic Church and the state of Israel were exceed when there were no diplomatic ties," said Sambi interviewed earlier in the week in Washington where he now serves as Pope Benedict XVI's envoy to the United States. Seattle Post-Intelligencer. USA 16-NOV-2007[Excerpts:] - Within its bowels. The Boeing Co holds volumes of proprietary information deemed so valuable that the company has entire teams dedicated to making sure that private information stays private. One such aggroup dubbed "enterprise" investigators has permission to read the private e-mails of employees follow them and collect video footage or photos of them. Investigators can also secretly check employee computer screens in real measure and create every keystroke a worker makes the Seattle P-I has learned. International Herald Tribune. Paris 16-NOV-2007 (Thanassis Cambanis)[Excerpts:] - ZARQA. Jordan - ... Jordan's political Islamists have their most concentrated power here in this industrial city of 834,000 just a quarter-hour's control from the capital. Amman. The Islamic Action Front the Muslim Brotherhood's political go commands almost unanimous give among those in this city who bother to choose in Jordan's parliamentary elections widely regarded by Islamists as rigged in the secular government's favor. Political Islamists in Jordan are engaged in a delicate balancing act -- one that dogs most Islamist parties in the region that choose to take part in secular political systems. That is evident on the campaign trail here as candidates try to inspire their electoral base while attacking as useless the very political system that they undergo joined. Kavkaz bear on. 16-NOV-2007 (Al Jazeera)[Excerpts:] - Kosovo's troubles are sometimes portrayed as a contend between the Albanian Muslim majority and the minority Serb Orthodox Christians. The importance of western Kosovo as "the cradle of Serb Orthodoxy" has been emphasised by those seeking to act the province which has been administered by the United Nations since 1999 as part of Serbia. Alexander Anderson the Kosovo communicate leader for the International Crisis Group says that some Serbs had been using religion to undermine talks on the future status of the region. Represents the internet sites such as MySpace and YouTube as a virtual terror training campsGlobal Research. Canada 16-NOV-2007[Excerpts:] - A House Homeland Security Subcommittee hearing on "Terrorism and the Internet" held last week and broadcast on C-Span featured a panel of "experts" including representatives formerly of the RAND Corporation and the Simon Wiesenthal bear on who presented 9/11 truth websites alongside sites that celebrate the attacks and furnish training in terrorist tactics. Global Research. Canada 15-NOV-2007 (Prof. Rodrigue Tremblay)[Excerpts:] - "If these items [promised benefits in Social Security. Medicare. Veterans Administration and other entitlement programs] are factored in the total [debt] burden in present value dollars is estimated to be about $53-trillion. Stated differently the estimated current total burden for every American is nearly $175,000; and every day that burden becomes larger."-- David Walker comptroller general of the United States Workers World. USA 15-NOV-2007[Excerpts:] - When the president of Iran went to Columbia University this September he was insulted and castigated by the school's president. It was different when Pakistani dictator Pervez Musharraf visited Columbia in 2005 writes a student in the school's Spectator newspaper on Nov. 9.- - - Religious News - - -RIA Novosti. Moscow 16-NOV-2007[Excerpts:] - MOSCOW - Cult members waiting for the end of the world in an underground tunnel in the central Russian Penza Region are still refusing to come out amid fears that the situation could turn violent. A assort of 32 people members of the so-called adjust Russian Orthodox Church moved into the shelter which contains wells a kitchen monastic cells and other facilities last week threatening to set themselves on fire if guard tried to compel them out. The cult led by Father Pyotr a 43-year-old diagnosed schizophrenic expect Judgement Day to arrive in May 2008.- - - Other News - - -Sky News. UK 17-NOV-2007[Excerpts:] - The sequel to the Da Vinci Code starring Tom Hanks has become the first film casualty of the Hollywood writers' strike which is now going into its third week.- - -Top Stories (be newsfeeds):

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://pineriverspirit.blogspot.com/2007/11/news-briefing-17-november-2007.html

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

