India- Future Of Rahul Gandhi - By: cdmohatta
At present India is focusing on a new leader who is emerging fast- Rahul Gandhi. What impact will Rahul Gandhi have in Indian democracy? Let us try and understand.
The Indian National Congress is full of old politicians who are not known much for their honesty but more for the wily moves they can make. All of these leaders can secure their own parliamentary seat but can make no contribution in getting a majority for Congress in the country.
2 Rahul Gandhi is meeting people around the country and trying to solve their problems. Let us say that he is rather trying to understand their problems. This will give him a vision of what is happening.
3. Today Indian polity is getting sharply divided amongst caste and religion. It is the caste that is becoming a card in the hands of politicians. Arjun Singh is everyday talking about more reservations based on caste. This is not forward-looking thing. But this may get votes. Rahul has not come out openly about his opinion on caste-based reservations.
4. Rahul Gandhi talks of uniting the country with single thought of taking it forward where as the regional party chieftains are making a big impact because of their moves in their states. Mayawati has done that in Uttar Pradesh. How will Rahul Challenge Mayawati in Uttar Pradesh?
5. In Gujarat also Rahul failed to make much impact. And so also with Karnataka.
The problem with Rahul Gandhi is simple. He has a different kind of view of politics and elections. His party members do not understand that. Also to fight the local politicians’ old style politics is needed. Rahul cannot make an impact in the short term. He has to do something like his grandmother to grow in India. This is the reality of India.
.....................................................................................
What Ails India's Progress - By: cdmohatta
India is emerging as a modern power. India is showing very good growth in services and manufacturing. But to become a truly modern state one must address the problems that India faces. What ails India at present? Let us discuss that.
India has a vibrant democracy. But there are some issues that are working against the nation. In the lower house, most of the time is lost in useless activities such as walk-outs etc. The representatives need to pay more attention to the work rather than boycotting the proceedings.
Today, communalism is one of the main threats to India. Communalism of all communities is eating into the social fabric. Hindus are trying to contain Muslim influence. Muslims are trying to get more facilities from the government and Christians are accused of trying to convert others to Christianity. This is causing problems around the country especially in the state of Orissa.
Terrorism is another very big problem in India. Pakistan exported terrorism has been playing havoc with India since decades. It shows no sign of reducing. Now with Afghanistan under threat of taliban and spreading militancy in Pakistan, India will face more trouble from Pakistan. There is no respite from terrorists that enter India supported by Pakistan. Pakistan does not want to stop them and for historic reasons will continue bleeding India till India becomes very powerful compared to Pakistan.
Distribution of wealth is a big problem. Rich people are getting richer, the middle class is growing stronger but the poor suffer the same ills since ever. No drinking water, no education, no power, no dwellings, the list is endless. Unless a government puts all efforts in eradicating these ills by plugging all loopholes and bringing an end to corruption, these problems will continue.
India will have to address all these problems while sustaining the vibrant democratic structure to emerge as a real super power over next few decades.
....................................................................................
Ron Paul Promises Nothing - By: Sonu Dhankhar
Politicians make a lot of promises to a lot of people. That’s just the nature of the beast. They pander to the lowest common denominator in order to try to get votes. The politicians in this presidential contest are no different. They make promises they may or may not be able to keep. They promise to give to the people what they think the people want, a chicken in every pot, if you will. They realize that people who are starving will cast a vote for someone who promises them food, even if that person is not a farmer and knows nothing about the business of providing food to the population. It does not matter to them that in order to deliver their promise they will have to steal the chickens from one who has worked all his life to acquire them. Nor does it matter to them if they are unable to deliver on their promise so long as there is someone else to blame, and there is always someone else to blame. These politicians will promise what they believe their constituents want to hear, and if they find they are wrong they will turn and promise the opposite. They are not concerned with principle, only with obtaining votes. The only exception to this rule is Ron Paul. Ron Paul promises nothing. He states his positions and sticks to them, and he has the voting record to prove it.
Some presidential candidates, particularly the Democrats, have promised free health care to those who can’t afford to pay. This is called socialized medicine. What they haven’t told you is that this system has proven to be flawed in many other countries. What many may not realize is that they are being promised something for nothing, and one can hardly ever get something for nothing. Someone has to pay. Free health care is not really free and we will all be forced to pay through higher taxes. But that’s not the only problem. Once in charge of your health care, the government would start removing your options. In an effort to keep costs down they would regulate what procedures you could and couldn’t have and what treatments could be prescribed. Waiting times for certain procedures would probably increase to the point where some might start to die as they wait their turn. Incentives for doctors would be removed as competition between health care providers would be non existent as the government homogenized the system. Choices would be fewer, customer service would suffer, and the costs would increase rather than decrease, only we wouldn’t realize this because the government would be stealing from all of us equally to pay for it. This is the promise of free health care, the promise the Democrats are touting. Ron Paul promises nothing of the sort. He wishes to get the government out of health care, allow freedom in the health marketplace, and let you and your doctor determine how to best take care of your health.
More disturbing than this, however, is what the Republicans are promising. They are simply promising more of the same. They are promising to keep our present wars going until sometime in the future. They are promising more death and destruction. Ron Paul promises nothing of the sort. He promises we will have nothing to do with wars of aggression. He promises we will have nothing to do with entangling alliances. The founders of the United States of America felt this way. That is because they knew way back then that many wars were not fought for meritorious reasons. Even back then wars enriched the elite at the cost of the children and fathers of the lower classes. The only honorable war is the war fought in defense.
I watched on Youtube a couple nights ago a rerun of a Fox News debate where Mike Huckabee discussed honor. He asserts that we cannot leave Iraq until we can leave with honor. When he spoke of the importance of honor it was reminiscent of the Japanese soldiers’ doctrine in WWII. It makes one wonder if Mike Huckabee understands the meaning of the word honor. The war in Iraq has lost all credibility since the lies justifying our involvement have been exposed and any pretext of self defense removed. What honor is there in killing civilians trying to protect their homes? What honor is there in continuing to pollute their country with depleted uranium? What honor is there in fighting with the most sophisticated modern weapons against a people using the most basic and simply trying to regain self determination? What honor is there in destroying lives and property for a few to profit? None of this is worthy of praise. The only vestige of honor we have left to save is the honor of leaving to let the Iraqi people tend to their own business. The only action worthy of praise now is to apologize for our mistakes and leave Iraq and its natural resources to its people. When we leave, at least it can be said that we are finally doing the right thing. Is honor more important than doing the right thing? It seems to me that Mike Huckabee confused the word honor with the word pride. It is long past time for us as a society to forget about pride and realize that the people of Iraq do not want our soldiers occupying their land, just as we would not want foreign troops on our soil. Ron Paul does not promise victory, he promises nothing more than our troops returning home with their lives and limbs intact.
The Republicans also promise to keep taxing you. They make promises about cutting taxes and saving programs like Medicare and Social Security, but they make it clear that they want to keep taxing you. They call for tax reform and implementation of programs such as the FairTax, but that is still taxation. They have made promises as to how they will help the people of this country economically, most of the promises have no real substance. Ron Paul promises he will do all he can to eliminate the IRS and the income tax and replace it with, nothing. He promises to do his best to shrink federal bureaucracies down to, nothing. He promises that he will do his best to make sure the federal government provides nothing for you, but it will also take nothing from you. In this way you will be better able to determine for yourself how you wish to spend, or save your money. He even promises that he will do his best to see to it that our current form of fiat money is replaced with nothing except gold and silver backed currencies, which is something of value unlike the promises backing the Federal Reserve Notes. In that way the value of your money will be maintained and may even increase as time goes by, rather than decreasing. Think about how much money you need to retire today as opposed to how much one may have needed even two decades ago. No other candidate running for president even touches upon that issue.
