Pages

Monday 31 December 2012

So Joe, Tell Us Again How Great Things Are Going In Afghanistan - I Must Have Missed Something?

Apparently, I am just stupid and don't know a thing about foreign affairs. Apparently, the Obama Administrations plans and strategies cannot be questioned, not by you or I, not by the media, or even someone running for office. The message they gave us was "the terrorists are on the run and we are bringing the troops home with a job well done," and that was the foundation of their arguments for their policies in Afghanistan the Obama Administration and the Obama/Biden 2012 campaign. Well, okay fine, but something is amiss because things are not fine in Oz after all it seems.

On Sunday Morning December 2, 2012 there was a news flash which spread across the news wires. The USA Today stated; "Suicide bombers assaulted Jalalabad Airfield, a joint U.S.-Afghan air base in eastern Afghanistan, detonating explosives at the gate and sparking a gunfight that lasted at least two hours."

Now then, do you remember when Vice President Joe Biden and Vice Presidential Candidate Paul Ryan debated on TV and Mr. Biden told Mr. Ryan that he didn't know what he was talking about when it came to training the Afghan forces and that things were not going well in the East of the Country? Joe Biden laughed at Paul Ryan trying to make him look like a fool on TV, and stated that the Obama Administration had absolutely everything under control, not only are things not in control there now, but Mr. Biden couldn't control his laughter or his misstatements during that debate back then.

The mass media kept telling the American People that Joe Biden won the debate? But as time goes on we see that Joe didn't have his facts straight or was just continually telling falsehoods. That is not winning a debate, in my opinion that would be called; lying. But of course, the gentleman and scholar Paul Ryan isn't allowed to say that, politicians get pummeled for using the "L" word, well Republican Candidates I guess, it's okay if the left-leaners scream up and down calling everyone the "L" word and if you disagree with them still, they call you the "R" word.

It's too bad that the American People didn't get a real debate on international affairs, after all, it is the US Taxpayer still paying for what's going on around the world, you know things like the contributions to the IMF to bailout Greece, the foreign aid to Egypt, the costs of the United Nations, the Libyan fiasco, and the war in Afghanistan. If the Obama Administration told falsehoods to get reelected and figured they had to or they would have been defeated then in that case they are not in office legitimately.

Thus, might I be so bold as to suggest that the Obama Administration is unfit to lead, especially when it comes to our Nation's foreign policy? Well, I'd like some straight answers about Afghanistan, about the Libya Benghazi attack, and while we are at it, I have about 20-more questions I'd like answered, sooner than later. I will continue to write more articles these issues. Please consider all this and think on it.

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


View the original article here

Gun Control or Better Media? Which Will Really Stop the Violence?

Anyone who's been in touch with recent events in America knows that the school shooting in Connecticut has refocused attention on gun control. But will gun control really curtail gun violence?

THE PROBLEM IS THE ENVIRONMENT?

Certainly, as best-selling author Malcolm Gladwell points out in Tipping Point we are shaped by our environment. In a no-gun environment, gun violence would drop to zero. But no one seems interested in making America a no-gun environment. Gun control, yes. Gun elimination, no. We want our police and our military to have guns. Politicians, Hollywood stars, and high-level businesspeople want their bodyguards armed. As a people we don't seem terribly concerned about allowing people to hunt or to shoot guns recreationally. What we want is to curtail gun violence. So the question is: how is that possible in an environment where both legal and illegal firearms exist?

THE PROBLEM IS MOTIVATION

In his landmark TED talk Tony Robbins says, "If I pull a gun on you and I'm in the hood, instantly I'm significant from zero to ten how high? Ten!" Tony claims that everything we do is motivated by our six human needs. Particularly violence is motivated by our need for significance, that is our need for attention, or our need to feel unique, special, different. Looked at from this angle, people will turn away from violence when we take away its significance.

STORIES MOTIVATE

Going back to Tipping Point, Gladwell analyzes the meteoric rise in suicide attempts by teenage boys in Micronesia after a highly publicized 1966 suicide by the "charismatic scion of one of the wealthiest families" of Ebeye. That story motivated other boys whose publicity motivated others in a vicious cycle that has caused the suicide rate among young males in Micronesia to hit one out of every thousand, and on some islands, one in forty. Many of these suicides seem to be triggered by banal disagreements with older family members and do not fit the traditional "cries for help" model. Still, each one is highly publicized, giving permission and even encouragement to the next.

MORE LAWS OR BETTER MEDIA?

Now of course, Micronesia could outlaw rope, wire, belts, and anything else these men might try to hang themselves with, but wouldn't it make more sense to take away part of the reason they're committing suicide? What if the Micronesian media refused to report on suicides the way TV stations now refuse to show stadium streakers at baseball games? By taking away suicide's significance, you could take away a major motivational factor. And what about gun violence?

SHOOTER VS. HERO

By now everyone knows the name of Adam Lanza, the Newtown shooter. How many instead know the name of Victoria Soto? She's the 27-year old Newtown teacher who lost her life while saving a whole classroom full of first graders by hiding them in the classroom and telling the gunman they were in the gym. What, she didn't make your local newscast? What if the mass media agreed to a total media blackout about the shooters and focused on the heroes? What would that give us permission and encouragement to do?

Now I'm not saying we don't need intelligent gun laws. We do. I'm suggesting that violence could be greatly curtailed by a media blackout like they already use for streakers at sporting events. Cut away from the action, give a brief commentary, and then focus on the heroes everyone wants to see. Couldn't that spark a social revolution of heroic generosity?

Fr. Scott Kallal is one of the founding members of the Apostles of the Interior Life, a new community dedicated to answering Pope Benedict's call to raise up "a new generation of apostles rooted in Christ's word, able to respond to the challenges of our time, and ready to spread the Gospel far and wide." You can contact Fr. Scott at scottkallal@gmail.com


View the original article here

Sunday 30 December 2012

Fiscal Cliff and Goodwill

Companies have started planning their moves as soon as the news of increased tax rates spread in the market like a forest fire. People who had previously invested in shares that paid good dividends such as large beverage companies and McDonald's are selling their stocks as they feel they wouldn't be of any benefit same time next year. John Moorin a medical equipment company owner near Indianapolis claims that he sold $650,000 worth of shares of high-dividend paying companies mentioned above. According to him he won't benefit from these shares at all after the tax increase.

With Obama getting elected for second time it is nearly sure that tax rise will be in congress any time now to serve his health care program. After the 15% limit set by George W. Bush during his term as president. Obama explains this step as he claims that now even big entrepreneurs are paying lower taxes compared to average workers.

Companies like Wynn resorts Limited owned by Casino Magnate Steve Wynn have started planning for the increase. Wynn who has supposedly been an open critic of high tax rates has planned a special dividend rollout anytime now, worth a whopping $750 million. This previously used to be the amount of four dividend roll-outs. But this seems to be a well-planned step as the company is supposed to save around $20 million if the roll out was made after the tax increase. The plan actually should work as the holders will also benefit from the payout. Question also remains if the tax increase will benefit or negatively will affect the shareholders. Even if seems that premature dividend is dodging the tax increase.

"It's a foregone conclusion the rates are going up; It's just a matter of the rise %", Said Todd Lowenstein, a money manager with High Mark Capital Management Inc. based in Los Angeles. According to him the increase in taxes is sure and maybe somewhere near 39% (normal tax rate). So, it is a good time for companies to payout their shareholders a bit of amount that won't be wasted in any case and will definitely create goodwill for the company.

Standard & Poor also went to the down street after sensing the possible tax increase and has fell 5% in the last week itself. Only, it was Friday when President Obama and a few other significant Republican Leaders showed some signs of relief that the market recovered a bit.

This article can be read on http://politicalnews.biz/ for retweets or other social media.


View the original article here

Saturday 29 December 2012

Rethinking the Unsustainable Democratic Party Before It Implodes Considered

Sometimes, I just laugh when I listen to left leaning political pundits on the cable TV news stations tell us that the Republican Party is broken in half and can't get its act together. It is very interesting to listen to them give advice to the Republicans and GOP on how they should run their affairs, specifically how they should change and meld themselves to what the Democratic Party does and what the socialists want of this nation in the future. I see it completely differently, and I'd like to explain that to you if I might.

You see, I think it's time that the Democratic Party rethinks its platform before it implodes. Socialism doesn't work, and the Democratic Party is promoting much of the socialist agenda in every sense of the word. There will be no good outcome of what they are doing today, in our future. We will be morally and economically bankrupt and so politically correct that we can't even solve the problems we created. It is indeed the Democratic Party which is unsustainable, and needs complete reworking. If it doesn't, and it thinks it can continue this unrealistic utopian agenda it will surely fail.

Currently, the Democrats under the leadership of the Obama Administration are spending nearly $1 trillion per year more than what the federal government takes in. They keep telling us about unsustainability at every turn, they keep telling us what we must do, and that they have the answer, that they can solve the problem, and they request to spend more money. Unfortunately, all the money they've spent already hasn't worked and it's just cost us more in debt. The unemployment problem is still out of control, the debt is now out of control, and they are practicing the definition of insanity;

"Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

What they've done has not worked, and they've made things much worse. It's time for a little bit of fiscal responsibility, and to throw away the linguistic charts of political correctness, and start getting down to business. This fake class warfare nonsense is ridiculous. Stealing money from one group of people and giving it to another is still stealing, it's not right, and it's not fair for the majority to take wealth from the minority and duly give it to themselves.

It does not foster hard work ethic, strength of character, nor self-esteem. It's wrong for America, and inherently everyone knows it, but they still stand with their hands out, and duly vote for the next podium pushing politicians that make such promises. Money doesn't grow on trees, and you can't have something for nothing, and very soon the American people are going to fully comprehend exactly how much $1 trillion actually is. Indeed I hope you will please consider all this and think on it.

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


View the original article here

Money: Most Of The World's Troubles

Money has always been a major cause of most of the world's troubles. The fact that money rules most legislation passed by our Republican Congress is a serious problem in America today. The current government thinks more about the needs and concerns of the wealthy and big business than about the needs and interests of the majority. Examples, Republican's are proposing legislation revoking a totally harmless tax. They want to totally do away with the inheritance tax when our country is not going broke, but well past being broke. What does a dead person care about a tax on his/her estate? It is only the lazy inheritor who does not want to work or, restart a business that cares about that tax. That present tax only begins on those estates valued in the millions of dollars.

America's Supreme Court even says that money is free speech. How is free speech equivalent to money? They are not synonyms! The logic of the Supreme Court is that a person can't be heard without having money. If that thinking is accepted, then money gives a person louder speech. A person with more money has the ability to be visible and heard in more places, such as in more advertisements on different television stations at varying times. Following that logic, a millionaire has louder speech than the average American. A billionaire has even louder speech. A major corporation or a major trade association could potentially trump and blanket even a billionaire's speech. How fair is that? The Supreme Court's ruling is one equal vote per person. The ability to infiltrate the media because of monetary resources invalidates the one vote per person rule. Wealthy individuals or business can use the media to brainwash the public.

Money must be taken out of politics in order to have a true democracy. It is a simple process when it is realized that all radio, television and cable systems are in effect inter-state commerce. When airwaves were first being developed years ago, they were given away free. Major media companies continue to use the public airwaves free, with no ongoing charges. The newly developed parts of the spectrum have been auctioned off at large prices, many times for millions of dollars. The users of the new airwaves are at a disadvantage over those who previously obtained use of the airwaves free. All companies using the spectrum, other than those using it for wireless services should be required to offer all candidates, incumbents and challengers free time within their programming schedules. The cable systems are also interstate commerce; so as a public service it is a mandate to free time is not far off.

If money is removed as an influencing factor in politics, the country would eliminate the need for any politician to go around begging for money. In addition, the incumbent would no longer have the distinct advantage of being a well known individual with wide recognition by the voters.


View the original article here

Friday 28 December 2012

The Fiscal Cliff Budget BS Baffles Bureaucrats and Emboldens the Blob of Bureaucracy

Well, from a CEO perspective, what's going on in Washington DC is beyond belief. What I find amazing is that public companies must put forth all of their accounting documents or they get fined by the SEC. They must be timely, and the forms must be filled out and filed on time. If not there are actually criminal penalties, and the CFO might go to jail. That's how public companies work, and I would submit to you that the shareholders of the United States of America are the people. After all we are a nation "for the people and by the people," and therefore we should hold our representatives in this great Republic accountable.

Interestingly enough, the Constitution states that the legislative branch must pass a budget each and every year. They are not to be afforded excuses for not doing so. In fact there is no excuse, and this has gone on far too long. Further, our government is spending over $1 trillion more than it takes in, but the Obama Administration asserts that we must provide more stimulus to get the economy going. Unfortunately, all the stimulus they've been doing, hasn't been working, and yet, the Obama Administration says it needs more stimulus - why to buy more votes?

We keep hitting our debt limit, going beyond it, failing to provide an adequate budget, and then requesting more money from ourselves. The voters keep voting for left-leaning socialist type leadership that obviously does not know how to balance a checkbook, or even care to. Now, here we are at another so-called "fiscal cliff" which is nothing more than a self-created problem which was pushed forward as our government "kicked the can down the road" until after the election. Why didn't they wait until after the election? So they can get themselves reelected, even though they hadn't done their job.

The Wall Street Journal had an interesting article on November 29, 2012 titled "GOP Rejects Cliff Offer From Obama," by Janet Hook and Corey Boles which stated; " GOP Rejects Cliff Offer From Obama

"President Barack Obama made an opening bid in budget talks with Republicans that calls for a $1.6 trillion tax increase, a $50 billion economic-stimulus program and new power to raise the federal debt limit without congressional approval, a broad set of demands Republicans viewed as a step back in talks to avoid looming tax increases and spending cuts."

Many people say that this was merely President Obama's hardline negotiation style, that he was disciplined, and is an expert negotiator. Actually, President Obama is the President of the United States of America, and therefore such political extortion tactics, and attempts to move constitutional power from the legislative branch to the executive branch due to a self-created crisis is a real problem.

In other countries that have done this, socialist dictator type leaders have risen to power, and eventually run their economies into the ground. We don't need that here, we need not become another Venezuela, Argentina, Spain, Portugal, Italy, or Greece. You see my point yet? Please consider all this and think on it.

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


View the original article here

Thursday 27 December 2012

What Does the Tea Party Stand For? And Do We Stand for It Too?

What is the Tea Party? What do they stand for? Why do we stand for it?

These questions must first be studied and answered before any man judge their demeanor or intentions, as the media has and is doing today. And for any man to prejudge the ideas of the Tea Party proves only one thing true, that their judgement is not sound!

Liberals and Republicans alike have wrongly maligned and abused their stand for truth and liberty, but it is not this that makes me write these words. It is the strong impression that is left once these lies have been told about the Tea Parties agendas. It is not the fact that lies are told but the fact that lies are told by fellow Americans that should see for themselves just how close we are to failing as a Nation and a people. We are headed into the cliff's and no one wants to turn the plane away except the Tea Party, why?

Are we so blinded by personal protection of our petty understandings that we refuse to see the demise of our own country?

How can a people that have shed so much blood and tears be so willing to give it all up for the single most failed ideas in history... socialism?

Why are patriots not cheered to success?

Why are they rather maligned and insulted by their own side. The Tea Party has been unjustly taken to task by Republican shills who work to give the Liberals the win... WHY???

We are in the greatest battle to save America from total loss in our history and what do the people do? They root for the wrong side because greed and power mean more to them than pride and patriotism!

Is it not self evident that America is sickly and needs to be brought to healing by non other than those in which our Constitution was written for? How obvious does out demise have to be? How obvious was Rome's demise just before it fell to it's people who lived during it's republic days? Do you think that IF it were possible that those people would like to have their republic BACK? Of course they would but history only favors those who act when opportunity presents itself not those who get lazy and self-absorbed.

Who are those responsible to heal our land under God?

Does not our Constitution tell us who it is?

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

"We the people" are the only hope and change that our Nation needs at this moment or has ever needed. Simply ignoring that fact does not change that fact. The problem in our Nation today is that we are ignorant of our historical place in the affairs of our Nation. We have fallen prey to a BIG TIME lie, the lie that Big Government is our mother and father figure, that they know best and most importantly that the Government has our best interest at heart. How can we be that stupid in the face of 4 failed years of Obama's socialistic attempts to make that happen? And Bush's attempt to make government bigger, working with progressives to do so? Has big government worked in the past 8 years? NO IT HAS NOT!

I don't get why people have such short memories when it comes to election promises do you?

Every election in memory has been filled with stupid defences of those running that are obviously lies and made up stories, to convince those who know their lies to vote for the liars. What the hell is wrong with us? Do we have a death wish? America is in the hands of people who hate everything that made America great in the first place, we actually turned America lock, stock and barrel over to its murderers gladly, and that's what hurts the most!

In the preamble of our Constitution you will notice that it is the People who are to establish Justice, to insure domestic tranquility, to provide for the common defence and to promote the general welfare not a welfare state beholding to bureaucrats and fools. But most important of all to secure Liberty and establish the Constitution For posterity. Does this sound anything like the liberal mantra we are forced to bear daily on the airwaves? I think not! And yes the government is supposed to be in charge UNDER the people's watchful eye on certain issues like the military, but I ask you have we been watchful? Has the government been successful other than a few times to do it's job well?

It should be obvious to any thinking person that the task at hand is great, since our Government has stolen those preamble rights from it's people and taken upon itself their responsibility. The Government decides what Justice is, they choose how we will feel at peace domestically, they control our military might or lack thereof, they have us chained to their provision of welfare and have our Liberties and Constitutional foundations in their sights. Is the government at the verge of taking away our right? Not immediately for sure but get real the government 70 years ago wasn't this close to doing it ether but I ask you haven't they been in constant drip mode to do for the past 70 years? YES they have and to deny it is just plain moronic in the extreme.

Contrary to all our blood and honor has stood for throughout history we have sold our collective souls for the pittance of personal welfare and personal security.The problem is it is in our hands to gain our own welfare not some bureaucrat in Washington D.C. If that cannot be made clear then America is lost and that is what the Tea Party stands against. To restore us to the glory of our founding and bring us back to our ideals as a Nation it will take ANOTHER Tea Party action of similar intent. In order to overthrow this political fiat by Obama the people must stand strong against his unconstitutional lack of working with Congress.

So why not look to American history to find out what the first patriots did to fight the injustices of the King of England?

"When the East India Company sent shipments of tea to Philadelphia and New York the ships were not allowed to land. In Charleston the tea-laden ships were permitted to dock but their cargo was consigned to a warehouse where it remained for three years until it was sold by patriots in order to help finance the revolution."

"The Boston Tea Party, 1773," Eyewitness to History, http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com (2002).

They used what the King intended to destroy their will to fight against them and in turn paid for their revolt against the injustice. It was a brilliant plan! We need to start using our opponents plans against us against them, momentum is everything when you have it but it's also easy to use momentum against your opponent if you do it properly. That is what the Tea Party is all about, to use the Obama administrations actions against them. We must make indelible marks on history, make it so noticeable, so unavoidable to the senses that people will have to choose between following a lie willingly or changing course dramatically!

The Tea Party stands at a crossroads, a place in history few have witnessed! We are responsible to direct our nation to safety, to reignite the spark of Conservatism that made America great and totally unique among the nations of the earth. America was and still is a Nation without match in the world and that is what's at stake here, it's not about politics and party I.D's, it's not about personal glory or power struggles, it's never been about money but that is exactly what it's about with this administration, they are selling out what America stands for for their own power grabbing advantage, it is PITIFUL INDEED!

The biggest argument the other side uses against us is RACE and the fact that the race accusation isn't used in proper meaning or context doesn't seem to bother anyone.

Why do we accept this term loosely applied to anyone who simply disagrees with what Obama is doing? Giving voice to those who don't agree is just as important in a free society as giving power to those who do agree but to falsely accuse someone with this term is crazy talk.

It's unconstitutional behavior like theirs by any standard you can compare them too, so why do Americans keep electing people who fight like school yard children over a baseball? People who decide our fates as a people or a Nation deserve higher scrutiny not less scrutiny but that is exactly what we have witnessed if we were paying attention that is, during the last two election seasons.

The Tea Party stands for true freedom that is unencumbered by government rules and regulations which take more freedom away than they ever provide because the regulations we accept into our lives are like thieves that we don't see robbing us of our freedom by stealing our constitutional rights. There is only one way for America to remain as a constitutional force in the world and that is to stay connected to our founding principles.

That can happen if the Tea Party's principles which are clearly delineated by each group are instituted Nationwide NOT by force but by plain old common sense in each Americans mind. We must take each course presented to us and compare them, side by side, principle for principle, argument for argument, not backing down, not playing games of race baiting and attacking opponents personal lives.

We the people cannot become as low and standard-less as those in charge of our government and the cronies who support them. With God's help our Nation can survive this onslaught of our freedoms, the worst of all assaults previously! But only if we stick to principles founded upon our constitutional framework.

I am a LICENSED MINISTER of the Gospel and a FORMER WICAN / BLACK WITCH and Substance Abuser who was brought to Faith in Jesus Christ in Aug of 1979. My Ministry is to reach those in the Occult/Cults and SKEPTICISM with the TRUTH of God's Eternal Word! I am unremarkable but my God is most remarkable in his scope and has worked in me a miracle beyond compare.

I am a conservative at heart, I believe in American exceptional-ism. The Constitution is final authority on ANY and all Law decisions. God through the founders established the first and only Nation on earth where Liberty and Justice for all could be born!

My Ministry Sites on politics are:

http://conservativetruthprogressivelies.blogspot.com/

http://alltheusefulidiots.blogspot.com/


View the original article here

Age Of The Reasonable Voter

When India gained independence in 1947(or to be precise were 'gifted' independence in 1947), the huge population had little or no say in the election [again to be precise 'selection'] of Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru as India's first Prime Minister. All that the word 'democracy' signified was that when it came to our political ideology, we were with the western side of the two power blocs existent at that point of time in world history. Whether we accept it or not, Nehru was clever enough to 'strike a balance' by going democratic and socialist both. He wanted the US, but was too afraid to lose the Russians or the Chinese for the matter of fact. The idea was to take the best, and leave the rest. But one gets a feeling that this was done to accommodate the policy and outlook of Non-Alignment that Nehru always endorsed. He wanted India to benefit from everyone, not a bad idea at all.

Over the years, the Indian democracy plunged into the dark and dead phase of a single party system. If you ask me, this was no different from what was going on in China. The Indian National Congress, riding high on the pre-independence exploits of Nehru and Gandhi, managed to win the confidence of the Indian voters over and over again. But there was no contest actually; no other party was a big gun enough to pose a challenge to the strong and widely respected INC. See during those days, the INC was not a political party for the people of India. The image was that these are Gandhi's men who fought hard for our independence and hence deserve to govern us. In the deification of Gandhi, we gifted ourselves with a long lasting Congress hegemony. In the 1970s, the Janta Party did manage to upset the INC momentum, and in the 1990s the party [INC] went through a lot of ups and downs, but if you see it in the long run, INC continues to dominate the Indian political scene - and that too by quite a margin.

What actually propelled the growth and success of INC? As mentioned above, it was the general belief that INC is NOT a political party but simply 'Bapu's group'. Also, both direct and indirect illiteracy ensured that the INC people enjoyed their dominance for a long time. Direct illiteracy obviously means people who were not educated. But what about indirect illiteracy? See even the educated masses were 'educated' and 'trained' to respect and spread INC ideals. The course books included scores of paragraphs describing the work of INC and glorifying INC leaders. INC popularized itself in the course books and created a section of educated people in the society which helped in spreading the message of INC. Indirectly illiterate, these people had no idea that were not 'educated' but 'trained'. It is quite an irony that Gandhi himself wanted the INC to dissolve as he believed that it had served its purpose. But with Nehru and a few other opportunists in waiting, INC was transformed into a full time political party. This meant bidding farewell to the Gandhian concepts of complete selflessness and social service.

The 90s showed us so how 'unstable' a democracy can get. Also, how desperate the leaders can be. When the NDA finally showed up as a strong opponent to the INC led UPA, we entered the age of coalition parties. Yes indeed the Janta party was a coalition, but a coalition as fragile and uncoordinated as the Janta Party cannot really be included in our history books as a 'proper coalition' or as a coalition which forced the INC to seek friends.

Over the years, elections in India have been fought over petty, unreasonable, ridiculous and useless issues. Right from religion to caste, the blame game continued and the voters were misguided or uninterested in elections altogether. But now we see a different breed of voters. This is a time when a democracy is tested. This is a time when political parties must revamp their strength and modernise their methods. Any party that fails to concur - is lost forever. The political parties of our time must realize the importance of restructuring their framework as well as their ideology. We all know how badly the BJP struggles to reach to a conclusion when it comes to deciding the party's basic ideology. The members are nibbling away at each other's faults and the whole alliance [NDA] is shapeless and in despair.

The INC meanwhile, is surrounded by allegations of corruption and poor governance and has become the 'virtual punch bag' for most of us. Need an outlet to drain all your anger and disgust? Start a discussion about UPA and you will be relieved and leave the room as a relaxed and satisfied soul. I don't know what actually invited this avalanche of hatred, but the UPA surely needs a BUZZ!!

After Rajnikant and CID jokes, the UPA jokes entertain audiences all around the world.

We now shift our focus to State elections. If we look at the past one decade, we will see that the verdict of voters in two states, prove that India has entered into the age of the reasonable voter. Gone are the days when a party could rule without offering any form of development to it's voters. When the Laloo Prasad government was given a shocker by Nitish Kumar and company, almost every political analyst blamed the dismal condition of Bihar for the fall of Laloo Prasad Yadav. But what we fail to realize is that along with the pathetic condition of Bihar, it was also the realization of the 'good' by the people of the state that led to the election of Nitish Kumar's team. The people were able to reason out that the current party is not capable enough to take care of Bihar anymore and it is time that someone else was presented with the opportunity to provide and protect the State of Bihar. If we closely observe the activities of Nitish Kumar in the recent past, we can easily deduce that the man has realized that it is only through effective development that his party will be able to continue in Bihar.

Mayawati's elephant succumbing to a team of experienced 'cyclists', namely the 'Baap-Beta' combination of Mulayam and Akhilesh, is another example of how poor performance can lead to an absolute shocker. Mayawati was busy constructing parks and statues while the people of UP were struggling to make ends meet. Along with this, extreme levels of corruption and widespread discontent among the 'Dalits', forced them to withdraw support from their own party. Meanwhile, Akhilesh has promised to deliver. Yes that does not sound like anything new but going by the trends, the duo will know that without development, they cannot expect to stretch their welcome in the state of Uttar Pradesh. The Yadavs are infamous for crimes of all sorts. They need to get rid of this tag and make a move towards developing Uttar Pradesh in a manner that will dazzle not only the people of the state but also the people of the country as is in the case of Nitish Kumar.

So with the voters drawing up a list of pros n cons for every political party that appears before them begging for their vote and support, it becomes very important for each party to enter the 'House Of The Voters' with a report card in hand, clearly indicating how useful they have actually been. I'm so happy that the 'Report Card Age' has finally arrived in India. Just waiting for it to spread its wings and reach every corner of the country, so that the country and the states can actually experience the good that comes from living in a democracy. Buckle up, the journey begins!


View the original article here

Wednesday 26 December 2012

Russian-American Relations: What Each Side Needs to Hear

Ella Odeyash, a Russian expatriate poet living in Israel, said in one of her poems, "About both Russia and Israel I say the word 'we.'" I've lived for extended periods of time in both then-Soviet Union and America. What this means in practical terms is that I have loyalties in both places and want both places to be the best that they can be and to enjoy a fruitful relationship with one another.

But before that is possible there are things that both United States and Russia need to hear.

The Americans need to hear that they did not win the Cold War. If the Communist Cuba and North Korea have gone on indefinitely, then so could have the Soviet Union. Instead a noble-minded leader came into power in the Soviet Union to make the place more humane and more democratic, and in 1991 the military refused to follow the Bolshevik hardliners' orders to shoot at the people gathered in the Red Square. Rewarding these noble actions by making Russia the toilet of the world, while continuing chummy relationship with China whose military did shoot at its people in the 1989 Tiannanmen uprising, is neither politically nor ethically viable stance.

The Russians also need to hear things, the main one of them being that living by the motto of "he fears me, that means he respects me" is not viable at this point in history. Respect at this time cannot be coerced, it has to be earned. And the best way to do that is twofold. One is to practice achievement - in case of Russia, economic and civilian technology achievement in addition to its achievements in science, education, sports, arts and space and military technology. And the other is that of creating a humane, transparent and livable social climate in which we don't have 14,000 Russian women a year dying from domestic violence, 99% of the accused being convicted by courts, and 5,000 young men dying each year from military hazing.

For someone who has two such widely distinct influences, any number of paths is available. One is to side with one against the other. Another is to care about neither side or to hate both. And then there is a superior solution: To seek the well-being of both places and to seek their improved relationship with each other.

You know which stance I am choosing to take.


View the original article here

Mass Murderers Don't Suffer Anguish Over Disobeying Gun Control Laws

Every school and non-school mass shooting in the United States over the past decade has taken place in one of the states in the upper half of the country by strictness of gun control laws, as measured by the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. The sole exception was the targeted political assassination attempt of Representative Gabrielle Giffords in Arizona in 2011.

Even in mass shootings that unfolded in states near the middle of the ranking-e.g., Colorado-the massacres took place in locations where guns were banned. In Aurora, Colorado, the shooting was carried out at a Century 16 cinema, whose parent company's policy prevents firearms on its premises.

As gun control expert John Lott has pointed out, virtually every mass shooting in U.S. history has been carried out against unarmed civilians, whether in gun-free schools, on gun-free college campuses, or in gun-free government buildings. There are no mass killings at shooting ranges, hunting parties, or policeman's balls.

Everyday citizens generally observe gun control laws, but mass killers-who usually turn themselves in or kill themselves after the shootings-don't flinch over violating firearm possession rules. Mass murderers tend not to suffer moral anguish over disobeying gun control laws.

Many shootings, such as the assault at Virginia Tech in 2007 or the Binghamton immigration center in 2009, could have been halted in progress, had one of the victims been carrying a firearm. This hypothetical doesn't apply in the Sandy Hook, Connecticut elementary school shooting last Friday-at least for the schoolchildren-but the impact of most shootings could have been mitigated by the presence of an armed victim.

Liberals keep insisting, every time there's a mass shooting, "It's time to have a debate about gun control." Well, we've had that debate, many times, and the left always fails to make the case that the citizenry are safer as sitting ducks. Even the Supreme Court has finally come around to acknowledging the Second Amendment.

Liberals also mistakenly believe that correlation is causation, such that the simultaneous presence of relatively lax gun laws and high crime rates means the former cause the latter. As John Lott has also shown, there are wide variations in cultural norms, social histories, and violence rates across states, regions, and countries that have nothing to do with gun ownership. What's most relevant is what happens when stricter or looser gun control measures are introduced into a jurisdiction, and how this change affects crime rates. The evidence from Lott's research is incontrovertible: Passing concealed carry weapons laws reduces crime, and passing restrictions on gun ownership and use increases it.

So liberals typically get the gun control issue wrong. But lately a number of conservatives have been getting it wrong, too.

The liberal fallacy occurs when a conservative argues, "This intrusive, unconstitutional policy you're pushing has no demonstrable effect on, and arguably exacerbates, the problem you're trying to eradicate"-to which the liberal invariably replies, "Let's have more of it!"

The conservative mistake is more insidious. The liberal version can be torn apart as the non sequitur it is, but the conservative version seeks to shut off debate.

The conservative fallacy is: "We're better than exploitative liberals who politicize these tragedies and push for gun control. Let's not discuss what caused this tragedy and how to prevent it; let's spend our time praying and crying for the victims."

After mass shootings, liberals shout, "More gun control!" and conservatives cry, "Don't support solutions that could prevent shootings in the future!"

Conservative self-restraint includes disallowing talk about how lives could be saved if victims were armed, and how defending your loved ones isn't just a political stance but a moral issue.

Of course we should have a moment of silence for the victims, send our condolences to their families, and consider the human impact of the tragedy. But can't we spend five minutes talking about how we can arm ourselves-physically or otherwise-against such madness next time?

The mainstream media will accuse conservatives of being cold-hearted if we cite data supporting our claims and don't spend enough time welling up over pictures of crying faces. But if we believe what we say about gun control, shouldn't we pride our ability to abstract from particular cases and not let our emotions get the best of us? Wouldn't the policies we're recommending prevent more of those crying faces?

As one gun control advocate who understands this dynamic notes of the shooting victims, "Their families must be given space to mourn, and that space should be respected. But it does not honour the dead to insist that there must be no room in that space for rational thought and critical appraisal."

Previously published in modified form at Red Alert Politics


View the original article here

Tuesday 25 December 2012

How Can I Trust You To Raise My Taxes Now - After You've Wasted All That Money?

Well, apparently the Democrats want to soak the rich and raise taxes. They say that everyone should pay their fair share. They say that anyone who doesn't think they should pay their fair share has no empathy and is a greedy no good person. Well, isn't it convenient to call people names? I thought we were over that, I thought we agreed as a nation to be politically correct, and not pick on any minority group. Now the 99% wishes to pick on the 1%, and by definition 1% would be a minority wouldn't it?

Not long ago, I was talking to a rather wealthy person, and he said he wasn't too concerned with paying his fair share. But he didn't think it was fair that he had to pay a higher percentage rate than everyone else, especially because he takes very little if any services from the government, he just doesn't need them. He also said that since the government is spending over $1 trillion per year more than it takes-in in taxes, that he really didn't trust the government with more money.

He felt as if they should get their spending in line first, become more efficient, stop wasting all the money, and then if they still couldn't run the government, then it would be fair to raise taxes, but again, not just on him, but everyone. He thinks that everyone should pay their fair share, and the same percentage rate. His logic is infallible, and it even goes with the left-leaning thinking and is politically correct. Let me explain that point in case you missed it.

If we truly want to be fair this country and have true equality, we need equal treatment regardless of who you are, what religion you are, what race you are, what age you are, or how much you make from your hard work and earnings. After talking to him, I felt as if he'd gotten a bum rap along with all the other wealthy 1% people because he didn't seem greedy at all. What he was saying was totally correct, he didn't make any misstatements, try to misguide me in any way, or fill me full of socialist left-leaning populist BS. He just told me how it was, and I respected that.

Indeed, I'm not so sure I respect the other side of the argument now considering all their political rhetoric, demands for more money, and the inability to stop spending like drunken sailors (no offense to drunken sailors). Indeed I hope you will please consider all this and think on it. My name is Lance and I thank you for listening.

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


View the original article here

Monday 24 December 2012

Haven't We Had Enough School Killings? Gun Control Has Failed - Another Look at Alternatives

1. When a terrified person facing harm calls 911, the officer arrives after the crime 95% of the time.

Solution: The average response time of someone who has a gun is seconds. Why rob them of their right to defend themselves?

2. Politicians make laws, and it seems to them that if guns are used to commit crimes, taking away guns is logical. The more that government fails to control crime, the more the politicians restrict our rights.

Solution: Let them remember the Constitution that they swore to uphold. By contrast, Mao Tse Tung said it well, "All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party."

3. There are hidden forces pushing us toward Novus Ordo Seclorum (words on our $1 bill proving this is not a conspiracy theory) but the changes go against our Constitution so those powers are working through the United Nations to coerce US compliance. Gun Control is not about guns; it's about control.

Solution: "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in Government. The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed;... " Thomas Jefferson

4. Christians seem to think it is their duty to "turn the other cheek" and let a killer shoot them. This is contrary to biblical teaching and the words of Christ on his last night: "he that has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one." Luke 22:36. The Jewish translation of the sixth Commandment (and they should know) is, "Thou shalt not commit murder." Self defense is okay!

Isn't it about time we tried something different? What better target for cowards than a gun-free zone? Why not require teachers to take Continuing Education in handling a gun? They do for everything else.

Newtown CT is a perfect example of how gun control isn't working. All the gun control laws were in place and the shooter didn't even own a gun. Leaders can shed tears and call for gun control, but if guns are outlawed, only the outlaws will have guns.

In Switzerland, the government gives every adult a gun and trains them to use it. They have the lowest crime rate of any civilized country.

After Pearl Harbor, the primary deterrent to the Japanese landing on our west coast was the belief that they would be facing American civilians with guns.

Gun bans don't disarm criminals, gun bans attract them." Walter Mondale "

The nation's murder rate is near a 40 year low and the number of privately owned guns in the U.S. is at an all-time high and rising by about 4.5 million annually. "Right-to-Carry states had lower violent crime rates on the average than the rest of the country. Total violent crime in Right-to-Carry States was 24% lower; murder 28% lower; robbery 50% lower and aggravated assault 11% lower. The cities with the highest murder rates were cities with severe gun control." FBI Crime Report. 2007 FBI Crime Report is Bad News for Anti-Gunners 1/2009.

Not eager to use it, but Dr. Richard Ruhling believes owning a gun is biblical. He invites a look at his website at http://WakeUpAmericaForTheEnd.com/the-book


View the original article here

Taking Wings From Reality, Or, Nationalism's Failure to Understand the Concept of Both/And

I came across a nationalist blog recently arguing that it was not possible to be both Scottish and British. If I had not found someone actually making this argument, I would hardly have considered formulating a counter argument as I would have thought I was open to the charge of arguing against a straw man. It looks however, as if this view is seriously entertained and so it should be addressed. The essence of the argument seems to be that in a crisis situation, when push comes to shove, Scots would be forced to choose between being Scottish or British. Thus, for example, if there were a disputed independence referendum result, which unionists and the rest of the UK refused to accept, there could be a civil war situation, which would force everyone in Scotland to choose sides. It would in this context be impossible to be both British and Scottish.

Incidentally, I remember a certain Lord Fraser of Carmyllie being vehemently attacked and described as if he were some sort of loon for imagining a scenario where England bombed Scottish airports. In fact, Lord Fraser's scenario of a foreign power at war with England taking over Scotland's airports, forcing England to bomb them, would most certainly have occurred if Nazi Germany had tried to seize such airports in 1940. The French likewise bombed their own airports in occupied France between 1914 and 1918. Such a scenario is in fact much more likely than the UK descending into civil war over a disputed independence referendum. Most Scots, apart from a few on the extreme fringes, just don't care that much about the result of the independence referendum one way or the other. However much I want the Union to continue, I would far rather Scotland were independent than that there were a civil war over this matter.

Nevertheless, let's explore the issue of civil war in relation to the concept of choosing one's identity. In 1861 there began a civil war involving a country which formed a union of states. Virginia was one of the states which decided to secede from the United States. Many Virginians were at that time in the US Army and faced a choice. Most chose to join the army of the Confederacy, but some chose to remain loyal to the army they were already serving. Robert E. Lee was offered command of the Union Army, was against secession, but with great reluctance chose to follow his state Virginia, becoming probably America's most revered soldier and general by serving the South. On the other hand, Virginian George H. Thomas remained with the Union army, possibly owing to his Northern wife, served with distinction throughout the war and gained lasting fame as the "Rock of Chickamauga" by saving the union army from a rout.

In civil wars people face incredibly difficult decisions, which divide families and can lead to permanent estrangement and lasting acrimony. But let's look at the issue in terms of identity. Robert E. Lee and George H. Thomas served in different armies, chose different sides in The Civil War, but both remained Virginians. After the war finished both equally were citizens of the United States. They did not lose their identity as either Southerners or Virginians, because of the difficult choices they were forced to make. Of course, some people called out traitor to the one or to the other, but when a man follows his conscience he does not listen to such slander.

In the hypothetical example of a genuine dispute between Scotland and the rest of the UK, there might be Scots who thought the secession of Scotland unjustified. They might think for instance that the referendum result had been fixed, or had been obtained by means of subterfuge. In the same way that some people from the Southern states fought for the Union, and some from the North fought for the Confederacy, it might, in this British Civil War, turn out to be the case that some English people would fight for Scottish secession, while some Scots would fight for the Union. But Scots who fought for either side would still be Scots. They would simply be Scots who had followed their consciences in different ways. Of course, we've had this situation in the British Isles before. When Ireland chose to secede, some Irish people chose to remain loyal to the United Kingdom. But both those who remained in the UK and those who left, remained Irish. Identity is not something that a person loses because he chooses one side or another in a civil war.

Let's take another example. Imagine Scotland voted for independence, but a part of Scotland, for example Fife, chose to vote for independence from Scotland. There might be conflict. Some Fifers might want to stay loyal to Scotland, some Scots outside of Fife might try to prevent Fife from seceding by force of arms. People in Fife would have to make choices, but whichever choice they made, no matter which side they fought for, such people would remain both Fifers and Scots.

The idea that you can't be both a Scot and British if true would mean that someone could not be both a Bavarian and a German, a Sicilian and an Italian. There are any number of nation states in Europe and the world which are made up of countries which formerly were independent. To say to these people, I'm sorry you're mistaken, you can't be both Norman and French, you have to choose, is to say something that would be met with genuine bemusement. Normandy was once an independent country and it had a great history, including being quite successful as an invader of one of its neighbours. Only a tiny number of Normans however, would maintain that they are Norman and not French. For a person to seriously claim that he was a Norman and not French, would be to invite derision as if I had delusions of being William the Conqueror. It should equally invite derision for person to claim he is Scottish and not British, as if he wanted to play at being William Wallace.

The claim that someone can not be both Scottish and British goes against the experience of millions of Scots, who feel both identities. The fact that some Scots out of warped patriotism have chose to reject their British identity, does not change the experience of the rest of us. We love our country, and count it to be both Britain and Scotland. It is the love of both these things, which makes civil war in the UK unthinkable. This is the case for apart from the few who would create division, nearly everyone realises that in a British Civil War we would be fighting against ourselves.

http://effiedeans.wordpress.com/

The Scottish independence referendum will be in 2014. I'm campaigning for Scotland to remain in the United Kingdom, by means of a regular blog exploring all of the issues involved. Please come and join the debate by clicking on the above link.


View the original article here

Sunday 23 December 2012

Leadership Principles of the Warrior - Series One - An Introduction

From a project, originally entitled, "Leadership Principles of the Christian Warrior", the words lead, leader and leadership have various connotations in both the secular and religious world. We tend to conjure all kinds of notions about what a leader is, or what a leader ought to be. Yet, few really appreciate, from a biblical perspective, the meaning of true Judeo-Christian centered leadership. All our worldly conceptions about leadership have become greatly disturbed by mundane mediocrity in the past few decades.

But, since the beginning of recorded history, Judeo-Christian conceptions have had special designations as to what a leader should be, know and do in service to himself or herself, family, community and country Kingdom. Yet, often, misguided perceptions of leadership come from the Judeo-Christian realm itself, as well as the humanistic pop cultural dominion. Judeo-Christian leadership and the leadership principles of the Christian Warrior are truly unique concepts of human existence. Yet, some would ascribe misdirected ideas in their definition of what "leadership" is about. For example, you might think, as many assert, leadership is about the following kinds of concepts that include control, power, influence and cleverness.

In moving toward a more distinct and differentiated definition of leadership, a leader is called to lead by example and dedication, in obedience to a set of higher standards. He or she accepts a calling of noble quality, uniquely felt from within, by virtue of personal characteristics. Reflected by one's unique personality, leaders set the example for others to follow. Her or his conduct provides the basis for a code of behavior that anciently has been expressed in the Code of Bushido, or the way of the samurai.

This suggests an ascended state of self-transformation, beyond lower level fixations on personal needs, with a high degree of individual self-discipline. Leaders must exert effort to be impeccable in all actions and decisions. They must possess the capacity for influencing others by virtue of their sensitivity to another's dysfunctions. And, she or he must be honest in matters of heartfelt intentions, peacemakers of authenticity, and creators who withstand the attacks of their detractors and misguided critics.

Leaders diligently strive to walk in the "way of the warrior", while their humility prevents them are thinking they're perfect by any arrogant stretch of their imagination. Sometimes they may falter, but always they are trying to rise above and strengthen their skills. Their leadership ability shines upon others, as they focus on inner maturity, as opposed to external deterministic excuses. To them, causality and subsequent effects are driven at the hands of the leader. Ideation is from within, as free will stimulates the consciousness to action of a proactive nature. Competent leaders must be a woman or man of his or her word. A "written contract" for getting things done should not be needed. Others must be able to trust what he or she says and relies on his or her commitment to do the right thing at the right time.

Leaders must be cautious of hypocrisy, deception and foolish notions that concocted fallacies for subjective validation. They must be credible in both word and deed and they must be authentic. As a leader, you do what is correct because it is true, regardless of what other may say or do, or what might be politically expedient. Uh huh, sure, wishful thinking, especially when a promotion is on the line, right? None the less, your actions are not based on appearance, symbolism over substance, or any other notion. What you do is done not for the sake of personal gain or honor, but because you are in service to the greater cause of excellence in leadership and service.

In what might be called the Judeo-Christian tradition, one might be mindful of the example of the biblical portrayal of the centurion. A warrior of great authority and power, the centurion acknowledged the authority of a higher morality, and was recognized for his "great faith". The centurion expressed humility in spite of his power and ability to carry out extreme measures against others. It is a picture of a warrior submitting himself to the greater cosmic spectrum in humility and devotion.

To be an effective leader, the choice of such a state of being, is far different from the worldly notions of fixated self-satiations for success, power, political influence and materialistic gainfulness. Differentiated leadership is one in which the woman or the man of such character gazes upon the social landscape. In so doing, he or she asserts one does not need the things valued by so highly by the abjectness of gluttonous materiality. Spartan simplicity suffices the essence of self-evolution.

It is not an orientation toward materialistic self-promotion, or self-centered focus, or arrogance of one-upmanship. A bigger castle, larger chariot and lofty title, another vassal, each is but a hassle distracting the true measure of one's creative mettle. Competition is in the quest for success by solving the necessary problems at hand through imaginative ingenuities. As leaders, we must come to know, recognize and understand the wisdom of self-evolved maturity. For Judeo-Christian adherent, the leader has a role to play that involves strenuous virtues, impeccable character qualities, and a warrior mindset, with teacher-philosopher abilities to guide others.

A worldly grotesque concept of commercialism, in the profane overindulgence at any cost, is not the kind of credible leadership suggested here. In Judeo-Christian conceptualization of leadership, it is offered that you to give something of yourself for the evolving nature of your true self. By contrast, in humanistic leadership, perception is self-focused in an adversarial sense for self-gratification regardless of others. For the warrior leader, first he or she gets his or her "house" in order (matters of self-actualization, self-evolving, differentiated mindset). Secondly, the leader or leader to be, seeks nothing from others, needs nothing, and simply nothing.

You don't need constant attention, self-validation, or the perverse belongingness of frequent recognition, adulation or special attentiveness from "self-healing" gurus. Who cares? In the end, when the curtain closes and the lights go out, and the body become dust, who remembers and what does it matter? Over time, people move on and all things come and go. You journey to substantiate a better version of your previous self for the necessity of you. Thirdly, you remain content with who you are and what you have, where you are going. Here resides the mystery of the mountaintop for the realm of the true leader. It is the summit of his or her strength and hers or his to command.

If we examine leadership definitions, we can uncover some interesting ideas about the concept of leadership. For instance, in regard to the idea of "lead", the first expression given is to become a guide and show the way. That is, a leader must understand the seriousness of such responsibility, become a competent guide and to know the right way to go. Leaders must examine relationships with others every minute of every day and ensure the appropriateness of those interactions. To guide the way, a true leader must understand the nature of the mission and the goals to achieve.

The authentic leader must have confidence and competence to guide others along the right paths within the organization, even when they resist. Leaders must accept their calling to lead, and then do it by virtue of their special talents and psychological gifts. She or he must consider the delicate balance of human forces at play around him or her. If you're different and independent minded, then there will be opposition. And, that is a narrow gate by which you enter. Such boldness of command requires you take charge and work diligently in the capacity for which you have been chosen.

We are all on the mission field of some endeavor in some walk of life. Wherever we are in our journey, we must be leaders in whatsoever we do. Leadership is an expression of a vision that people will be willing to follow. It is a challenging fine line upon which they are being led. You will be exposed to criticism, deception, and backstabbing all the way. You must be vigilant but not vindictive, corrective but not vengeful. The objective is to accomplish the mission. To which, leaders must guide others on this common purpose by the quality of the standards they have set.

Thus, once again, the basis of which is the necessity for an effective leader to be willing to demonstrate behavior by exemplary conduct. Although far from perfect, the leader endeavors to be impeccable in his or her conduct and treatment of others. No matter what their status in the organization or lives outside the operations, everyone is treated with dignity and respectful empathy. However, there will be times, when you must simply walk away from the divisiveness and negativity others create around you. There's no requirement you subject yourself to the foolish, the stupid or the hateful manifestations of human devolution in devolving self-gratifications.

By contrast, you must endeavor to exercise effective leadership, by demonstrating the capacity of well-reasoned proficiency. By going first, the leader will not ask those who follow to do anything he or she would not do. Leaders readily accept and acknowledge the challenge of leadership, and know they must work hard to develop their abilities. Leadership in a metaphorical sense is a "warrior-hood". As in the Code of Bushido, for example, the adherent understands the affinity between being a warrior and being a skilled leader. For the leader-warrior construct there is by correlation with the "bushido" carried out within the organizational framework. In its uncomplicated straightforward precepts, this means "military-knight-ways" for the discipline of duty.

Akin to the traditions of Judeo-Christian precepts, "bushido" is a chivalric code. Of which, one's conduct engenders a mind-set and character that is unique, in terms of the past, the present and the future for personal transformation. As the samurai code speaks of courage, daring, devotion, discipline, justice and honor, so does the way of the leader. Reflective of "warrior spirit", it is that which directs a full-scale attack on adverse oppositional forces, unproductivity and incompetence. Such a framework invokes personal accountability and responsibility for one's actions. So, you have to grow up and act like an adult and repent from the foolishness of inferior thinking.

None of this should be construed to suggest a doctrinaire or dogmatic attitude about anything except changing oneself. It must be remembered that you have been called to a higher level of service. It's called leadership. We are not to be driven by this call, but to be challenged in our responsibilities. A leader, as a warrior in the Judeo-Christian tradition, practices correctness in mindful compassion for others. You strive to treat all persons, when possible and humanly feasible, in a just and humane manner.

It is interesting to historical note, that the samurai of ancient Japan were also considered servants. What an interesting contrast between the ancient warrior class, and the service modern day leadership. Once that choice was made, the process begins in productive self-revolution. It is not an easy direction, but it is the only route to follow. We must be willing to endure much in our service and be prepared for the hardships that come. Being a leader is a process that influences others to accomplish the organization's undertakings. You have to carry out these tasks by applying your attributes, which include beliefs, values, ethics, character, knowledge and skills and so forth. Although you come to know these things, followers watch what you do.

They sense if you are an honorable leader or a self-serving phony, who misuses authority to look good and get promoted. That means your leadership is everything you do that affects associational accomplishments and the well-being of subordinates. If you want to be a respected leader, believed and trusted, concentrate on who you are, what you know, and how you do things effectively. Leadership quality and how it is defined in the real world is a human mirror of those who lead as well as those who follow. A leader's appearance, spirit, bearing, demeanor, words and actions give feeling, meaning and life to what a leader really is. You have to be willing to stand alone if necessary.


View the original article here

A Missed Leadership Opportunity

Moments ago the Breaking News appeared in my inbox: Susan Rice has withdrawn her candidacy to be President Obama's next Secretary of State. It goes without saying that the position is not only the pinnacle of a diplomat's career it is the opportunity to bring about great change on a global scale. I have never met Susan Rice and I am sure that her future remains bright; and that may be true, this is clearly a moment where a tremendous opportunity has passed her by.

A few months ago a mutual colleague suggested that Ms. Rice would benefit from my leadership coaching-a nuanced and cutting edge process of clearly identifying and owning one's unique talents and skills in a way that communication and leadership become open, clear and effective. In only a few sessions clients are able to see who they are in a way that allows them to build their work and working relationships on the solid ground of their strengths, instead of building an intricate façade that requires untold resources to obscure perceived weaknesses. Without exception, at the root of every leadership misstep is the desire to hide a part of one's self from others. When leaders are freed-up from having to maintain a mask of what they feel others want them to be and who they want to be they no longer have to walk that perilous line that divides them from who they truly are.

We may never know what happen in those hours between reading the intelligence about Benghazi, discussing it with administration officials and her appearance on five national Sunday morning talk shows. Whatever one's view on her motives and behavior, one thing seems certain, her discussion about these events was not entirely in line with her authentic leadership. Whether she knew or sensed more and didn't press the administration line of a spontaneous attack or she should have remains unclear. What is clear is that something in this process of events didn't sit well with her and ultimately with the Senators that controlled her fate.

Who knows if coaching after the fact would have helped her? What I do know is this: every person who sincerely engages in this process walks away knowing more about themselves and is able to instantly and effectively put it to work in their lives to create better results and, too few people are willing to engage in this work, or in this case recommend it, because it the words of many, it is "scary."

Scary, perhaps, and, what is even scarier are what happens when leaders at every level fail to understand the amazing people they already are, while trying to construct a persona that hides what they feel they are not. The truth is that without engaging in the process of learning who we are as leaders, indeed as people, every endeavor we undertake we do so at the peril of getting trapped in our own staging. If more people were willing to take a look at themselves and move into their full potential we would have a very different crop of leaders and very different results in our public bodies.


View the original article here

Saturday 22 December 2012

Why "Devo-Max" Is the Greatest Threat to the Union

It's looking good for unionists; with pollsters and bookmakers agreeing that Mr Salmond has little chance of winning a straight yes/no referendum on independence.

I don't think it matters much, how long he waits, whether he holds the referendum on the anniversary of Bannockburn or how biased the question. As long as the question is a clear yes/no on independence, he will lose. The majority of Scots simply do not want independence.

But pollsters suggest Mr Salmond has a chance to win a poll on devo max. A recent poll gave the following result:

"33% preferred the status-quo, 36% devo-max and 24% independence"

Scots like most people like having their cake and eating it too. They want more power for Scotland, but they want to remain in the union. The problem is that they can't have it. Devo-max is a Trojan horse and will inevitably lead to independence.

In a three way referendum Mr Salmond has two chances of winning. Not only does he split the unionist vote, giving his preferred option of independence a better chance of winning, even if it only gains around a third of the vote, he also gets independence eventually if devo-max wins. The choice then is between status quo, independence now, or independence later.

Even in a straight yes/no poll with a subsidiary question on devo-max, Salmond knows he will get independence if devo-max gains majority support, even if on the independence question he is decisively defeated.

How can this be? The reason is that devolution in general and devo-max in particular is acting as a destabilising factor on the union, a centrifugal force pushing us all apart.

Many Conservatives and unionists recognised from the start that the devolution settlement was ill thought out and fundamentally unfair.

Whereas before devolution, everyone in the UK had the same degree of representation, now Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have their own parliaments, while England only has the parliament of the United Kingdom. This is self evidently unfair, but would not in itself matter so much if the devolved parliaments had not set about creating division.

Gradually people in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have been gaining rights to free this, and free that, while their burden of taxation has remained the same. Sounds wonderful, what's not to like? The problem is that the English are getting thoroughly sick of it.

Britain is a single country with a monetary and fiscal union. Money is transferred around the country, from richer regions to poorer regions and nobody much complains, as we are all in it together. But that arrangement only works, if everyone has the same rights no matter where they live. If Scots have rights to free this and that by virtue of living in Scotland, they cannot very well expect Londoners to continue to transfer their money from London to Scotland.

Personally I think Scotland contributes about as much to the UK as it receives, but this is not the point I'm trying to make. When Cameron's government arrived in Westminster and found that the cupboard was bare and that cuts would have to be made for the sake of the country, it was reasonable to expect that we were all in it together. Imagine then how the English feel, when they find that many of these cuts apply only to them. This is why issues such as tuition fees are so divisive and why they are breaking up the union.

The greatest danger to the union is not Scotland voting for independence, but England voting for divorce.

I've always been aware of anti-English sentiment in Scotland. Most Scots are aware of it and to our shame; many unionists contribute to it or go along with it. A bit of banter is fine of course and is enjoyed by all sides, but when it turns nasty it's not much fun. Visiting England years ago, I noticed something that was quite strange. There was almost no anti-Scottish sentiment there. If Scotland were playing football against another country, the English were liable to cheer them on. There would be the odd comment about Jocks and some ignorance about Scotland, but I never noticed anything approaching anti-Scottishness until the arrival of devolution.

Now look at the situation. The English are beginning to really loathe Scotland. On the message boards there are insults, bitterness and hatred. The situation has got so bad that it may be that the majority of English people now favour independence for England.

What's caused all this division? Partly it's a matter of Mr Salmond and his SNP followers stirring up ill feeling as a deliberate tactic, but really the whole cause and the thing that this destabilising the union is devolution.

Now if limited devolution should give rise to English nationalism and calls for English independence, what will be the result of devo-max? The answer is obvious. Devo-max will break the union.

What's the solution? The whole devolution settlement must be rethought out. I'm in favour of devolving powers to local government, but this devolving of powers must be equal across the UK. There are many models for devolving powers, from Germany's Länder to Switzerland's cantons, to states in the U.S.A. There needs to be a strong central government at the UK level with control of matters, which affect everybody, but matters which can be decided locally should be determined locally, thus bringing politicians within reach of those who elect them. But just as it would be unfair to devolve powers to Vermont, but not to Texas, clearly it is unfair to devolve powers only to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Whatever way power is devolved, it must be devolved equally.

Scottish unionists are rightly happy that support for independence in Scotland looks weak, but unless we address the legitimate concerns of the English, our union will not last another 300 years, it may not last another 30. Devo-max is designed to further destabilise the union, leading inevitably to independence by default, not least because it will cause the English to divorce us.

Devo-max is the only thing that worries me.

http://effiedeans.blogspot.co.uk/

The Scottish independence referendum will be in 2014. I'm campaigning for Scotland to remain in the United Kingdom, by means of a regular blog exploring all of the issues involved. Please come and join the debate by clicking on the above link.


View the original article here

Friday 21 December 2012

Did You Know That Adolph Hitler Was Named Times Man of the Year in 1938?

Each and every year Time Magazine gives out its award for the "Man of the Year" and for 2012 it will be no exception. Generally, they'll put out their pick just as the Magazine goes on sale, sometimes they attempt to keep it a secret until the last minute, but usually it is no use, people find out. Today, with social media, the magazine typically puts out its choice sooner than later. Back in the day, the magazine would come out and surprise everyone with their pick, just as the New Year's festivities ended, and people were settling into the reality that a new year has indeed occurred. Okay so, let's talk shall we?

Time Magazine had a cover story about Adolph Hitler on Monday, January 2, 1939 titled; "Adolf Hitler: Man of the Year, 1938," which is a rather ominous and scary thought. Of course, that's hardly the only scary accolade given by a supposed reputable judge of character and super human attributes. Remember Time Magazine is one of the oldest and most respected magazines, and they are not the only ones which have given credence to those who later turned out to be well, shall we say undeserving of any of our praise.

However, after Time Magazine made that fumble one could ask if their "Man of the Year" awards are worthy of mention ever again? I mean, here was a man who took the world to war, and caused the killing of 10s of millions of people, how could anyone agree he deserved such a title? "World War II was the deadliest military conflict in history. Over 60 million people were killed, which was over 2.5% of the world population," source: WikiPedia.

Would Time Magazine have picked Adolph Hitler if they had known what would occur in May of 1941, when the war had just begun, just a little over 2-years later? Didn't they see the writing on the wall? Many did, and many had warned of the consequences, still, Time Magazine which is supposed to be up on the times apparently did not.

Now, I'd like to ask a question; how can we trust their pick this year or any year after such a horrible choice, and unacceptable judge of character? I believe we can't and thus, must take their pick, whoever it might be in 2012 with a grain of salt, perhaps even completely disregard that figure. Indeed, it is my sincere hope that you will please consider all this and think on it.

Lance Winslow is a retired Founder of a Nationwide Franchise Chain, and now runs the Online Think Tank.


View the original article here

The Eurozone Crisis and Scottish Independence

What are the consequences for the debate about Scottish independence of a Greek exit from the eurozone? No one knows what will happen if Greece leaves. Some economists are predicting something approaching Armageddon, others are more moderate, but it is likely that the whole European economy including Britain's is heading into very difficult times. At times when I read the business sections of the papers, I begin to wonder what on earth we are doing in Scotland debating arcane constitutional matters. I'm as interested in the debate about independence as the next Scot and I'm passionate about Scotland remaining in the UK. But really it's as if Rhode Island decided to clamour for independence a week after the Wall Street crash.

Given that we are heading into still more turbulent waters, is this the time to jump ship and try to set sail on our own? Even if independence were a good idea in principle, which it is not, it would be a bad idea at present, because times are just too uncertain. What are the possible scenarios facing the Eurozone and what consequences do they have for Scotland? Fundamentally there are two choices for the Eurozone. Either it breaks up into sovereign currencies or it becomes something akin to a full blown fiscal union with transfers from the rich regions to the poor regions. This second option would be akin to a United States of Europe.

What have we learned from the whole crisis that has been unfolding for the past two years? Just this, that monetary union requires fiscal union. Fiscal union is what the UK has and what the Eurozone lacks. Now, Mr Salmond wants Scotland to become independent, but to retain the pound. What he wants therefore is the situation which exists at present in the Eurozone. He wants monetary union with the rest of the UK, but not fiscal union. But this is just this position which has lead to the chaos in the Eurozone. The tensions which exist in the Eurozone could equally arise in this new Sterling zone, which would no longer be a fiscal union. The outcome would be the same. Either Scotland would need to recreate the fiscal union with the rest of the UK, which would in effect mean a return to being a part of the UK, or it would have to leave the Sterling zone in order to set up its own currency, call them New Scottish Pounds. These new Scottish pounds would fall relative to Sterling, just as the New Greek Drachma will fall relative to the Euro if Greece is forced out. What I would like to ask my fellow Scots is this. Do you want your savings, your house, and your other property to be redenominated into a devalued currency? If you don't want this, even as a possibility, you must vote against independence.

Let's imagine another alternative. The Eurozone may choose to become a fiscal union and this may work. Personally I doubt that they have what is necessary for a successful fiscal union, such as a common language, a common culture, sufficiently similar economies etc. But be that as it may, with enough will and determination the Eurozone may continue as a fiscal union. Scotland could choose to join. But then really once more this so called independence becomes nothing of the sort. Scotland would be a state in the United States of Europe and would be no more independent than Rhode Island.

The logic of economics suggests that the only way Scotland could be truly independent is to set up its own currency, with its own central bank. This is the model which nearly all recently independent countries such as Latvia, Ukraine and Lithuania, have followed. But doing so, of course, would entail the risk of devaluation to our currency, and would mean that in the event of another crisis Scotland would be the lender of last resort. But if that had been the case in 2008, Scotland would have been bankrupted by RBS and HBOS and would have had to resort to the IMF. Anyone who thinks that there is no risk of further crises in the coming years understands nothing of economics.

Just a final thought. In the storms that are going to batter us in the months and years ahead. Where would you rather be? In HMS Great Britain or in the good ship Braveheart setting off on her maiden voyage with Captain Salmond at the helm.

http://effiedeans.blogspot.co.uk/

The Scottish independence referendum will be in 2014. I'm campaigning for Scotland to remain in the United Kingdom, by means of a regular blog exploring all of the issues involved. Please come and join the debate by clicking on the above link.


View the original article here

Friday 14 December 2012

Why Are 47 Million People On Food Stamps?

In 2012 a very respected Democratic Senator in the United States told a newspaper reporter on prime time television that the food stamp program was one of the most successful government programs. His reasoning was quite simply that because nearly 50,000,000 people were on food stamps it proved that the government was actually doing something very useful. However, currently there are 47 million people on food stamps, and even if it might be a successful program in the distribution of food, it is also a very telling sign of just how bad things have become under socialism in US.

So, why are 47 million people on food stamps you wonder? It's simple, because it is so easy to sign up online to get food stamps, and because almost any American could qualify by filling out a form, who wouldn't want free food if it were offered? The problem is it goes against the grain of Americana and it goes against everything we claim to stand for. We've always considered our nation one which teaches people to fish, but does not give out free fishes. We believe that anyone can become successful if they work hard, and since we live in the land of abundance no one should ever have to starve.

For those people who truly cannot support themselves we do have community programs and a safety net. Unfortunately, we've increased that safety net to include one out of six Americans when it comes to the food stamp program. That is a very troubling tale. It is also extremely troubling when you realize that people who get food stamps and free food are more likely to vote into office those individuals who will guarantee such programs continue. That would be the Democrats and those that are left-leaning socialists.

The biggest problem is that this entire program has also become a corporate welfare program for food processing companies, farmers, and those who are in the supply chain. You can understand why something which is a social program and corporate welfare at the same time might be extremely hard to get rid of once you get it started, or once it grows to epic proportions such as the food stamp program now with 47 million people on it. This is one of the biggest challenges with social programs, once they start you can never get them stopped.

Are there people who are taking advantage of the food stamp program you ask? Sure there are, it is estimated that the fraud involved in this program is easily 35% if not more. Of course, if anyone can sign up anytime they want and as long as food supply chain companies are lobbying Congressman to keep the money flowing, you can understand that it's impossible to turn off that spigot. Indeed I hope you will please consider all this and think on it.

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


View the original article here

Politics, Ideology and The Movie 2016

You may remember Andrei Sakaroff; he was a nuclear physicist who had been imprisoned during the years of the Soviet Gulag and was released sometime during the 80's prior to the collapse of the USSR. He was on the cover of Time Magazine and I happened to read the interview done by one of Time's reporters. Sakaroff was answering a question about ideology when he commented on his excitement upon discovering the political experiment known as democracy while in high school.

The then young and idealistic student was brimming over with hope and optimism about the democratic government of the United States. Sakaroff says that his father listened while his son explained democracy as it was applied in the US and replied simply, "All governments will try to control you, no matter what they call themselves."

Almost 3 weeks after seeing 2016, Obama's America, I have finally decided what I think of the movie. Dinesh D'Souza produced as objective a documentary of Obama and his ideology as could be done by anyone, it seems to me. D'Souza does not attempt to hide his bias for the free market, capitalistic economy that the US is known for and produces fairly detailed evidence for his belief that Obama's agenda is to rectify some of the inequalities created by the western countries' exploitation of both the natural resources and labor found in the third and fourth world countries. But whether Obama's agenda is fundamentally global and inimical to the US can, in the end, be known only by him; no amount of research can reveal the contents of the human heart.

But I do find myself sympathetic with Obama's global view (if, in fact, that is his view) simply because of what we know about the living conditions of most people on this planet. And how wealthy are even the poorest Americans when compared to that. And because we know what has been - and is being done to land, to peoples and to nations in the name of the almighty dollar.

Perhaps because I am in business, however, and know first hand, the struggle, energy and the risk-both of capital and of person- which a successful business demands, I find myself in the corner of capitalism with all of its flaws and of democracy with all of its foibles for the simple reason that they are better than the alternatives available to us.

Lin Wilder, DrPH is a former Hospital Director. She is a writer, on-line marketer and Partner in LLeads and Fast MLM Leads; business to business leads companies.

Her web site is http://www.linwilder.com/. Lin suggests that you check out one of her latest books at Amazon, A Search for the Sacred. http://www.amazon.com/A-Search-Sacred-ebook/dp/B007K9813M

Contact Dr. Lin at lin@linwilder.com


View the original article here

Thursday 13 December 2012

Why Must We Lie About The Past To Make Present Deficiencies More Palatable

Many articles are being written about President Ronald Reagan directed to degrade his leadership and greatness as a President of the United States. Articles written on liberal websites tend to pick out what they believe are the lows of his Presidency.

During this election cycle, much information presented may be viewed as fact when in reality it is not! Many political statements and accusations are meant to mislead, demean, and in many instances attempt to ruin reputations through false statements and innuendo.

Statements such as;

"President Regan tripled the debt and added trillions to the debt."

Here are the true figures on Presidential debt increase and unemployment figures from Reagan to Obama.

Increased Debt and Unemployment

REAGAN in 8 years increased the debt 1.6 trillion and unemployment from 1981 7.5% to 1989 5.4% for a Change of -2.1%

BUSH in 4 years increased the debt 1.5 trillion and unemployment from 1989 5.4% to 1993 7.3% for a Change of +1.9%

CLINTON in 8 years increased the debt 1.1 trillion and unemployment from 1993 7.3% to 2001 4.2% for a Change of -3.1%

BUSH in 8 years increased the debt 5.1 trillion and unemployment from 2001 4.2% to 2009 7.6% for a Change of +3.4%

OBAMA in 4 years increased the debt 5.2 trillion and unemployment from 2009 7.6% to 2012 8.3% for a Change of +0.7%

These are the numbers from the US Treasury and The Labor Department compared with several on-line sources verifying the above is true.

Future projection based on available information, place the National Debt at over 20 trillion dollars by 2016. Obviously, we should be more worried about President Obama and the state of the nation if he is re-elected for another four years, than trying to use President Reagan as an example of poor Republican leadership. In fact, in comparison with George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton, The increase in debt is comparable.

Currently, the Labor Department reports an unemployment rate of 8.1%. Their numbers do not include the discouraged, underemployed, students who cannot find jobs and other factors. According to CNBC, The New York Post, Forbes, Townhall, and other reputable sources, the true Unemployment Rate is close to 15%. This is something all the media should be concerned and reporting... most are not!

Ronald Reagan was a great man and President who served twenty-three years ago. Liberals, really, can you not find someone more recent who you can quote with your usual twisting of the truth, rather than a man whose greatness has already been defined.

Admittedly, he did almost triple the debt at the time from 1.1 trillion when he took office to 2.7 trillion when he left, however, by any standard in government raising the debt 1.6 trillion over eight years does not raise the debt by trillions. Writing comments meant to deceive the reader into thinking by today's standard set by President Obama of 1.3 trillion per year, equates to President Reagan raising the debt by trillions is sadly pathetic.

According to a 1996 study by William A. Niskanen and Stephen Moore at the CATO Institute, Stephen Moore stated, "No act in the last quarter century had a more profound impact on the U.S. economy of the eighties and nineties than the Reagan tax cut of 1981." He claims that Reagan's tax cuts, combined with an emphasis on federal monetary policy, deregulation, and expansion of free trade created a sustained economic expansion creating America's greatest sustained wave of prosperity ever. He also claims that the American economy grew by more than a third in size, producing a $15 trillion increase in American wealth.

Ronald Reagan increased the debt 200 billion per year over eight years for a 1.6 trillion increase. The debt when he took office in January 1981 was 1.1 trillion; when he left office in January 1989, it was 2.7 trillion. He increased the deficit 2.5 times... I guess according to Liberal calculations he did triple the deficit.

Barrack Obama increased the debt 1.3 trillion per year over four years for a 5.2 trillion increase. The debt when he took office in January 2009 was 10.7 trillion; after four years in office, it is 15.9 trillion. He has increased the deficit 1.5 times... I guess according to Liberals these are much better numbers than those of President Reagan. President Obama has, using Liberal math, only doubled the deficit; all in only four years. Can they really believe and chastise President Reagan for increasing the debt by trillions, when it is President Obama who has increased the debt by trillions?

Although they have equal increase in the deficit of 2.5 time increase, this is not an equal comparison. The spending rate of President Reagan, a paltry 200 billion per year is today pocket change for an Obama Administration spending 1.3 trillion or 6.5 times more than President Reagan per annum.

This article could be thousands of pages representative of the Reagan Period and his true genius. He was and is still one of the greatest Presidents. We cannot seek to destroy great men of the past to make a man of today look greater than he is; or ever will be.

The legacy of President Reagan will continue to be a shining moment in our history... I wonder what they will say about President Obama in 20 years; will his legacy be, the first President to suffer the indignity of having our nations Credit Rating reduced or maybe, the President who bankrupted America.

"No matter what you write, someone will love it."

Mac McGovern writes poetry, ezine articles, and blogs, visit his personal website at: http://www.allpoetry.com/mac_mcgovern

Copyright Information: You may republish this article, provided the text, author credit, active links and this copyright notice remain intact.


View the original article here