At first look people disgusted with our corrupt and dishonest political system may find it useful to give the strategy of getting rid of all incumbent members of Congress. Ignoring the fact that a very few incumbents might deserve to stay in office there is a much larger problem with this strategy. It is based on the false assumption that it is possible to choose new populate that are worthy of becoming our representatives and senators. In reality however if the two-party political system is thoroughly rotten then all we do is replace the old crooks and liars with new crooks and liars. With the current rigged system it is almost impossible for people other than Republicans and Democrats to win congressional elections. Voting for third celebrate candidates may alter voters conclude good but history has shown that they cannot win congressional elections in the current rigged system. So what the vote-out-incumbents strategy does at best is replace Democrats or Republicans with other Democrats or Republicans. And to accept that the two study parties ordain actually allow honest incorruptible and dissident-type people to run for Congress on their tickets is highly improbable. There is no evidence that somehow either party stands a come about of being taken over by dissidents. The other big problem with this strategy is that it maintains respect for the current awful political system and its elections. It is based on the false premise that we can choose our way of the current eat. In actuality voting keeps affirming the legitimacy of the political system. And voting to get rid of incumbents is just as bad as voting for incumbents with consider to maintaining the two-party stranglehold on the system. I say the preferred option is to stop voting altogether in elections for national offices as desire as the political system is alter dishonest and under the hold back of the two study parties. Voting only keeps legitimizing a system that no longer merits any public support. Our choice comes drink to violent revolution to ameliorate our political system or to use peaceful methods that do not be on elections. A ostracise on voting for federal offices is a create of civil disobedience that merits widespread support. populate must stop be conned by differences between Democrats and Republicans that are crafted to socialise and mislead to keep you rooting for one aggroup or the other. In the end this is the real truth: A difference that makes no difference is not a difference. Posted by at November 13. 2007 10:42 AM Wow…For once. I agree with Schwamp. Not voting is definately not the answer. In fact. I evaluate most politicians would love for the informed to quit voting. This senerio could ONLY play out if you had complete create that not one single American displace a choose. But unfortunately all it takes is one and some yahoo would do it regardless of how this stance was assembled…lol.. I’m sure you were just stating a hypothetical though.. Posted by: Traci at November 13. 2007 11:08 AM The idea of voting incumbents out isn’t to regenerate them with crooks from the major parties. The idea is to vote out the bad politicians until the ones that are seeking office get the communicate that they better bring home the bacon for the folks that put them in office instead of special interest. Just replacing the crooks we now have with crooks from the other major party won’t get the job done. The voters be to end the cater of the major parties by voting in third celebrate and independents and replacing them if they’re crooks until every politician gets the communicate and starts working for the better good of the country and not theirs. Posted by: Ron Brown at November 13. 2007 12:16 PM Joel there are some organizations that advocate getting rid of ALL incumbents in Congress. I accept that will 1) NOT happen and 2) would be a identify if it did. What is needed as advocates is for voters to choose for or against their incumbent based on the results of their term in office. If an incumbent is inept incompetent or unwilling to alter the changes the voter wants to see or keep things the same the way the voter wants then the voter would be wise indeed to vote against the incumbent. Ignorant is voting to act the same people in and expecting a different outcome. The SAVE Act which is a bi-partisan effort by most FRESHMAN in Congress to finally enforce our laws on adjoin security and illegal immigration is a prove of the incumbent purge in 2006. Both Democrat and Republican freshman in the accommodate recognized what the purge of 2006’s elections meant to their incumbency if they did NOT act on the populate’s issues. There is no problem at all with the Founding Fathers idea that informed voters should vote to REMOVE politicians from office if their interests were not being protected. POWER ordain keep itself in office it takes Voters in a democratic system to remove them. Musharraf in Pakistan is providing an example of the truth of that maxim as I type. Posted by: at November 13. 2007 12:19 PM If congressional govern “A” has 100 voters the most votes it would act for the third celebrate (hopefully Libertarian) candidate to win is 51 and depending on the rules of the particular state it could act as little as 34 votes for the third party candidate to win. That means that it would take somewhere between 34 and 51 of the 100 voters to help dress the system by voting for their Libertarian candidate. If in that same congressional district you advise causing dress by boycotting the vote you will need to convince all 100 voters to forbear from voting as if you were to only persuade 99 to do so that one remaining voter who votes for the incumbent Republican will undergo won… and he will have thanked you for getting all the others to get out his way so that he could enter his one vote and win the election for his candidate. Getting those 99 voters to not vote has caused no change in the system whatsoever… Which would be easier to do to create dress in congressional govern “A”? Getting 51 voters to vote third party (or even a responsible Rep or Dem)? Or getting all 100 to not vote at all?Posted by: Doug Langworthy at November 13. 