Never before has the promise of nothing meant so much. All the other candidates running for president in both major parties promise to maintain the status quo. They will do nothing to end the corruption that has rotted Washington DC to its core. They will do nothing to restore the rights taken from the American people by the regime now in power. They will do nothing to bring peace to the world and have promised to maintain foreign policies that may drag us into even more devastating conflicts. Ron Paul may promise nothing to everyone, but his candidacy has already delivered real change, and his presidency would deliver a trend toward freedom at the very least. The foreign policies he would pursue would show the world that a revolution can be won in a peaceful manner and that we can all live together in this world without fighting for domination over each other. This is something worthy of praise. This is something we can honor.
....................................................................................
The Ron Paul Pandemic - By: PAWAN SINGH
Whether you like him or not, Ron Paul has become a worldwide phenomenon. His banners fly in the skies over US cities. His signs are springing up alongside our nation’s highways. Bumper stickers are appearing on cars, it seems almost spontaneously. Certain days of commemoration are set up to donate on his behalf. His supporters show up in droves to wave signs and inform the uninformed of Ron Paul’s message of peace, hope and freedom. He even has a blimp to rival Goodyear’s paid for by private citizens to help spread his revolution. It is a spontaneous campaign that depends not upon a flashy candidate who attracts supporters through his cult of personality, but rather depends on the supporters to follow their own gut feelings on how to best spread the message of the campaign. It is exactly this kind of spontaneity, this kind of freedom to act as one sees necessary, attracting many Ron Paul supporters not only in this nation, but in countries across the planet.
One might ask, what is it about Ron Paul that causes such excitement and devotion? After all, he appears to be just a nice 72 year old grandfatherly type gentleman. He´s not particularly well spoken or sexy. In fact, with the rampant ageism prevalent in our society, I´m surprised he gets any support at all. I like to say that it´s the message, but certainly there must be more to it than that. Well, I have to admit there probably is. Ron Paul’s message is the most powerful asset of his campaign as he propels it forward, but there are some things about Ron that make him appealing to a variety of people.
Ron Paul is honest. Some in the media have tried to paint him as a racist, an old accusation that was cleared up long ago and should clearly ring out as propaganda in the minds of anyone paying attention. He has some strange heroes (Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks) for a racist. Some have called him an isolationist, again playing upon the fears of those who worry that some powerful nation is suddenly going to be amassing troops to invade the continent. This is also a disingenuous notion as Dr. Paul simply wants to stop policing the world, not stop doing honest business with it. He wants America to lead by example, something anyone with adult thought patterns realizes is the best way to influence others. I´m sure I won´t convince the paranoid few, but there´s a good chance that if the United States stopped acting so belligerent and demanding to the rest of the world, maybe the rest of the world wouldn´t hate the United States so much. Listen to what Ron Paul says. It makes sense. Watch him carefully as he speaks. One can tell how honest he is just as easily as one can tell how dishonest and manipulative other politicians are. You will never see him crying or feigning emotion in answer to a question in order to garner support. The passion he expresses is genuine.
Ron Paul is principled. One can go back twenty years and look at his voting record. He hasn´t waffled. He hasn´t flip-flopped. One knows where he stands on any given issue. He has almost always voted in accordance with the Constitution, unlike other politicians who treat their oaths to the Constitution with about as much seriousness as they treat their oaths to their wives, which isn´t much. He can not and will not be bought by special interests. He is the defender of the Constitution, not a pretender who pays the Constitution lip service but votes for unconstitutional laws. He has a record of voting for smaller government. He has a record of promoting individualism rather than collectivism.
Ron Paul cares. He cares about people. He cares about principle. He cares about this nation of ours. There are very few politicians that care beyond their own egos. Most politicians could care less about anything other than getting elected, gaining power, and taking care of their friends, family and contributors. Ron Paul wants to give everyone the best chance to take care of themselves by taking power from government and empowering the individual. This is not only the right thing to do, it´s the constitutional thing to do. Most politicians are only interested in gaining power over others.
he above qualities are easily identifiable in Ron Paul to those who pay attention. Ron Paul is no sexy movie star type. He doesn´t pay an army of image makers and stylists to primp and preen him. He´s not the son of a general or some other important political figure. He´s not a silver tongued minister that has learned to make his congregation swoon when speaking of things he doesn´t believe in or making promises he will not keep. He´s not some billionaire that can purchase an adoring following (and votes). With Ron Paul, what you see is what you get. He´s a real person for real people, not some wannabe transposing themselves over the fantasies of what people believe their leaders should be. Ron Paul is the genuine article. Many people from all cultures can see this, and that´s one reason Dr. Paul has a worldwide appeal.
It has been pointed out to me that Dr. Paul is lacking form. This is probably true. He may not be the most physically attractive candidate, but he has substantive ideas and has kept his soul intact. Americans in particular seem to be attracted to form over substance. Perhaps this is why seventy percent of us can be against the war in Iraq, yet ninety percent of us, Democrats and Republicans, have so far in the primaries voted for candidates that support wars of aggression. They are not looking at what their candidates stand for, what they have voted for. They are simply voting for the candidate that looks the best, or smiles the nicest, or makes the best sounding promises. Ron Paul is the only candidate with any substance, and there are many in nations around the world that realize this even if most Americans don´t.
Finally, there is the message. As I stated in an earlier article, Ron Paul is secondary to his message. He knows it as well as anyone else. This message of freedom, liberty and individual responsibility achieved through smaller, less intrusive government is one that resonates with people of all cultures. It´s a message that spurred the massive immigration that occurred when this country was first born. It´s the message that drove those fleeing the tyranny of the European monarchies to our shores. This is why Ron Paul is gaining popularity around the globe. People understand freedom. It´s popular. There are still many who haven´t been exposed to this message. No matter what happens this campaign season, no matter how far Ron Paul decides to take his campaign, we must strive to keep delivering this message. Freedom is always better than tyranny. Removing liberty to gain security never works. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. These truisms have been proven throughout history, and we must keep teaching them for they are lessons easily forgotten. The light of truth will shine upon us and guide us from the darkness of the cave. Those of us who understand these concepts should try the help those who are struggling to understand them. The Ron Paul pandemic is about spreading an idea that was first planted long ago in a land known as America. It is about an idea that needs to come to fruition and should be harvested across the globe. When this finally happens, perhaps then mankind will gain the peace, freedom and hope for the future as should be the birthright of all human beings.
.....................................................................................
Princess Diana: Why Did It Take A Staggering Two Hours To Get Her To Hospital Only 3.25 Miles Away - By: jsolutions010
Most of us commoners are well aware that VIPs (Very Important Person(s)) get far better care and treatment than we do.
Take the instance of Paris Hilton in the now notorious incident (sigh...what's new) where her family and friends were preferentially allowed to jump the queue at the jail in which she's atoning her sins so that they could see for themselves how well those orange prison stripes complimented her pale complexion; conveniently bypassing people who'd been waiting on line upwards of 4 hours to see their loved ones.
NOTE: Paris Hilton is not a Very Important Person (as she'd like to belive) but rather a Very Irritating Person hence the VIP status!
But I'm sure you get the point I am trying to get across: Celebrities, Heads of State and Royalty are normally accorded preferential and special treatment. Which brings me to the main point of this post:
WHY DID IT TAKE 2 HOURS TO GET PRINCESS DIANA TO A HOSPITAL 3.25 MILES AWAY?