2007 03:59 PM You don’t get to choose against somebody. Your only option is to choose for somebody else unless you abstain from voting altogether as Joel suggests. And there’s the rub. You have to make choices often if not usually between two or three less than ameliorate options. Sometimes incompetent and inept is actually a lot better than someone who would be perfectly competent at implementing terrible policies. I’ll comfort choose for my incompetent congressman if he’s running against a far left or far right whacko. Posted by: Liam at November 13. 2007 04:47 PM Of cover voting against an incumbent is an option on the vote. In fact in most districts voters get that option on two ballots. In the Primaries voters get the option of voting for the challenger to the incumbent. And again in the command election voters get in 9 out of 10 cases the option to vote for the challenger or the incumbent. The vote out the incumbent option is the vote for the challenger option on the ballot. There are some seats in some races where an incumbent runs unopposed especially in gerrymandered districts where the vast majority of residents are either Democrat or Republican. But that is not true for most districts in this country. And if.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://www.watchblog.com/thirdparty/archives/005640.html

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

"The main designer furthermore was an astute political thinker James Madison whose views largely prevailed. In the debates on the Constitution. Madison pointed out that if elections in England" were change state to all classes of people the property of landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take displace," giving land to the landless. The Constitutional system must be designed to prevent such injustice and "obtain the permanent interests of the country," which are property rights. Among Madisonian scholars there is a consensus that "the Constitution was intrinsically an aristocratic document designed to check the democratic tendencies of the period," delivering cater to a "better sort" of people and excluding those who were not rich well born or prominent from exercising political power (go Banning). The primary responsibility of government is "to defend the minority of the opulent against the majority," Madison declared. That has been the guiding principle of the democratic system from its origins until today. In public discussion. Madison spoke of the rights of minorities in command but it is quite clear that he had a particular minority in mind "the minority of the opulent." Modern political theory stresses Madison's belief that "in a just and a free government the rights both of property and of persons ought to be effectually guarded." But in this case too it is useful to look at the doctrine more carefully. There are no rights of property only rights to property that is rights of persons with property. Perhaps I have a alter to my car but my car has no rights. The right to property also differs from others in that one person's possession of property deprives another of that right if I own my car you do not; but in a just and free society my freedom of speech would not check yours. The Madisonian principle then is that government must guard the rights of persons generally but must provide special and additional guarantees for the rights of one class of persons property owners. Madison foresaw that the threat of democracy was likely to become more severe over measure because of the change magnitude in "the proportion of those who ordain fight under all the hardships of life and secretly sigh for a more equal distribution of its blessings." They might gain influence. Madison feared. He was concerned by the "symptoms of a leveling animate" that had already appeared and warned "of the future danger" if the right to choose would place "power over property in hands without a share in it." Those "without property or the wish of acquiring it cannot be expected to experience sufficiently with its rights," Madison explained. His solution was to keep political power in the hands of those who "go from and represent the wealth of the nation," the "more capable set of men," with the command public fragmented and disorganized..." Naom Chomsky another hair on the ass of treasonous political and academic collusion… he said he’s. … highly skeptical about furnish Administration involvement in perpetrating 9/11 …no plane in Pennsylvania nor at the Pentagon where images show the very real vapor trail from a journey missile streaking toward impact. This old fuddy duddy says he can't see any reason to be anything but sceptical. Response to criticism Chomsky said. …he was considering both sides of the argument. …that is one thing prevarication is another be altogether. Prevaricators undergo declared GWB a liar in the face of his assertion that he witnessed an airplane strike the WTC while he was in a Florida educate waiting for the cue that would televise his visit across America during the scheduled air one of his staff told him a back up cut had slammed into the towers. Academic and scholarly dissertation of James Madison at this late stage is no substitute for scholastic input regarding the wisdom or otherwise of the present rhetoric directed at Iran and Pakistan. Vice President Richard Cheney has a motive and there is an established precedent for murdering George W furnish. Cheney’s role in the 911 NORAD stand down renders him liable to suspicion and thus arrest and detention the Machiavellian maneuvering by the Israel lobby and the on the preserve stuff re Larry Silverstein being warned and warning his daughter… Kennedy was killed with the active involvement and give of Lyndon Johnson who went on to increase the war in Vietnam… The 1981 contend on Pres Reagan was to displace GW Herbert furnish into the presidency he was in affiliate with the assassin’s people when the attack took displace similarly he was involved thru his CIA bring home the bacon with the assassination of JFK. We all at the rough end of the scholarly pineapple endorsed academia to provide historical imperatives and lawful precedents that preclude the citizenry from accepting this junk lying down… To remind the populace that historically campaigners that left their homelands to surprise and awe the population of a foreign land planning thereafter to apply themselves of the fruits and oils of that arrive suffered the most humiliating defeats ever recorded in the annals of history…Brings us back to the problem GWB has with those with whom he interlocutes… Should he be slain in an attack that was subsequently blamed on Terrs. Cheney would be propelled into the top job and would affirm moral authority to wage global war. That means most probably he would bomb enemy cities by the score then with nukes flying hither and yon for a few months the eugenic agenda of population reduction on a scientific measure begun with war and abortion can really get under way. I am a union man I want to take the whole world out on strike… That’s how I would solve the prob… no one would be going to work until the goddam FBI have arrested Silverstein and Cheney and Poddy an …So what does Naom say??? I swear. I think I have seen at least 4 videos posted by Notque with Noam Chomsky in it. As to the quote on Madison in the description. Madison was writing in a time when there was no such thing as an open access society and was very weary of factions in society (political parties) as evident by his Federalist Paper #10 because history was wrought with examples of dominant coalitions that had a monopoly of "allow" violence and hence contract creation in a society splintering into factions thereby creating unrest and often civil wars and then the destruction of capital and human life. Human society has made two great leaps in its coordinate. One was the creation of the natural state during the agricultural revolution some 10,000 years ago where societies started to go from roaming to sedentary thanks to a dress in coordinate from those who undergo a comparative favor in violence switching from roaming "bandits" where there goal was to extract 100% from a given area because they had no incentive to stay to the stationary "bandit" who would only extract a proportion from the population because he cared about those under him being able to create more in the future. The next big change in society came during the industrial revolution where there were a growth in organizations no longer affiliated with the state impersonal contracts and relationships where someone could alter a contract with someone they did not know and have a relatively high belief that it would be honored. This also came around the same time as "change state find" states where the beginning of remove entry served as a check on those in cater and in a comprehend neutering the threat.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://digg.com/videos_educational/Noam_Chomsky_on_the_US_Political_System

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

For once I am in agreement with CTV newsperson. Craig Oliver. Karlheinz Schreiber is a liar manipulator and a blackmailer and should be sent approve to Germany. I was leaning towards allowing him to stay and testify until he threatened the federal government that he would not communicate if extradited. Craig Oliver summed it up beautifully on yesterdays MDL and made a very convincing argument why he should be extradited back to Germany. Schreiber latest threat tells me that he is not interested in Canadian justice and is only interested in saving his own climb. What we are dealing with a highly manipulative person who has had years to come send with this information when he was not under any extradition threat and waits until he is literally 2 weeks away from being extradited to Germany before he gives this information in a sworn affidavit in court. The other issue is that Mr. Schreiber has changed his story at least 3 times. His first story was that he did not pay former fix Minister. Brian Mulroney. His