The night she died Princess Diana was en route to hospital (and thus access to intensive care treatment that would have saved her life) for a whopping two hours! The hospital was a mere 3.25 miles away!
It Takes The Average Person 1 Hour To Walk A Distance Of 5 Miles!
3.25 miles...do you know how short that distance is?
It takes the average person 1 hour at a leisurely pace to walk a distance of 5 miles. Yet here we have the authorities taking their sweet-ole-time to get the critically injured mother of the future King of England to a hospital that was a mere 3.25 miles away.
And as if that wasn't enough would you believe that the ambulance carrying Princess Diana bypassed a couple or so nearer hospitals to get to the one in which she eventually died. The final bizarre straw to the perplexing events of that tragic night of August 31, 1997 was how when the ambulance FINALLY got to the hospital IT STOPPED FOR ANOTHER 10 MINUTES OUTSIDE THE HOSPITAL GATES!
One can only wonder what in heavens name were they doing in that ambulance?
Were they literally allowing Princess Diana to hemorrhage (bleed) to death? After all that was the official explanation for her death: that Princess Diana died from massive internal bleeding!
But let's just get back to the snail's pace that the ambulance took that night; maybe the ambulance had good reason to crawl slower than your average toddler!
Perhaps there was a lot of traffic snarling the Paris roads that night?
It's possible, but guess what? That actually wasn't the case! And even if there had been a lot of traffic, what of it?
They were transporting the Princess of Wales (or at least used to be) for gods sake! And though the House of Windsor may have stripped her of the title "Princess of Wales" the one title they could not relieve her of was: Mother of The Future King of England!
Surely for that fact alone Diana warranted expedited delivery to hospital!
In fact the usual case is to chopper (take by helicopter) a person of Princess Diana's status immediately to hospital. Diana was not even taken to the best equipped hospital that VIPs are normally rushed to in Paris and that particular hospital was less than five minutes away by helicopter and less than 20 minutes away by car; don't forget it took them 2 hours to eventually get her to hospital.
The authorities cited a number of pathetic reasons why it took so long to get the Princess to hospital foremost of which was the one where they said "Oh in France the ambulances are equipped with intensive care units with life saving equipment so usually such measures are conducted there first" (note: those aren't the exact words but the general gist of the official explanation at the time). Well anyway it sure looks like those measures failed miserably!
But honestly that explanation is a load of premium crap! The more plausible explanation is that they (whoever was behind the plot) could not risk Diana getting to an uncontrolled environment such as a public hospital before she'd reached the point of no return; in other words to the critical medical point where nobody...not even the best surgeons in the world could save her life!
.....................................................................................
An Open Reply to Help Senator Durbin Better Understand the 'Read the Bills Act' - By: mufiz
I recently used the DownsizeDC.org website to contact my representative and the senators from Illinois and tell them I support the "Read the Bills Act" and that I want them to vote for it. Senator Dick Durbin (well, probably not him personally but his staff) actually took the time to shoot me an email. This is very kind of his office to do, for it at least acknowledges me as a human individual and lets me know that they did take the time to read over my concerns, which is more than either my representative or Senator Obama did. Of course, Senator Obama can be forgiven because he is probably busy campaigning for president right now and probably doesn't have time for the concerns of his constituents here in Illinois. Anyway, after reading the response from Senator Durbin's office, it occurred to me that he may be just a little confused as to exactly what the "Read the Bills Act" is and how it will affect him. I thought I'd try to answer his letter and clarify it for him a little bit, and I thought my readers might also be interested in seeing just how our congress critters are serving us, their supposed bosses. Without any further ado, here's the letter sent to me (in quotes) and my responses after each paragraph:
"Thank you for your message about knowing the full contents of legislation considered by Congress."
Well, I'm not sure that you have to "know the full contents" of the legislation, but I suppose that's a good interpretation. Really, we just want you to read the bills.
"My staff and I try very hard to look at every bill that comes to the Senate floor. Provisions sometimes are carefully worded to appear innocuous and their import only becomes clear later. Other times, we catch something at the last minute but the will of the Senate as a whole is to move the measure forward and our only option is to try to overturn the provision in another forum."
Exactly. This again is why you should pass the "Read the Bills Act." Oh, and by the way, there's another bill introduced by Downsize DC called the "One Subject at a Time Act." That bill would also help stop exactly what you're talking about. These bills are also simple and straight forward, not a thousand pages long like some of the tomes such as "The Patriot Act" which you guys passed without even knowing what was in it. You senators seem pretty good at passing bad, unconstitutional legislation and then avoiding accountability and blaming others for the problems you all create, but you don't seem to have the ability to stand up and do something about these procedural inequities. Well, this is your opportunity to actually do something about the complaints you have, something positive and principled.
"Several years ago, I was alerted at the last minute to a provision inserted in an omnibus budget measure by the tobacco industry. The provision sought to reduce tobacco companies' potential future tax obligations by up to $50 billion. I spoke out against it. The overall legislation, however, contained some very good provisions and enjoyed widespread support. Under the rules of the Senate, I was not able to strip that specific provision from the bill, as members could vote only on the measure as a whole. The measure passed and was signed into law, but I was able to attach an amendment to a later bill to repeal that particular provision. Under the new rules, if I face a similar situation in the future I might have a greater opportunity to strike the offending provision."
"I will keep your concerns in mind as I continue to work for transparence in government. Thank you again for contacting me. Please feel free to keep in touch.
Sincerely,
Richard J. Durbin
United States Senator
RJD/ec"
You're very welcome. I will be sure to keep contacting you as long as I feel you are still avoiding these simple, common sense measures that should be made into laws.
"P.S. If you are ever visiting Washington, please feel free to join Senator Obama and me at our weekly constituent coffee. When the Senate is in session, we provide coffee and donuts every Thursday at 8:30 a.m. as we hear what is on the minds of Illinoisans and respond to your questions. We would welcome your participation. Please call my D.C. office for more details."
That's very nice of you. I doubt I'll ever get to see Washington DC as I'm just a working stiff who makes barely enough money to keep up with my bills, let alone take such an expensive trip, but should I ever find myself there for any reason during the brief periods when the Senate is in session, I will certainly keep that invitation in mind.
After reading your letter I am left with some questions. Do you support the "Read the Bills Act" or do you not? You never seemed to answer that question. Perhaps I am wrong, but judging by the tone of your letter and the excuses you put forward as to why bills don't get read, I would assume that you are not in favor of the "Read the Bills Act" and you are instead in favor of less powerful provisions in Senate rules. This attitude confounds me. I must wonder why any thinking, principled individual would not be in favor of such a bill. Perhaps it is because such a bill might make you guys less powerful by making you more accountable. Perhaps it is because such a bill might make it harder for you guys to sneak into bills legislation that will help your friends and contributors make money. Perhaps it is because such a bill would help empower the people you are supposed to represent. Whatever the reason, Mr. Durbin, if you do not support the "Read the Bills Act" I urge you to reconsider. As time goes by, more and more people are going to find out about this and other common sense bills that will help the people take back control of their government. When this happens, it would certainly look good if you were perceived as a champion of such a bill, rather than a detractor.
.....................................................................................