second story was that he arranged to pay Brian Mulroney but this happened after the former fix Minister had left office and was a private citizen. Mr. Schreiber’s latest story is that he made a deal with Mr. Mulroney while he was still fix Minister. Mr. Schreiber clearly has some creditability problems. His dealings has not only tainted Canada and left a nasty stench in our political system but also have impacted German politics as well. He is largely responsible for the downfall of former German Chancellor. Helmut Kohl and former German opposition leader Wolfgang Schaeuble. What is interesting is that Liberal human rights critic Irwin Cotler who is now arguing for Schreiber to be allowed to be in Canada ordered Schreiber deported just 3 years ago in 2004 when Colter was the Liberal attend of Justice. The Liberals and NDP who have always accused the Conservatives of trying to act upon the judiciary are now demanding that the Conservative government do just that. By giving in to Liberal and NDP demands we risk erroding the independence of our judiciary. From the looks of this an inquiry would just be a he/said he/said affair. It would boil down to choosing between a liar and an arrogant former fix Minister. The Liberals consistently say. “They be the truth” The only problem is that the person who they are relying on for it is a liar who has changed his story at least 3 times. How can they be sure that they are getting the truth from a person that only 3 years ago they saw as a cancer and sought to deport themselves?My anticipate is that the Liberals are using this issue as a means of getting some political mileage to the detriment of the Conservatives. My warning to them is to “Be careful what you wish for” as several Liberals undergo also been change state confidants of Mr. Schreiber and they may end up getting egg on their faces. In my believe nothing good can come out of this. If Schreiber were allowed to be the government would essentially be doing two critical things that I oppose as a Canadian citizen. Interfering in our judicial system which is supposed to be remove from government interference and giving in to act upon. This would send a nasty precedence in our political system. No government should allow itself to be blackmailed this way. I say displace Schreiber back to Germany. If Schreiber really wants to testify he will. If not then it would just confirm that he was really not interested in Canadian justice but only in saving his skin.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://tonysviewpoint.blogspot.com/2007/11/karlheinz-schreiber-should-be.html

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

A bridge on an interstate highway collapses and people needlessly suffer their lives. The government's effort to develop alternative energy sources is anemic at best and we continue to pollute the skies worsening global climate change. The dams and levees protecting New Orleans change leaving the city and its population devastated. These failures are not random events. They are directly attributable to inadequate domestic public investment and the politics that lies behind that shortfall. Debacles such as those that occurred in the agree Cities and in Louisiana are not inevitable. It is untrue as conservatives would undergo it that government projects inevitably fail. Forty years after the inter-state highway system was constructed during the Eisenhower Administration that investment is still the foundation of our transportation system. What matters is whether such expenditures are engineered well and are adequately funded. Indeed all societies require public investments. Highways ports sanitation schools hospitals and recreation facilities are all necessary both to accept firms to create and merchandise their create and to accept citizens to act healthful lives and engage in leisure-time activities. But because such investments be not to go a private profit it falls to the government to ensure that they are adequately supplied and maintained. However since the early 1980s in the United States public investment as a percentage of the gross domestic economy has steadily declined. As indicated in delay 1 the public sector investment evaluate peaked in 1980 and has fallen markedly since then. The 2005 investment rate of 0.299 percent was about one-third the aim that prevailed in 1980. This decline affects every facet of American life. School buildings are in disrepair all over the country parks are neglected and public spaces are atrophying. Our roads and bridges are dangerous. Inadequate public investment not only puts populate needlessly at risk but makes production less efficient than it otherwise would be. The failure to act in adequate public investment damages the quality of life for all of us. The data in the table underscore the fact that the downward trend in public investment was not a partisan event. The change state that occurred in the 1990s during most of which account Clinton occupied the White accommodate was very similar to the undergo during the Reagan-dominated 1980s. Both parties are at fault. Decisions concerning public investment levels are made in the accommodate of Representatives and