Don't Tell Us, Hillary, Show Us… - By: shahid khan
Back in 2002 Valentine, my coworker and friend, and I would often have discussions about whether or not the United States should invade Iraq. Valentine was against any action in Iraq and I was on the fence. Valentine explained to me that he felt there was no reason to invade Iraq. He felt that Saddam Hussein was afraid of us. After all, we had the most powerful military in the world. We had already beaten the snot out of his military in an earlier war. He was allowing weapons inspectors into his country. We had effectively defanged and declawed the tiger. Valentine would often argue that he felt Saddam had already gotten rid of all his weapons of mass destruction due to his fear of the U.S. There was no evidence he had weapons of mass destruction, he would argue, and he would do so fairly vehemently and with much certainty. When talking about the threat Iraq posed to the U.S. Valentine would often tell me with a chuckle that Iraq’s navy was a huge threat to ours and that he was certain their military was raising an invasion force that would soon attack us. Those two men in a rowboat could – without a doubt – cause great upheaval in these United States and change our way of life. When I would argue that the U.S. military should go into Iraq simply to liberate its people, he would argue that the citizens of Iraq would fight our soldiers. He explained that we would do the same if some foreign power was to invade us to force a regime change. Time proved he was right on all counts.
A couple of days ago, Hillary Clinton came out and said if she had known how badly the war would go, she would have never voted for it. Makes one wonder what we’re paying her for. If an eighty two year old man sitting in the Midwest far away from the pulse of the U.S. and other world governments knew months ahead of time that there were no weapons of mass destruction, why didn’t Senator Hillary Clinton? If he could see how ludicrous the allegation that Iraq posed a threat to the U.S., why couldn’t Hillary? If he could deduce the obvious using nothing but his common sense, why wasn’t Hillary able to do the same? Perhaps Valentine would make a better presidential candidate than Hillary. After all, don’t we want our leaders to have foresight? Isn’t it a good thing for a high office holder to be able to weigh his actions and determine the potential negative repercussions as well as the positive? Shouldn’t a leader be able to apply common sense to a given situation? It seems to me that perhaps Hillary is lacking in these qualities.
Many people may think I’m being unfair to Hillary, that I’m singling her out. To be fair, George Bush did fool a great many people with his rhetoric and perhaps Hillary was one of these. Certainly, a great majority of her Democratic brethren were, as evidenced by their voting record since Sept. 11th, 2001. They almost unanimously along with their Republican fellows voted to take away the rights guaranteed us by our Creator and codified in our constitution by passing draconian laws in a spirit of fear and anger after that terrifying day. They gave the president emergency powers beyond the scope the constitution outlines for the executive branch. They voted to allow him to invade Iraq and then they kept voting to keep funding the war even after the vast majority of the people in the U.S. could see the folly of the Iraq occupation. Congress, both the Democrats and the Republicans, gave Bush nearly dictatorial powers and abdicated their oversight duty.
On the surface it may seem I’m being unfair to Hillary, but she now wants to be president and so she gives a campaign speech in Iowa. That is why she is now singled out. I can forgive the past, but we all must now worry about the future. Hillary tells us that the war in Iraq is President Bush’s responsibility. She tells us he should extricate our troops from this perilous situation. She informs us that her hindsight is 20/20 and that if she had known then what she knows now she would have voted differently. That’s a convenient thing to say. She has conveniently excused herself for shirking her own responsibility, a responsibility the people of New York hired her to exercise. Will she give us the same excuses next year when we’re at war with Iran? Will she say she never saw it coming even though many experts see it happening? What this country needs now is action. What this country needs now is leadership. All Hillary has given us thus far is excuses and lip service. Enough of the rhetoric. The war is as much the responsibility of congress, both the house and the senate, as it is of the executive. They are equal branches of the government. Hillary says that it is Bush’s responsibility, yet there are substantial actions these governmental bodies can take to stop this madness. Show us your leadership skills, Hillary. Demand the early termination of the Bush presidency. Demand that your Democratic brethren in the lower house draw up articles of impeachment. Demand that your fellows in the senate find him guilty. That shouldn’t be too hard to do considering President Bush’s lies and blatant disregard for the constitution he took an oath to uphold. Show your leadership. Demand that the Republicans listen to their constituents screaming in the streets for our soldiers to come home now. Demand that they work with you in the spirit of bipartisanship you seem to hold so highly and support the impeachment of this president so that we can but a halt to the insanity in the Middle East before it spreads. Show us what a uniting force you can be. If the president insists on continuing his fool hardy attempt to stay the course, then demand that congress stop the funding. The U.S. is bleeding green ink and at the very least a tourniquet is needed. Stand up to the war profiteers as only a truly brave leader can and tell them they are no longer welcome to dine on our tax dollars. Stand up to any who would lobby for this war and tell them you can no longer accept their blood money. Prove your leadership and strong arm your colleagues into repealing the Patriot Act and the Military Commissions Act. Show us that you care about the freedom and liberty of the American people. Prove that you do not fear the free speech rights of those who would dissent. These times are extraordinary, Senator Clinton, and as such the ordinary is no longer good enough. It is no longer acceptable to simply cry foul and point. Now is the time to let your voice be heard not by shouting the loudest, but by doing what is necessary to not only stop the current war, but prevent the future one.
.....................................................................................
Big Bailout, Shafting the Honest Folk - By: Yusuf Shaikh
Were you paying attention? Did you hear them speaking? Did you listen to what they were saying? Perhaps you did, but I can say this, I don't believe they listened to you. In fact, they more or less proved they don't care about you one iota, unless you happen to be one of their wealthy friends.
The 700 billion dollar bailout congress passed on Oct. 3rd, 2008 has ballooned and will continue to do so. It will go to the banks and to the lobbyists who support the cabal in Washington, DC. Though it is your money to be stolen from you in the form of taxes, when it comes back to you it will do so in the form of loans where you will have to pay interest to borrow your own money. By the time these loans are paid back, the banks will have "earned" most likely many times the original amount in interest. The common man once again gets screwed. Our progeny has been sold out. Most of you likely already realized this. Most of us common folk realized this, judging from the amount of calls, emails, etc. received in the House of Representatives. Yet none of that mattered.
Both Barack Obama and John McCain proved that they were nothing more than yes men for the moneyed interests. Neither one of these so called men are leaders. If one of these men had been a leader, he'd have spoken out against this bill. If one had done that, he'd have likely sewn up the presidential election right there. Both these men are afraid of speaking out against these special interests. Both are afraid of challenging the power of the Fed and the various moneyed lobbyists. This latest incident, this "credit crisis" proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that neither one of these men is ready to deliver any kind of significant change. This incident makes any kind of comparison of Barack Obama to John F. Kennedy laughable. John F. Kennedy at least spoke out against the Fed, secret societies, and other powerful entities influencing government. Obama merely talks about "change" and "hope" as if simply talking about them will make things better and McCain simply parrots Obama and hides behind the skirts of a feisty woman in hopes she'll win him the election. It breaks my heart to think 100 million honest, hard working people will waste their votes on one of these two undeserving men instead of voting for another choice.
The Senate showed just how despicable it was during this farce. They decided to override all proper legislative procedures and introduce into the house their version of the bill using a legislative "trick" to put pressure on the peoples' representatives to pass a bad bill. Like Mr. Stranger Danger trying to entice a child into his car, they loaded the bill with a bunch of "treats" in an effort to get the people of this country to climb on board. Perhaps the common folk of this country weren't foolish enough to climb into such a vehicle, we were taught better than to trust a stranger with candy, but the majority of our representatives apparently couldn't resist the temptation.
On the other side of the coin, the banking industry was trying to frighten us into submission. They were threatening economic holocaust should the bill not pass. They were threatening a total collapse of our entire economy if the bill should fail. We were supposed to shake and quake in fear and submit to their demands. They acted as if the economy depended upon a few big banks distributing money. They acted as if they were the ones in control of the economy instead of the markets being free and left to obey the dictates of supply and demand. Perhaps they are right as they have built a fraudulent system predicated upon their ability to extend credit rather than a system based upon honest money that one has already earned. Though the people on Main Street America (a phrase those in power have recently been using) were not frightened by the scare tactics of the moneyed interests, our representatives apparently were.
Now I believe in the people of this great nation of ours and I believe that we would continue to do business with each other even if the credit system collapsed, but I've also no doubt that those in power with all that money could indeed do great damage to our economy if they so wished. If this is so, wouldn't it make more sense to take the credit issuing system out of the hands of private interests like the Federal Reserve and integrate it back into the Treasury Department so at the very least the people don't have to pay interest when they borrow their own money? The Constitution of this great nation spells out that the coinage of money is, after all, the purview of the House of Representatives. Why should we entrust our system of money and credit to those who would use it as a means to blackmail us?
But that is another point perhaps to be revisited upon on another day. Right now, I'm more concerned with the total breakdown of our system of governance. It starts with the leadership. We are supposed to take their advice into consideration. In this case, we did, and the people decided they didn't like the advice they were being given by an administration that has constantly lied to us. It trickled down to the Senate whose members can perhaps get passes because it can be argued that they are supposed to be looking after the best interests of the state they represent, not necessarily the people of that state. It is a weak argument, but a valid one. It is in the House of Representatives, where the members are supposed to carry out the will of their constituents, not their own personal will, that the breakdown was most evident.
By all accounts, something happened in congress that was unprecedented during the last few days. Many people actually took the time to write, email or phone their congress critters in the hopes that this time their voices would be heard and someone would pay attention to them. The people of this country overwhelmingly told their congressmen to vote against this bailout bill. They did what they were supposed to do. They participated in the system that is supposed to represent the will of the people. But instead of being listened to, the people found that their pleas fell upon too many deaf ears. Even the Representatives in the people's house no longer care what the people have to say. Even they are beholden to the moneyed interests.
Perhaps Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House, best illustrates the disdain for the people these Representatives seem to have. The powerful, magnificent, all knowing Nancy Pelosi reportedly said that the people of her district were uninformed when asked about the overwhelming numbers who had taken the time to write, email or phone her concerned that she would vote "yes" for a bailout bill and asking that she vote "no." She didn't care what the people of her district thought or felt. This almighty, omnipotent being knew better than her lowly, uninformed subjects. She wasn't going to put aside her own feelings and vote the will of the people she represents, which is supposed to be her job. She wasn't even going to try to slow down the passage of the bill so that she could explain to the people in her district why she felt the bill was necessary and try to change their minds. To her, it wasn't important that they understand, as long as she did. No, she'd simply vote against the will of the people of her district and call them ignorant. The same was true for all the other congressmen who followed her lead and voted for the bailout.
I hope you were paying attention. I hope everyone was paying attention. It became obvious to me years and perhaps even decades ago that voting, especially at the federal level, didn't much matter in the grander scheme of things and that it seemed no matter who ran for office only puppets of the moneyed interests somehow managed to gain office. Whenever a principled politician ran against an establishment candidate it seemed the game was rigged in favor of the establishment candidate. Somehow, despite years of abuse and obvious power brokering, a vast majority of incumbents manage to get re-elected. I'm hoping against hope it will be different this year. I'm hoping to see every congress critter who voted for this bill voted out of office, no matter his party, no matter how you feel about party politics. It would be nice to see such vacancies taken by principled men and women of third parties, but simply voting out those 263 members who voted for this bill against the will of the people of their districts would send a very powerful message, and I have the feeling that in order to accomplish this they will have to be overwhelmingly voted out.
Watching the events of last week has given me hope, and I believe it has given many other freedom loving individuals hope as well. Even though we seemingly lost a very important battle, I at least have seen some encouraging happenings. The people of this great nation of ours are awakening. They have grown sick and tired of the very powerful and the very wealthy manipulating our system of government. They have shown they want to take the government back and make it fairer for all. They have shown they want to take part in the decision making processes. They have shown they care. They did things the way they were supposed to do things in order to create peaceful change, and they were still frustrated, so now it becomes necessary to speak at the voting both. I can only hope the polls aren't rigged. If they are, then God help us all.
In 1962 in a speech at the White House, John F. Kennedy said, "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." Let us hope his words are not prophetic. Let us hope that there is no one behind the scenes making peaceful revolution impossible.
.....................................................................................
Enter your search terms Submit search form
Web www.articlerich.com
Article Directory Home Copy Article Email To Friends Publisher Guidelines
Home | News & politics | Political history
....................................................................................
Famous Indian Politicians - By: Rita Jain
Famous Indian Politicians
The Indian Parliament would be a perfect place to demonstrate the true richness in the diversity of India. There is a political representation from almost all the sections of the society inside the parliament. Politics is no longer the occupation of the old, the recently concluded General Elections have demonstrated active participation by young politicians and they have also been been approved by the public at large.
Let us accept the fact that there are a wide variety of reasons why people enter politics. We have seen history-sheeters join politics and also people hungry for power and wealth. These are definitely the downsides of Indian political set-up wherein we see bad elements enter politics for purely selfish reasons. On the other hand, we have also witnessed people choosing politics as their occupation because they want to make a difference to the society, they want to contribute, carry on the legacy of their ancestors who have made a name for themselves serving the country.
There have been many famous politicians who have had earned massive mandate from the people of India and have made a name for themselves in the mainstream Indian politics. India has been blessed with many famous politicians, right from the veteran Indian politicians like Jyoti Basu, Atal Behari Vajpayee, Farookh Abdullah to seasoned campaigners like Sheila Dikshit, Sonia Gandhi, Lalu Yadav and now to the relatively new entrants like Sachin Pilot, Jyotiraditya Scindia and Akhilesh Yadav. These famous Indian politicians have all played an active role in Indian politics, some have retired the others are still working religiously towards strengthening their respective political parties.
I just hope that Indian politics is enthused with more of the young blood and people choose politics as a reason to serve the nation and not themselves.
For more information on the famous Indian politicians, please log on to
http://www.surfindia.com/celebrities/politicians/
.....................................................................................
IDF Continues To Investigate - By: yura272727
IDF continues to investigate the outcome of the operation «Cast lead», and in particular to determine the identity of Palestinians killed during the fighting.
According to IDF estimates, during the war in Gaza were killed by Palestinians 1100-1200. At this time the military determined that at least 700 of that number were militants or men, involved in terrorism. 250 people from among the dead were civilians. Regarding the rest of the data have not yet been received, and the IDF believes that most of them are among the militants, reported Ynet, referring to a senior army source.
Among the militants killed by an absolute majority - members of Hamas, claim the military. So far, many bodies of rebels have not yet recovered from the ruins of houses, so the data on casualties yet Hamas.
According to the source, the IDF initially gave a cautious assessment of the number of dead militants, as many of them originally adopted for the Civil: many Hamas during the fighting moved through the streets in civilian clothes and without weapons, and weapons depots were in the houses. Belonging to the slain HAMAS only after becoming familiar with his name and personal data.
Source Ynet in an army guide told journalists that the data are known, and Hamas, but Hamas make every effort to hide them.
As reported on Monday visited the Gaza correspondent of Washington Post Craig Uaytlok among the wounded lying in a city hospital «Shifa», almost no children - Palestinian doctors told the American journalist, that almost all the victims of the war children were sent for treatment in Israel and Egypt . Palestinian medics also said Craig, that the civilians were «approximately half» of the total number of deaths during the war, and children - «less than a quarter». Earlier, representatives of Hamas and the international organizations in Gaza said that three-quarters of those killed were civilians FDI.
In general, satisfied with the outcome of the IDF operations in Gaza and intends to consolidate and move into other areas of several methods used in the operation «Cast lead». MOVING TORONTO MOVERS
....................................................................................
Sarkozy's first year in office - By: Johnny Summerton
No prizes for guessing what’s filling the column inches of many a newspaper editorial here in France today. It’s the first anniversary of the election of the French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, and the media is having a field day to mark the occasion.
Much of the comment addresses Sarkozy’s staggering tumble in the popularity polls and what seems to be generally accepted as a turbulent first year in office. There’s no denying that a drop from 65 to 32 per cent approval ratings in the space of just one year doesn’t exactly sit easily with a man who came into office with such high hopes.
But it’s worth taking a moment to look at how Sarkozy is faring in comparison with his predecessors.
He has been accused of being omnipresent, stepping on the political toes of many of his ministers, yet by comparison with the founder and first president of the Fifth French Republic, Charles de Gaulle, he has kept an almost low profile.
At the end of his first year, de Gaulle had not only rewritten the constitution – something Sarkozy is trying to update – he had also taken the country to war in Algeria. In spite of that his approval ratings were at 58 per cent.
In 1970, one year into office, Georges Pompidou had poured money into the arts and commissioned the building of a national museum in his honour and still had the enviable level of 67 per cent approval.
Sarkozy could also look back longingly at the first year of Valéry Giscard d’Estaing who in a sense might be termed the precursor of an action-packed president, if not with glamour and glitter then certainly in policy reform.
By 1975 Giscard d’Estaing had appointed the country’s first minister for women, pushed through abortion legislation and increased taxes within the space of a year. And still he managed to retain 59 per cent approval ratings.
After entering office François Mitterrand didn’t hang around and by the end of his first year in office in 1982 had abolished the death penalty, opened up radio airwaves giving rise to a media boom and introduced wealth tax. Admittedly he witnessed a drop in popularity to 51 per cent, but he still hung around for another 13 years.
Sarkozy’s immediate predecessor, Jacques Chirac, was the president whose first year in office the present incumbent’s most closely mirrors. In 1996, just one year into his first tenure, Chirac’s approval ratings had dropped from 59 to 36 per cent, but by the same token he didn’t really achieve very much apart from ending compulsory military service.
And the true lesson for Sarkozy to learn – and part of the reason expectations were so high when he was elected in May 2007 – is that much of Chirac’s time in office was characterised by political inertia.
That brings us back to Sarkozy's first 12 months into the job. The truth of the matter is that his style has raised more than a few eyebrows and left many feeling decidedly uncomfortable with his ability to be “statesmanlike”.
His quick divorce and even faster remarriage certainly made too many headlines for a nation used to a “private life” remaining exactly that. Sarkozy is undoubtedly a gifted orator, but sometimes his infamous temper and almost petulance has seemed to get the better of him such as when he coarsely insulted a visitor to the agricultural show in February.
Aside from style, policy has been Sarkozy’s biggest problem. He has so far failed to deliver on his election promise to increase purchasing power, there are ongoing talks with trade unions to introduce pension reform and he’s struggling to kick start the economy by tackling the 35-hour working week.
It’s not enough to keep promising that results will come – the French want to see the proof.
Even Sarkozy’s admission that he failed to “communicate” by getting the message across from the very beginning doesn’t seem to have stemmed his drop in the polls, nor does his oft-repeated reminder that he has five years in office and results should be judged at the end of his tenure.
In spite of the grumblings Sarkozy does have some factors on his side.
First up of course is the rotating presidency of the European Union, which France takes over for six months at the beginning of July.
That could give him the opportunity to shine on the international stage and relieve some of the pressure he’s feeling on the domestic front – a common ploy of many a beleaguered leader.
He still has a healthy parliamentary majority, which might prove vital if there’s more industrial action. Already there’s a national education strike planned for the middle of this month and the jury is out on how unions will react to civil service cuts or how those pension reforms will pan out.
In addition the opposition Socialist Party is still licking its wounds after last year’s defeats in both the presidential and parliamentary elections, even if it did better March’s local elections. There’s likely to be even more infighting later in the year when the Socialists choose their new leader with every week seeming to bring a new candidate into the reckoning.
All those factors combine to give Sarkozy what many political observers consider a certain amount of leeway. After all the bottom line is that he still has four years to go and nobody ever said that being president meant having to be popular.
.....................................................................................
The Importance Of Campaign Signs - By: Adrian Adams
Are you a local politician who is interested in running for office or are you a campaign manager? If you are, the importance of campaign signs cannot be emphasized on enough. Campaign signs are one of the best marketing tools available to politicians today.
One of the many reasons why campaign signs are important to all politicians is due to the exposure gained. Political supporters often line their yards with political signs. In fact, campaign signs are often prominently displayed in lawns, towards roadways or walkways. Did you know that lawn signs can be just as effective, if not more than traditional radio or television advertisements? They can be. Radio listeners and televisions viewers can easily change the channel when they hear or see a political advertisement, but motorists are often unable to avoid yard signs, giving politicians much needed exposure.
In keeping with exposure, signs can help politicians target voters that they may otherwise be unable to reach. Many politicians implement door-to-door meets and greets, but it is highly probable that not all registered voters will be paid a visit. Lawn campaign signs are the best way to target your community as a whole. Name association is another reason why campaign signs are important. Even if a voter is not familiar with a politician and their views, they are still likely to vote for him or her if they have seen their name in print before, such as on a campaign sign.
While there are a number of benefits to campaign signs, it is important to understand successful and proper use. Yard signs can be a successful marketing tool for all politicians, but only if properly used. All politicians should have staff members focusing solely on campaign signs. Yes, they are that important and need that much attention. A plan should be developed that includes the design of all campaign signs, as layouts can be customized, as well as distribution. Distributing campaign signs is perhaps the most important component of a campaign. Political signs do no good if they cannot be seen.
In conclusion, political signs are beneficial to hopeful politicians and their elections in more than ways than ever imagined. To increase your own exposure or the exposure of the politician you represent, take action today. If yard signs have not already been ordered and distributed around the voting community, you will want to get the process started as soon as possible. You only have a limited amount of time to sway voters your way; therefore, no time should be wasted.
.....................................................................................
Human Relations Education Once Considered 'Communist Plot' - By: Stuart Nachbar
Going back to 1980 to write The Sex Ed Chronicles required me to return to the 60's and 70's to get the political setting just right. Until I started my research, I did not know that sex education had been considered part of a 'Communist plot.'
In 1960, John Birch Society president Robert Welch urged parents to join their local Parent-Teacher Associations and take them over. According to a Time magazine reporter in 1969, Welch had "decided that sex education was a 'Communist plot' akin to community fluoridation plans."
As part of my research, I read a National Education Association (NEA) manual, published in 1970, advising state and local teacher's unions on how to confront extremists opposed to sex education in the public schools. The manual referred to a documentary supported by the Society called 'The Innocents Defiled' which put sex education instructors in an unflattering light, saying that they were spreading "moral depravity" and that they were "bent on the corruption of America’s youth, with the ultimate aim of overthrowing the United States."
The John Birch Society also formed a front group called the Movement to Restore Decency (MOTOREDE) to attract non-members to their cause. The NEA manual mentioned an irony: the Society emulated the Communist party, their sworn enemy, by forming a front to hide their true motives. This movement did succeed in attracting its own base: according to author and sociologist Janice Irvine, 80 to 90 percent of MOTOREDE members were not John Birchers. MOTOREDE was not the only organization of its kind; others were parents' organizations with names such as Sanity of Sex (S.O.S.) and Parents against Universal Sex Education (PAUSE).
While opinion polls of the time showed overwhelming (71 percent) support for sex education, and sex education was endorsed by not only the NEA, but also the National Council of Churches, the American Medical Association and the U.S. Catholic Conference, vocal conservative opposition led legislators to reconsider sex education, or gave their political kin ammunition to fight it. Organizations opposed to sex education in public schools existed in 35 states in 1969.
One politician, for example, the late California State Senator John Schmitz, introduced the Sex Education Act of 1969 in the Golden State. While innocently named, this legislation required an 'opt-in,' meaning that any sex education program required 100 percent parental approval before it could be taught in a public school. Schmitz' legislation also called for dismissal and revocation of teaching credentials for any instructor who taught an unapproved class. Three years later, elected as a Congressman from Orange County, Schmitz became the presidential candidate of the American Independent Party, attracting over a million votes.
Aside from linkages to Communism and liberal ideology, opposing arguments against sex education were similar to today: classes are too explicit or specific; they are taught too early; or, abstinence should be stressed over contraception.
However, during the 60's, the organized opposition was also linked to causes that had become, or were about to become unpopular. Parents could be opposed to sex education, but also opposed to, as examples, anti-Semitism, anti-Catholicism or the Vietnam War. As a result, single-issue groups strictly opposed to sex education were more effective than broad coalitions.
Today's opposition to sex education is more sophisticated; conservative Republicans have done a much better job of being more inclusive and grass roots; they are embarrassed when they are seen on the side of any organized group that preaches segregation or discrimination, or shown as hypocrites when they take moral actions contrary to their political views.
Sex education advocates are also more sophisticated; they are better focused on the health and medical reasons for comprehensive sex education, and less disposed to label their opposition as fanatics. There were quick dismissals along this tone during the 60's; they kept their opposition alive—and possibly legitimized them with voters.
A major problem history showed was that sex educators had looked at their cause as a liberal one; that was a mistake in appealing to states with sizable conservative voting blocs and activist conservative legislators. Neither conservatives nor liberals want their opponent's views legislated on them, even when they are in the minority.
Today, people of all views are more accepting towards sex education. We do see legislatures with 'abstinence-only' and 'abstinence until marriage' positions as well as 'opt-in' policies—but sex education is not going away. Advocates need to do a better job of convincing voters that comprehensive sex education is not a liberal issue, but a health and medical one, as well as an opportunity to deter predatory acts and child abuse.
Today, we see a presidency that prefers to fund 'abstinence until marriage' programs, although some governors courageously refused to pursue the money this time around, as the requirements became too extreme—to educate 'abstinence until marriage' through the age of 29. However, the next presidency will promise a more moderate position—or leave the funding issues to the states.
....................................................................................
A Job Description for Congress - By: Stephanie Vance
Recent polls show that Americans aren't at all impressed with our U.S. Congress. Really. I know you're shocked to hear it, but it's true. In fact, a recent AP poll shows that 73% of Americans disapprove of the job Congress is doing, while only 22% approve. These are the lowest numbers in decades. Oh, and in case you're wondering if the question was "leading", it wasn't. Here is specifically what people were asked:
"Overall, do you approve, disapprove or have mixed feelings about the way Congress is handling its job?"
I don't know about you, but I don't think there are a lot of ways to misinterpret that question.
So what's behind all this crankiness? Well, I think a few key factors are coming together in a sort of "perfect storm" for members of Congress. What are they? I'm glad you asked.
Reason #1: Candidates Over Promising
In the 2006 elections, with Democrats eager to take over the House and Senate, there were a whole lot of promises made by candidates about getting the U.S. out of Iraq quickly. If you haven't noticed, we're still in Iraq. In fact, most of the increase in disapproval ratings comes from annoyed liberal Democrats who assumed that once Democrats took over Congress, all would be well (from their perspective).
Here's the thing, though. Frankly, there's no way in heck that any single member of Congress can have any impact at all on an issue of such national scope – much less quickly. In the legislative process it takes a minimum of 271 policy makers (½ the House plus ½ the Senate plus the President) to reach agreement on anything before it can be implemented. 271 people simply aren't going to make quick decisions.
Clearly, candidates and incumbents alike do a disservice to their constituents when they promise things that, because of the nature of the institution, they can't deliver. As citizens, we have a responsibility to call them on it every once in a while, right?
Reason #2: No One Understands What "The Job" Is
But the problem isn't just with unscrupulous politicians making promises they can't keep. In fact, a major part of the problem is that very few people – candidates and citizens alike – have any idea what "Congress' job" is! When asked, most people would say that it is Congress' job to pass legislation. Period. So naturally it's disappointing when we hear that of the 10,000 bills introduced in a Congressional session, only about 4% pass.
The truth is, though, that while Congress as an institution is the branch of our government designated to make laws as necessary and appropriate, it is the job of individual members of Congress to represent the interests of the district or state they've been elected to serve. More often than not, these two objectives are at odds. It's like asking United Airlines to run a national flight schedule while telling individual pilots they can fly wherever they want (granted, this summer it's felt a little like that).
It seems to me that to clarify the position for candidates and citizens alike, we need a job description for members of Congress, maybe something along the following lines:
Wanted. Genial, ethical, trustworthy, highly intelligent, photogenic worker who plays well with others. Must be willing to fight tooth and nail for the interests of his or her region while also maintaining a national perspective. Will be responsible for approximately 750,000 to several million customers, depending on the region. Must be able to work independently, but not TOO independently.
Duties include responding to several thousand to several million communications per month, meeting with customers as requested, introducing and pursuing policy initiatives and attending meetings as called at random by institution leadership. Must be willing to work 24 hours per day, seven days per week. Will need to raise own funds to maintain position (on own time).
Benefits include salary that must be used to maintain two households, full health coverage and pension, the occasional under $25 lunch and the thrill of being called "The Honorable." Workers will also be treated with deference by many (and with derision by many more). In addition, effective workers will have the ability to make a difference for people in their communities
OK, I'll grant that this doesn't include a full description of either the duties or the benefits, but it does, hopefully give us a different perspective on what Congress "does." I'll be the first to admit that many current members of Congress are under qualified for the position, and that's why we have elections.
Reason #3: Citizens Expect Too Much
Finally, fueled by the combination of candidates over-promising and a lack of understanding about what Congress does, citizens have come to expect too much from Congress. There it is. I've said it. I know that many people will tell me that "we pay their salaries" and that "we have a right to expect more" and I agree! We should expect a great deal from our representatives in government.
What should we expect of them? We should expect them to represent the interests of the region they are elected to serve in the best way they can during the consideration of legislation. And what should we expect of Congress as an institution? We should expect Congress to very slowly and very deliberately, with much rancor, debate and compromise, pull all the various interests together into one cohesive whole.
Hmm, seems like that's what's happening. Maybe it's a little too much "rancor, debate and compromise" for the majority of Americans and, if so, it's definitely time to look at how the institution is structured. Because believe me, the U.S. Congress will never become a lean, mean, policy-making machine without some major changes.
All that said, it doesn't seem reasonable or responsible to leave it at "gee, that's how Congress is." I mean, we all want a government that we can approve of and believe in, right? So, how can you and your organization make a difference? Here are a few ideas:
* Help advocates understand what Congress can and cannot do for them. There are some resources on my site that may be useful. Or you can download our advocacy checklist in our Article Vault. Another great resource is Open Congress
* Let candidates know that making promises they can't keep is grounds for dismissal. At the same time, be clear about your criteria – one great way to do so is through a candidate survey. If you're considering running one, let us know! We might be able to help.
* Vote! If you think a member of Congress doesn't live up to the job description, find someone who will. Register to vote at www.beavoter.org
* Come up with your own ideas for reform – if you want a Congress that will "get things done" and/or is "more responsive" then help take the steps necessary to get there (recognizing that those goals may be mutually exclusive). Do you think we should have fewer Representatives? A different process? More public participation? Share your ideas – and your enthusiasm!
Armed with your ideas, support and positive advocacy efforts, perhaps we can make Congress an institution we can all be proud of – or at least not be really, really annoyed at!
....................................................................................
The Web and the 2008 Presidential Race - By: Joem Hughes
A lot of people have expressed that there is too much buzz on the upcoming 2008 presidential race. They are saying that since the election is more than a year away, there is no need to be excited. However, it is clear that more and more people are starting to become involved in the election away because of the advances in modern technology.
Modern technology and the World-Wide-Web are changing the way presidential campaigns raise money, organize their networks of volunteers and engage in public debate. For instance, the candidates can now spread their campaign message and reach out to voters through their personal campaign websites. The candidates also have more opportunity to bypass the mass media and forge a deeper, more personal relationship through e-mail, political video, online chats and podcasts. The wide-open forum of the Internet and related technologies create the potential for a more wide-ranging political dialogue.
More than 3,000 groups have formed on Barack Obama’s site a week after he announced his presidential campaign and the launching of his website. These groups ranged from the Iowa Union Members for Obama and New Hampshire Firefighters for Barack to the Hip Hop for Obama. More than 4,000 people have also started blogs on the site and more than 3,000 have set up personal fund raising web pages.
Of course, Obama’s site is just one of the brazen attempts to use the power of Web-based social networking to channel a surge of enthusiasm and a flood of money into a broad-based political movement. For instance, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton signaled the start of the new campaign era by announcing the launching of her presidential exploratory committees through a web video.
Clinton’s campaign staff then followed it up with a series of highly publicized video Web chats. She also used non-political Internet forums such as Yahoo! Answers to reach reached out to potential supporters. In fact, a question that solicited ideas to improve the health-care system election issue has already has drawn more than 38,000 responses.
However, the Internet did always offer something positive for the candidates. Attacks on the candidates can come from many more directions because the mass media no longer an arbiter. For instance, the release of the Hillary 1984 video caused quite an uproar just a few weeks ago. The video has been viewed by more than three million people, illustrating the potential of using the Internet for political purposes.
Many political professionals are saying that Internet communications still have not shown much power to sway undecided voters. For example, the result of the recent election 2008 polls show that the Hillary 1984 video did make much of an impact. Nevertheless, the Web already has proven itself as a fund raising force and that capacity has only increased with the expansion of broadband access. For instance, Obama was able to raise $25 million largely through online contributions. The Internet also provides a powerful means to strengthen support once someone has taken an interest in a candidate.
....................................................................................
The Canadian Political System - By: Dave Lympany
The Canadian political system as it is known today was first drafted by the "Fathers of Confederation" at the Quebec conference of 1864. This then became law when the constitution act was passed in 1867. This act gave the formal executive authority to Queen Victoria (Queen of Great Britain) which made Canada a sovereign democracy. The Canadian political system is therefore loosely based on the British system.
Now, Canada is an independent Federal state with the Queen still the head of state. Her powers are extremely limited however, as the Parliament passes the laws which the Queen gives the "Royal Assent" as the final step. The Governor General of Canada is the Queens representative in Canada and carries out all the Royal obligations when the Queen is not in Canada. The Governor is always a Canadian chosen by the Queen on the advice of the Prime Minister. The length of office is normally five years for the Governor General.
The Houses of Parliament (housing the Federal Government) are located in Canada's capital city, Ottawa. There are 3 main sections to the Canadian Parliament. The Queen as the Head of state; the Senate (appointed on the Prime Minister's recommendations) and the elected House of Commons.
The Federal Government has the power to "make laws for the peace, order and good government of Canada" which includes International policies, Defence, Immigration, Criminal Law, Customs and Border control.
The Senate
The Senate is made up of 105 Senators who are appointed by the Governor General on the recommendation of the Prime Minister. These Senators are men and women from all of the Provinces and from a wide variety of backgrounds. They can serve on the Senate up until age 75 and have to be a Canadian citizen, over age 30, own $4,000 of equity in land in their home Province, have over $4,000 as personal net worth and live in the province represented. Each Province or Territory has a set number of Senators - 24 each from the Maritimes, Quebec and Ontario, 6 each from Alberta, BC, Manitoba and Saskatchewan, 6 from Newfoundland and Labrador and a further 1 each from the three Territories.
The main role of the Senate is to read over and examine the "Bills" sent from the House of Commons though they can also initiate Bills. This process ensures that no rogue bills will become law, though only rarely do the Senate reject a Bill - sending it back to the House for amendment. The Bills are subjected to the full legislative process by the Senate and if passed will be given to the Governor General for Royal Assent and thus become Law.
House of Commons
The real power is held by the House of Commons. Here, the members of Parliament (MP's) are elected by the general public during a Federal election - normally every 5 years. The country is split up into constituencies (total 308 by population size) and whichever candidate has the most votes wins the right to represent that constituency and take their "seat" in the Parliament.
Each Most candidates represent a particular political party and the party with the most "seats" takes over as the Government. The main parties in Canada are Paul Martins Liberals (ruling), Stephen Harpers Conservatives, Jack Layton's New Democratic Party, The Bloc Quebecois and The Green Party to name the largest.
The leader of the political party that wins the election becomes the Prime Minister of Canada (currently Paul Martin of the Liberals). The Prime Minister effectively runs the country with the support and advice of his Cabinet. The Cabinet is made up of "Ministers" chosen by the Prime Minister to be responsible for certain areas of the Government. There are ministers of Health, Finance, Defence and Immigration to name a few. These areas of responsibility are called "Portfolio's" and each minister will have a large team of civil servants (normally the experts in that field) working for him/her. Only the ministers change during an election - not the civil servants.
Though the MP's represent their local constituency, their main duties are debating the laws to be made and, depending on their Party, either supporting or opposing the Government. The opposition is the political party with the second most seats in the House and their main job is to hold the government accountable for their decisions.
A Government with a lot of seats in the House will be strong and able to pass most laws they want through Parliament. Conversely, a weak Government (such as now) doesn't have the majority of the seats and has to rely on the support of another party to form an effective Government.
After each election, the Senate and the House of Commons either elect (House) or appoint (Senate) a Speaker. The Speaker is in charge of proceedings and has to be impartial, enforcing the rules of the House/Senate during debates and votes. The Speaker presides over the House from a raised chair with the Government MP's om the right and the opposition on the Left.
Making the Laws
To start with, the House of Commons members introduce a "Bill" (legislative proposal). The details of the Bill are read in the House without debate and then the Bill is printed (the first reading).
During the second reading the principles of the Bill are debated followed by a vote. If successful, the Bill is then sent to the Committee stage.
A committee will listen to testimony, examine the Bill and then submits a report to the House recommending it as it is, with amendments or scrapped. From here it goes to the report stage.
In the report phase, any amendments are debated and voted on. Then it will pass to the third reading. This is where the House finally debates and votes on the final draft - if it passes the vote it is sent to the Senate.
The Senate put the Bill through the same process as the House - if it comes through all that (normally does!) it is given Royal Assent and becomes Canadian Law!
For more detailed information go to http://www.onestopimmigration-canada.com/canadian_political_system.html
.....................................................................................
No comments:
Post a Comment