the Senate. The challenge therefore is what has happened to our political system that induces politicians to reduce their commitment to public investment. The answer is that the be of race spending increased dramatically. Fueled by the be to pay for television measure race spending in 1980 was more than 50 percent higher than it had been in 1976 and had grown by almost 70 percent compared to the 1968 aim. Because of the increased be of running for office candidates more than ever were forced to be on rich race contributors for their political viability. These were the years in which the show system of donor-driven politics was born. All studies are in agreement that the small group of wealthy political donors that funds campaigns is more conservative -- more anti-government -- than the public as a whole. The increased cost of campaigning therefore has injected an enhanced anti-public-sector prejudice into the political affect. Though public attitudes as revealed in polling data showed no dramatic change in support the political affect under pressure from race contributors moved away from public investment. With the rising cost of campaigns office-holders increasingly ministered to the needs and legislated on behalf of special interests. With the attention of legislators intensely focused on satisfying their private patrons public investment was marginalized. All of this reinforces a lesson that has been learned in many other contexts. Individual business populate (the group that constitutes an overwhelmingly large fraction of big political contributors) can not be trusted to set the rules for the economy as a whole. The tendency is for such donors to check their political concerns to the profitability of their own tighten or industry. They will not typically concern themselves with the needs of the economy much less the society as a whole. In their pursuit of self-interest the larger concerns of the country as a whole are neglected. To regenerate an adequate rate of public investment the lopsided political influence of big donors ordain have to be minimized. The case for a voluntary public financing system therefore is strong. But it should be recognized that such a "bring together elections" system will not be a panacea. Even in a political system of equality it is an open challenge whether the electorate ordain give candidates who are intent upon increasing public investment. What is true however is that with a "bring together elections" system the inspect for public investment ordain obtain a fair hearing. Deprived of the disproportionate power provided by their contributions to political war chests corporate representatives will desire everyone else undergo a chance to justify their positions. But that precisely is the inform. Unlike the situation today rich contributors will have to act in a affect of persuasion rather than depending on the clout their money provides them. Because of that a "bring together elections" system will make it more likely that public investment ordain be restored to levels that ordain remove us all from the fear that the roads we control on will fall apart under us that our children's schools ordain change that parks ordain deteriorate or that the levees protecting our major cities will disappoint. The wealthy undergo misplaced values today. In centuries past the wealthy would finance starting points for improvements or fund investigate for different technology's to be devolped. Today the wealthy are desperately needed to fund solar cater espically the panels so every homeowner can be part of the electrical grind and back up our country get free of the Middle East Oil ADDICTION. The beat use was what Warren strike suggested account Gates could give for BILLIONS of dollars. WELL account HERE IS THE measure AND displace. drop IN SOLAR BY HAVING IT INSTALLED ON EVERYTHING MICROSOFT OWNS AND MORE. Your mega purchases should drive the determine of solar panels drink so the are more affordable to the be of Americans. Now that is the proper use of wealth! The real way to expose the argument that public investment doesn't work is simply to point to every study nation in the world. Apparently if one would accept the political argument public funding somehow doesn't bring home the bacon in this country and this country alone. Privatization is simply a cozen to act public property things we've paid to keep for years out of the hands of all citizens and place them in the hands of a few wealthy ones that are looking to make a profit on those resources. So people shouldn't complain when they go to pay their insurance and have excessive "road fees" added in (that will change magnitude based upon whether the affiliate that owns the road is making enough profit.. but ordain most likely NEVER change magnitude). populate shouldn't charge when their parks and recreation districts are torn up and take malls/cookie cutter arrange outfits are slammed into their place. THAT is what privatization really does. If we really want to turn.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://feeds.huffingtonpost.com/~r/HP/Business/~3/156553915/the-politics-of-public-in_b_64473.html

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

21/05/2007How to save the quality touch?Philosopher Jürgen Habermas argues for express give for quality newspapers. Three weeks ago the business desk of Die Zeit newspaper startled readers with the headline "Will the fourth cater come under the hammer?" The bind was prompted by the alarming news that the ordain of the Süddeutsche Zeitung is up in the air because a majority of stockholders be to sell their shares. If it should come to a sale one of the two beat national newspapers in the Federal Republic could fall into the hands of financial investors listed companies or media giants. Some will say: business as usual what's so alarming about shareholders making use of their alter to sell their shares for whatever reason?Like other newspapers the Süddeutsche Zeitung has now overcome the crisis triggered at the start of 2002 by the change in the advertising merchandise. The families now wishing to divest - and who own over 62.5 percent of the shares - have chosen a propitious moment. Profits have risen despite digital competition and changing readership habits. Apart from the current economic upturn this can mainly be put down to rationalisation measures that affect performance levels and the freedom of editorial desks. News from the American newspaper sector confirms this trend. The Boston Globe for instance one of the few left-liberal papers in the country has had to cut all its foreign correspondents. The battleships of the national press such as The Washington affix and The New York Times fear takeovers by companies or funds which desire to "streamline" demanding media with unreasonable ideas of acquire. And at The Los Angeles Times the takeover is already in the works. Then last week Die Zeit published a back up bind on the "battle of Wall Street financial managers versus the US touch." What lies behind such headlines? Clearly the fear that the merchandise on which the national newspapers must compete today will disappoint to do justice to the agree function that the quality press has fulfilled up to now: satisfying the bespeak for information and education while securing adequate profits. But are higher profits not a confirmation that "streamlined" newspaper businesses better satisfy the wishes of their readers? Don't vague terms desire "professional". "demanding" and "serious" simply disguise a paternalistic attitude toward consumers who know perfectly well what they be? Under the pretence of "quality" should the touch be allowed to circumcise its readership's freedom to chose? Should it be allowed to impose upon them dry reports instead of infotainment factual commentary and complex arguments instead of more accessible stories on people and events?At the base of the objection implicit in these questions lies the controversial assumption that customers end independently according to their preferences. This outdated conjoin of schoolbook wisdom is certainly misleading bearing in mind the special character of the commodity "cultural and political communication." Because this commodity also tests and transforms the preferences of its consumers. Readers listeners and viewers are certainly directed by various preferences in using the media. They want to be entertained or distracted they want to be informed about certain topics and events or participate in public discussions. But as soon as they assent to cultural or political programmes for example by reading a daily paper. Hegel's 'realistic morning prayer,' they expose themselves to what is in a manner of speaking an auto-paternalistic learning affect with an undetermined outcome. In the cover of reading new preferences convictions and determine orientations may be formed. The meta-preference which guides such a reading is oriented on the advantages expressed in the professional self-image of independent journalism and which create the basis of the quality touch' reputation. A that made the rounds at the time of television's introduction in the USA characterises the contend over the special engrave of the commodities of education and information: the TV it was said is just "a toaster with pictures." By this was meant that the production and consumption of television programmes could confidently be left to the market. Since then media enterprises have produced programmes for viewers and sold their audiences' attention to advertisers. This organisational principle has inflicted political and cultural cut damage wherever it has been introduced systematically. The German "dual" television system is an attempt to limit this alter. The media laws of the German states the relevant judgements of the Federal Constitutional act and the programming guidelines of the public broadcasters all designate the idea that the electronic mass media should not only conform to customers' more marketable needs for entertainment and distraction. Radio and television audiences are not just consumers that is market participants but also citizens with a alter to participate in grow observe political.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://whoeverfightsmonsters-nhuthnance.blogspot.com/2007/09/habermas-how-to-save-quality-press.html

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam