Tips for Improving Your English Through Movies
-
Movies and films give more than just entertainment. Watching foreign
language movies is a fun, motivating way to improve language skills. While
enjoying a ...
Friday, November 21, 2008
The Cost of Democracy
The quintessential element of democracy is that "The People" have to accept the cost of it, the essence of which is their willingness to carry out their 'citizen responsibility.'? That means Americans actually have to do something, not just wait for the corruption of special interests to mortgage their future.
George Pataki, former Governor of the state of New York, gave us all of the wisdom we need to understand and solve the problem when he said, "When government takes responsibility for people, then people no longer take responsibility for themselves."? Somebody should find a way to etch that on every car bumper in America.? Freedom and dependency are unable to coexist.? That you might choose responsibility over dependency is the politician's, the legal system's and the main stream media's greatest threat.? The essence of government spirit is to keep us united under a common bond, whatever [fear] that may be.? And let's face it, we are so easy to unite [scare].
In the beginning of the end, the populous tends to believe that they can hire mercenaries for their duties.? That is what is happening to America right now.? Every great civilization from time immemorial has eventually violated this truth and in return their government was lost to the ages.?
Americans have become apathetic to an ever more intrusive form of government and, most ironically, less inclined to take up their Citizen Responsibility.? Americans face a host of serious issues, many of which they treat with a herd mentality, protected by the drove grazing preoccupies them, until they sense the siren call of eminent danger.? And, like the wildebeest on the Serengeti even though others regularly perish, as long as it is not them they go back to grazing.
America is desperately trying to move on from the Bush presidency and that Barack Obama has offered that "Dream".? The recent stock market debacle, Lehman Brothers, the Fannie and Freddie crash, AIG and the $700 billion Wall Street bailout has rightfully enraged Middle America.? The U.S. financial system and the world financial markets are so stressed right now that it threatens the very social fabric of our nation, one that our fathers and their forefathers have already fought and died for.? Will we keep our American entrepreneurial spirit, which we have bragged about and paraded before the world for 200 years, or will we give way to a new form of socialism because we have hit a speed bump??
This is no reason to go off the deep end, throwing away our ideological sense of America in order to remove ourselves. ?Barack Obama is assembling his dream team, and the liberal media have already gone out to celebrate... just a minute... not so fast... history abounds with examples of people wanting out of a bad situation and then being taken to worse.? Most people will reject these words, but I can't help myself from writing them.? This is the "herd instinct" in human nature.? It is in our psychic that under threats we cannot perceive [or manage] we want to join the socialist masses.? Socialism is the very essence of government, of security, of the 'covenant of the fence', however we need to know where we are running... before we run over a cliff.? Most people stranded on an island-of-hell don't ask many questions when someone throws them a lifeline of hope.? Maybe they should ask, but most people don't.
Socialist regimes throughout history have promised hope and change.? I'm surprised, even dumfounded, that many Americans are acting blinded by speeches without details, the evidence for which is that they are not asking questions and demanding answers.? The peoples yearning for betterment cannot override our?common sense.?? Most important, people want change because they are frustrated by the relentless liberal media attacks on America's foundation.? They want change... for change's sake.
Americans cannot throw our constitutional heritage out the window for the promise of hope.? The America we have known for over 200 years is an uplifting struggle for fairness, equality and a uniquely American idealism.? It's not perfect, but let's not mess it up now.
Don Snyder is an American who is fed up with the low fat, salt free diet of bull crap he gets every day from the mainstream press more aptly referred to as the mainstream mess. He can be reached at dsnyder@twc.net
Friday, October 10, 2008
TV Rules For Democracy to Rule
Television is the most powerful means of mass communication worldwide at present. And, how many of us are actually addicted to it? Most children and teenagers are, as intended by those who use it to influence all of us.
Look at the children of today. Most of them live their lives according to what they see on TV, and they will swear by it. To them it is the ultimate Gospel Truth, you almost dare not challenge it. And, many of them battle to read and cannot write or spell properly, if at all. Hello, does this touch you at all?
Fortunately I grew up without TV, it only came out in South Africa in 1975/76 when I was already twenty four years old. So it hasn't affected me as it has millions of other people. And, believe me, many people of my age and older are as addicted as other victims are. I feel for you all very deeply, hopefully the truth will set you free.
Television dictates the trends that we live our lives to. Female, black and disabled bosses & supervisors are much more prevalent today as compared to the past everywhere. Don't get me wrong, some of this is good. But this is only one small example of the means used by "the powers that be" to change the mindset of the world population.
But it's as designed by these powers, who-ever they may be, the USA, UN, NATO, Hong Kong, The Vatican, who-ever. This global power instructs its fledgling governments what is required to further global domination through democracy, and the mindset is spread through television & cinematic stories until the virtual world materializes. And then the lifestyle is set in the minds of the people of the new "democratic" world. No wonder we have "designer crime" and "designer wars".
Have you noticed, by way of radio & TV advertising, that the simple toothbrush has been extensively researched for the past forty years (Of my life anyway)? Every time a new toothbrush is released to the market one hears the same thing, "after years of extensive research & laboratory testing, the latest "GUMBOIL" toothbrush has been manufactured and will be released to the world next week".
Wow, this sounds exciting & I'll just have to buy one for each of my family members.
Do we all fall into this trap so easily, like lambs led to the slaughter?
This is simply advertising cow dung that you & I pay for every time we buy a new toothbrush, not to mention all the other products we buy daily & monthly, thus paying for advertising & marketing. We pay far too much for everything we buy, and then we have to see & hear all the adverts on TV as well, and pay for them. Are we crazy, or what?
It is absolutely mind-boggling, isn't it? We pay for the advertisements ourselves. I sometimes wonder to what extent we've been had and, unfortunately, we've hardly taken any notice of it. We just press on ahead, living our "normal lives", blindfolded and believing that everything is fine.
But we are the other party in the economic system, the consumer. The capitalist, or any other system, would emphatically not function without us. We do have a choice? We are free to choose, a basic democratic right.
It is actually a case of consumer rules. If we boycott the retail system until the retailers meet our pricing standards, the monopolies would have to comply or shut down. As long as our pricing standards are set within reason I believe this will work.
Why don't we do it?
With love we are strong, the energy will flow freely for us all.
Vaughan A Jones
Author of ONE LIFE-LOVE-ENERGY
Accountant, musician, composer, author and a soulful thinker.
Email your thoughts to me at onecreation1@gmail.com or on http://onelife.myfreeforum.org/
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Fourth of July Charms
 American Flag Star Italian Charm |  American Flag and Statue of Liberty Italian Charm |  American Flag Black Laser Charm |
 American Flag Heart Italian Charm |  Waving American Flag |  America Italian Charm |
 Classic American Flag |  American Flag State |  American Flag with Yellow Ribbon |
More patriotic Fourth of July Italian Charms and other Italian Charms
Thursday, July 17, 2008
What is a Democrat
When it comes to the political parties many individuals choose either Republican or the Democrat side. If you are wondering which side you should choose and you have already read about the Republican Party then you will be happy to know that this article will be telling you all about the Democrat Party.
First we would like to start by telling you that Democrats have been around for a very long time now. In fact, the Democratic Party is known for being around the longest in the United States of America. You see the Democrat Party is pretty big because it just so happens to be one out of two of the major political parties to be found in the United States of America. The other party that follows behind the Democrat Party is known as the Republican Party.
If you try to trace the origins of the Democratic Party then you can trace it back to the Democratic-Republican Party. This party emerged in the year 1792. The Democratic-Republican Party was founded by a number of Federalists such as Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. When the division of the Republican Party came out in the year 1912 the Democratic Party has been positioned to the left when it comes to the economic views along with the social matters. Since the year 1932 the one individual that has shaped the Democratic Party the most was Franklin D. Roosevelt. Then in the 1960's we had the civil rights movement and that seemed to make the Democratic Party stronger.
In the year 2004 the Democrats were more popular than the Republicans. This is because there was seventy two million individuals registered to vote under the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party is currently known to be the majority party when it comes to the 110th Congress. The Democratic Party currently holds the majority when it comes to the House of Representatives along with the Democratic caucus. Also holding the majority when it comes to the state governorships is the Democratic Party. For the year 2008 we have a Democrat running for president and that is Senator Barack Obama. Barack Obama is from Illinois and it looking to be president of the United States of America on the Democrat side.
Have you ever wondered who is the one's responsible when it comes to promoting the champaign activities on the Democrat side? It is the Democratic National Committee or DNC. Currently the Democratic National Committee is being chaired by Howard Dean and he was the former Governor of Vermont. Have you ever noticed how we are being separated by political parties? The individuals who are Republicans are constantly downing the Democrats while the Democrats are downing the Republicans at the same time.
Ian Pennington is an accomplished niche website developer and author.
To learn more about democrats, please visit Conservatives and Liberals Today for current articles and discussions.
First we would like to start by telling you that Democrats have been around for a very long time now. In fact, the Democratic Party is known for being around the longest in the United States of America. You see the Democrat Party is pretty big because it just so happens to be one out of two of the major political parties to be found in the United States of America. The other party that follows behind the Democrat Party is known as the Republican Party.
If you try to trace the origins of the Democratic Party then you can trace it back to the Democratic-Republican Party. This party emerged in the year 1792. The Democratic-Republican Party was founded by a number of Federalists such as Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. When the division of the Republican Party came out in the year 1912 the Democratic Party has been positioned to the left when it comes to the economic views along with the social matters. Since the year 1932 the one individual that has shaped the Democratic Party the most was Franklin D. Roosevelt. Then in the 1960's we had the civil rights movement and that seemed to make the Democratic Party stronger.
In the year 2004 the Democrats were more popular than the Republicans. This is because there was seventy two million individuals registered to vote under the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party is currently known to be the majority party when it comes to the 110th Congress. The Democratic Party currently holds the majority when it comes to the House of Representatives along with the Democratic caucus. Also holding the majority when it comes to the state governorships is the Democratic Party. For the year 2008 we have a Democrat running for president and that is Senator Barack Obama. Barack Obama is from Illinois and it looking to be president of the United States of America on the Democrat side.
Have you ever wondered who is the one's responsible when it comes to promoting the champaign activities on the Democrat side? It is the Democratic National Committee or DNC. Currently the Democratic National Committee is being chaired by Howard Dean and he was the former Governor of Vermont. Have you ever noticed how we are being separated by political parties? The individuals who are Republicans are constantly downing the Democrats while the Democrats are downing the Republicans at the same time.
Ian Pennington is an accomplished niche website developer and author.
To learn more about democrats, please visit Conservatives and Liberals Today for current articles and discussions.
Political Stunts are a Minefield For Comedy
Politics are a mine field of comedy which will never run out. Those who want to go mining will always be assured. It is there when a country is peaceful and when a country is undergoing a crisis.
Just as Kenya emerged from political crisis after December 2007 general election, President Mwai Kibaki and Raila together arrived to grace International golf competition at Karen Country Club in Nairobi. This act was a sort of comedy. Just a few days ago such a scene could not be imagined. The Prime Minister designate arrive in a fleet of convoy with two guards in one car looking funny after they looked to have overdid their security stunts. Two soldiers, one on each side both quickly popped outside and stood at the door holding the top of the car doors as their support before they jump outside. One of them looked too huge to have a tiny door as his support.
Then several Days after, the Prime Minister designate, Raila Odinga and constitutional minister Martha Karua were together in what was termed as a luncheon. The two have for a long time been bitter rivals that when they meet in what was claimed to be a luncheon and appear in a television, they looked so unnatural. Each sat several feet from each other and look like theywere part og an audience. Each had a surprised and scared face. However, in the months they managed to sit close together and even managed a couple of smiles at each other.
And one of the most comical MPs in the Kenyan Ninth Parliament but who lost in the election has since attended state opening of parliament and appear in several political gatherings. Mr. Kalembe Ndile is a perfect comic in what would otherwise have become a boring Ukambani politics, (Ukambani meaning an area inhabited by the AKamba people of Kenya). When he was made an Assistant Minister for Tourism and Wildlife in the Previous Parliament, he promised to distribute elephants to all the districts in Kenya because it was becoming a menace in a few districts, destroying crops. He said that Kenya should share problems caused by elephants. No one would know when he is serious in what he says and does and when he is not.
By Samwel Kipsang
Just as Kenya emerged from political crisis after December 2007 general election, President Mwai Kibaki and Raila together arrived to grace International golf competition at Karen Country Club in Nairobi. This act was a sort of comedy. Just a few days ago such a scene could not be imagined. The Prime Minister designate arrive in a fleet of convoy with two guards in one car looking funny after they looked to have overdid their security stunts. Two soldiers, one on each side both quickly popped outside and stood at the door holding the top of the car doors as their support before they jump outside. One of them looked too huge to have a tiny door as his support.
Then several Days after, the Prime Minister designate, Raila Odinga and constitutional minister Martha Karua were together in what was termed as a luncheon. The two have for a long time been bitter rivals that when they meet in what was claimed to be a luncheon and appear in a television, they looked so unnatural. Each sat several feet from each other and look like theywere part og an audience. Each had a surprised and scared face. However, in the months they managed to sit close together and even managed a couple of smiles at each other.
And one of the most comical MPs in the Kenyan Ninth Parliament but who lost in the election has since attended state opening of parliament and appear in several political gatherings. Mr. Kalembe Ndile is a perfect comic in what would otherwise have become a boring Ukambani politics, (Ukambani meaning an area inhabited by the AKamba people of Kenya). When he was made an Assistant Minister for Tourism and Wildlife in the Previous Parliament, he promised to distribute elephants to all the districts in Kenya because it was becoming a menace in a few districts, destroying crops. He said that Kenya should share problems caused by elephants. No one would know when he is serious in what he says and does and when he is not.
By Samwel Kipsang
Wednesday, May 07, 2008
How Informed a Voter Are You?
I have always prided myself on being an informed voter. I watch the primaries before and after voting has already taken place in my own state. It has always amazed me how a station can project a winner minutes after the polls have closed and with a few exceptions are correct.
I was watching the results of the Indiana and North Carolina elections last night and the victory speeches of both candidates. I have watched the pundits for what seems like years now saying it is impossible for Hillary to overtake Obama and asking why she keeps staying in. Neither one can win enough delegates to win the nomination so it is going to come down to the "super delegates". First of all, this is a totally ridiculous system to my thinking. I think the electoral college itself is a joke. Anyway, the Fox Channel is interviewing Rep. Brad Miller of North Carolina who is an uncomfirmed super delegate asking him if he has decided. He says that he hasn't because he is going over the data from the precincts and counties in his state before he reaches a decision. At the time, Obama has already been declared the winner and is leading by over 25 points. He wound up winning by 14. Does anyone else look at Rep. Miller and question I wonder why our government doesn't work?
Another thing that made me go hmmm was watching the exit poll questions and percentages. Over 60% of both Indiana and North Carolina voters thought both Obama and Clinton were honest. I must have missed something somewhere. Less than a month ago, Hillary stated she landed in Bosnia under sniper fire which was proven visually that was wrong. Obama sat in the pew of his church listening to a minister spew hate rhetoric but never heard it. Yet, over 60% of the voters in these 2 states think they are honest. I realize none of us are perfect but how can any reasonably intelligent, rational, logical person think they are honest? Are they saying they are honest most of the time? I don't understand that premise.
I think it is great that record numbers of people are registering and subsequently voting in the primaries, but I wonder and yes question how truly informed they are. Are they making their choice based on a campaign worker knocking on their door giving them some signs and pins and driving them to the registration place? Based on the answers given in exit polls it sure does seem that way
http://www.randyblessingsemporium.com
I was watching the results of the Indiana and North Carolina elections last night and the victory speeches of both candidates. I have watched the pundits for what seems like years now saying it is impossible for Hillary to overtake Obama and asking why she keeps staying in. Neither one can win enough delegates to win the nomination so it is going to come down to the "super delegates". First of all, this is a totally ridiculous system to my thinking. I think the electoral college itself is a joke. Anyway, the Fox Channel is interviewing Rep. Brad Miller of North Carolina who is an uncomfirmed super delegate asking him if he has decided. He says that he hasn't because he is going over the data from the precincts and counties in his state before he reaches a decision. At the time, Obama has already been declared the winner and is leading by over 25 points. He wound up winning by 14. Does anyone else look at Rep. Miller and question I wonder why our government doesn't work?
Another thing that made me go hmmm was watching the exit poll questions and percentages. Over 60% of both Indiana and North Carolina voters thought both Obama and Clinton were honest. I must have missed something somewhere. Less than a month ago, Hillary stated she landed in Bosnia under sniper fire which was proven visually that was wrong. Obama sat in the pew of his church listening to a minister spew hate rhetoric but never heard it. Yet, over 60% of the voters in these 2 states think they are honest. I realize none of us are perfect but how can any reasonably intelligent, rational, logical person think they are honest? Are they saying they are honest most of the time? I don't understand that premise.
I think it is great that record numbers of people are registering and subsequently voting in the primaries, but I wonder and yes question how truly informed they are. Are they making their choice based on a campaign worker knocking on their door giving them some signs and pins and driving them to the registration place? Based on the answers given in exit polls it sure does seem that way
http://www.randyblessingsemporium.com
Tuesday, May 06, 2008
Why Socialism Cannot Succeed
Does Socialism work? To find out the answer to this question, all we have to do is visit the nearest Native American reservation. While it is fashionable to blame high unemployment rates, economic stagnation and ill-health on the effects of being a conquered peoples, I maintain that it is due to Native peoples adherence to the socialistic tribal structure, both culturally and economically.
I am always amazed with people who advocate socialism as a solution to the problems facing us. I would venture to say that those individuals have never lived or worked in a socialistic society. If they had, they would see that socialism only can work on a very limited and small scale.
In Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand tells a story about a motor company in which the credo, "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need", was applied. In this story, it shows how the company deteriorates because people soon learn that the get what they want, they have to prove how needy they are. Each person has to show that "their" need is greater than another's, and those with ability end up working more and more to provide for the "needs" of others. In other words, they were slaves to the "collective".
Aguste Comte, in his Catechisme Positiviste, said that "[the] social point of view cannot tolerate the notion of rights, for such notion rests on individualism. We are born under a load of obligations of every kind, to our predecessors, to our successors, to our contemporaries. After our birth these obligations increase or accumulate, for it is some time before we can return any service.... This ["to live for others"], the definitive formula of human morality, gives a direct sanction exclusively to our instincts of benevolence, the common source of happiness and duty. [Man must serve] Humanity, who we are entirely."
"The social point of view cannot tolerate the notion of rights." This sentence needs to be burned into our souls.
Altruism also has been defined as, "serving others through placing their interests above one's own."
When the state decides to put altruism into practice the method used is socialism.
I was raised in what Indian's call the "dominant" society of the 1950's and 1960's in a small logging town in Oregon. At one time I asked my father why we did not live by the old reservation around other Indian's and he replied, "I didn't want you kids raised with the belief that somebody owed you something". He also was adamant that we work for whatever luxuries we wanted. At the time, I thought he was just mean and cheap.
The last 16 years I have lived on our small reservation. I have also visited and studied many other reservations in America. Most of them have attempted to use socialism as their economic remedy. If you want to see how socialism works all you have to do is look at Native American reservation's. They still have the highest un-employment. The poorest health, lowest standard of living and highest death rate pro rated.
What I have observed is people are grateful when some of their needs are being met via a socialistic entity; then people start expecting their needs too be met; and then they start demanding their needs be met. They not only expect what was already given, but demand even more benefits.
Intellectually, socialism sounds wonderful. In reality it creates slaves. Some individuals are slaves by providing the benefits to and for others, and some are slaves to their neediness.
Here is a quote by Frederic Bastiat...... (This was written in the 1840's, about 100 years before FDR. Since the 1940's, most of the problems Mr. Bastiat foresaw have occurred in the U.S.)
"[The socialists declare] that the state owes subsistence, well-being, and education to all its citizens; that it should be generous, charitable, involved in everything, devoted to everybody;...that it should intervene directly to relieve all suffering, satisfy and anticipate all wants, furnish capital to all enterprises, enlightenment to all minds, balm for all wounds, asylums for all the unfortunate, and even aid to the point of shedding French blood, for all oppressed people on the face of the earth.
Who would not like to see all these benefits flow forth upon the world from the law, as from an inexhaustible source? ...But is it possible? ...Whence does [the state] draw those resources that it is urged to dispense by way of benefits to individuals? Is it not from the individuals themselves? How, then, can these resources be increased by passing through the hands of a parasitical and voracious intermediary?...
Finally...we shall see the entire people transformed into petitioners. Landed property, agriculture, industry, commerce, shipping, industrial companies, all will bestir themselves to claim favors from the state. The public treasury will be literally pillaged.
Everyone will have good reasons to prove that legal fraternity should be interpreted in this sense: "Let me have the benefits, and let others pay the costs."
Everyone's effort will be directed toward snatching a scrap of fraternal privilege from the legislature. The suffering classes, although having the greatest claim, will not always have the greatest success." from Journal des Economistes
I have witnessed the harm done by socialism. I have seen it sap the integrity, motivation, honesty, and dreams of individuals. I have seen it create slaves. I have seen its seductive promises induce people to betray family members and friends.
I have seen socialism create the entitlement mentality. I have watched my sons accept the false premises that we are put on this earth to expend our lives, talents and ability to the "collective".
I have attempted to talk with them. I have tried to explain why they should not accept the fact that they will work over one half of their lives for the benefit of politicians and the government. However, as many of you know who have children, parents do not know much.
It saddens me. I told my oldest son that one of the reasons I sobered up 30 years ago, was because I was not going to be a bum on society or my family. I am not going to sit idly by and let our government institute programs and policies so my children will be slaves to me even "after" I am dead.
This issue is "not" just an interesting debate or intellectual exercise. Socialism kills, not just individuals but all the things that make an individuals life on this earth worthwhile.
Don't believe me?
As I suggested, just do a little research on the conditions on most reservations in this country.
http://rblacketer.ipower.com/
I am always amazed with people who advocate socialism as a solution to the problems facing us. I would venture to say that those individuals have never lived or worked in a socialistic society. If they had, they would see that socialism only can work on a very limited and small scale.
In Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand tells a story about a motor company in which the credo, "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need", was applied. In this story, it shows how the company deteriorates because people soon learn that the get what they want, they have to prove how needy they are. Each person has to show that "their" need is greater than another's, and those with ability end up working more and more to provide for the "needs" of others. In other words, they were slaves to the "collective".
Aguste Comte, in his Catechisme Positiviste, said that "[the] social point of view cannot tolerate the notion of rights, for such notion rests on individualism. We are born under a load of obligations of every kind, to our predecessors, to our successors, to our contemporaries. After our birth these obligations increase or accumulate, for it is some time before we can return any service.... This ["to live for others"], the definitive formula of human morality, gives a direct sanction exclusively to our instincts of benevolence, the common source of happiness and duty. [Man must serve] Humanity, who we are entirely."
"The social point of view cannot tolerate the notion of rights." This sentence needs to be burned into our souls.
Altruism also has been defined as, "serving others through placing their interests above one's own."
When the state decides to put altruism into practice the method used is socialism.
I was raised in what Indian's call the "dominant" society of the 1950's and 1960's in a small logging town in Oregon. At one time I asked my father why we did not live by the old reservation around other Indian's and he replied, "I didn't want you kids raised with the belief that somebody owed you something". He also was adamant that we work for whatever luxuries we wanted. At the time, I thought he was just mean and cheap.
The last 16 years I have lived on our small reservation. I have also visited and studied many other reservations in America. Most of them have attempted to use socialism as their economic remedy. If you want to see how socialism works all you have to do is look at Native American reservation's. They still have the highest un-employment. The poorest health, lowest standard of living and highest death rate pro rated.
What I have observed is people are grateful when some of their needs are being met via a socialistic entity; then people start expecting their needs too be met; and then they start demanding their needs be met. They not only expect what was already given, but demand even more benefits.
Intellectually, socialism sounds wonderful. In reality it creates slaves. Some individuals are slaves by providing the benefits to and for others, and some are slaves to their neediness.
Here is a quote by Frederic Bastiat...... (This was written in the 1840's, about 100 years before FDR. Since the 1940's, most of the problems Mr. Bastiat foresaw have occurred in the U.S.)
"[The socialists declare] that the state owes subsistence, well-being, and education to all its citizens; that it should be generous, charitable, involved in everything, devoted to everybody;...that it should intervene directly to relieve all suffering, satisfy and anticipate all wants, furnish capital to all enterprises, enlightenment to all minds, balm for all wounds, asylums for all the unfortunate, and even aid to the point of shedding French blood, for all oppressed people on the face of the earth.
Who would not like to see all these benefits flow forth upon the world from the law, as from an inexhaustible source? ...But is it possible? ...Whence does [the state] draw those resources that it is urged to dispense by way of benefits to individuals? Is it not from the individuals themselves? How, then, can these resources be increased by passing through the hands of a parasitical and voracious intermediary?...
Finally...we shall see the entire people transformed into petitioners. Landed property, agriculture, industry, commerce, shipping, industrial companies, all will bestir themselves to claim favors from the state. The public treasury will be literally pillaged.
Everyone will have good reasons to prove that legal fraternity should be interpreted in this sense: "Let me have the benefits, and let others pay the costs."
Everyone's effort will be directed toward snatching a scrap of fraternal privilege from the legislature. The suffering classes, although having the greatest claim, will not always have the greatest success." from Journal des Economistes
I have witnessed the harm done by socialism. I have seen it sap the integrity, motivation, honesty, and dreams of individuals. I have seen it create slaves. I have seen its seductive promises induce people to betray family members and friends.
I have seen socialism create the entitlement mentality. I have watched my sons accept the false premises that we are put on this earth to expend our lives, talents and ability to the "collective".
I have attempted to talk with them. I have tried to explain why they should not accept the fact that they will work over one half of their lives for the benefit of politicians and the government. However, as many of you know who have children, parents do not know much.
It saddens me. I told my oldest son that one of the reasons I sobered up 30 years ago, was because I was not going to be a bum on society or my family. I am not going to sit idly by and let our government institute programs and policies so my children will be slaves to me even "after" I am dead.
This issue is "not" just an interesting debate or intellectual exercise. Socialism kills, not just individuals but all the things that make an individuals life on this earth worthwhile.
Don't believe me?
As I suggested, just do a little research on the conditions on most reservations in this country.
http://rblacketer.ipower.com/
Tuesday, April 01, 2008
The State of the Democratic Party Presidential Race
Senator Hillary Clinton is struggling to keep her democratic nomination alive today though she was the overwhelming favorite just three months back - in December 2007.
The reason for this is simple: Senator Clinton's almost-perfect certitude in December 2007 that she would prevail. That certitude was reasonable by most objective measures. Senator Clinton did not come to that conclusion lightly. She came to that conclusion after evaluating her competition -- Senator Barack Obama (lack of national exposure and party network) and former Vice-Presidential Candidate John Edwards (has been there already and not succeeded, not a fresh face, a bit too populist) -- and after assessing her own strengths (experience, knowledge, party network.)
Objectively, any external consultant would have agreed with Senator Clinton's assessment of the political landscape as it appeared in December 2007.
As anticipated, John Edwards put up a spirited fight, and then suspended his campaign. But Senator Barack Obama's surprising and resilient strength is just that -- most surprising.
However, in public life, every now and then a candidate who is in almost-complete sync with the public mood emerges, and he/she captures the imagination (e.g, Reagan in 1980 after failing to connect in 1968, and almost succeeding in 1976.) Usually, there are many institutional speed bumps to such a sweep (e.g., Gary Hart in 1984.)
That's what we find with Senator Obama's success this time -- he has captured the broad sweep of imagination of at least the Democratic Party voters, and he is running into many speed bumps but none of them has (yet) derailed him.
Senator Hillary Clinton, nor any one including Senator Obama, could have anticipated this. Nor could any poll have captured this -- it is like asking consumers about wine-coolers when they have no idea what it is.
That is the stuff of public mood and public life. There is a season for things, and quite often we don't control those flows. Senator Obama himself acknowledges and understands this ("fierece urgency of now" quoting Dr. King) -- he may not match the public sentiment in the next season, he does now.
In spite of Senator Barack Obama's surprising strength, Senator Clinton could have still, probably, won the Democratic Party nomination but her well-placed confidence and certitude led to two tactical misjudgments that are now costing her so dearly.
The two misjudgments are: (i) not competing in party caucuses vigorously (among the pledged delegates from the primaries, Senator Clinton trails only by about 20 pledged delegates but when you factor the caucus results, Senator Clinton trails by over 150 pledged delegates); and (ii) not doing enough due diligence about the Democratic Party rules, and absorbing and internalizing those rules for proper strategy execution [e.g., believing that victory in big states should provide the numbers (not so because of proportional representation rules), not absorbing the Texas dual system.]
That's the way life is sometimes. Timing (and some may call it luck or providence) is such a determinant in life. Just as Bill Clinton was wise (or lucky) in taking a pass at the 1988 Presidential elections and equally wise (or lucky) in joining the fray in 1992, Senator Hillary Clinton's time may have been 2004 or it may be 2012 or 2016.
It appears from all conventional metrics that the mood of the electorate favors the Democratic nominee in fall but who really knows? No poll can measure this.
© Gurumurthy, Kalyanaram (2007)
Gurumurthy, Kalyanaram is a management consultant and a professor. He can be reached at gurumurthy.kalyanaram(at)gmail.com
The reason for this is simple: Senator Clinton's almost-perfect certitude in December 2007 that she would prevail. That certitude was reasonable by most objective measures. Senator Clinton did not come to that conclusion lightly. She came to that conclusion after evaluating her competition -- Senator Barack Obama (lack of national exposure and party network) and former Vice-Presidential Candidate John Edwards (has been there already and not succeeded, not a fresh face, a bit too populist) -- and after assessing her own strengths (experience, knowledge, party network.)
Objectively, any external consultant would have agreed with Senator Clinton's assessment of the political landscape as it appeared in December 2007.
As anticipated, John Edwards put up a spirited fight, and then suspended his campaign. But Senator Barack Obama's surprising and resilient strength is just that -- most surprising.
However, in public life, every now and then a candidate who is in almost-complete sync with the public mood emerges, and he/she captures the imagination (e.g, Reagan in 1980 after failing to connect in 1968, and almost succeeding in 1976.) Usually, there are many institutional speed bumps to such a sweep (e.g., Gary Hart in 1984.)
That's what we find with Senator Obama's success this time -- he has captured the broad sweep of imagination of at least the Democratic Party voters, and he is running into many speed bumps but none of them has (yet) derailed him.
Senator Hillary Clinton, nor any one including Senator Obama, could have anticipated this. Nor could any poll have captured this -- it is like asking consumers about wine-coolers when they have no idea what it is.
That is the stuff of public mood and public life. There is a season for things, and quite often we don't control those flows. Senator Obama himself acknowledges and understands this ("fierece urgency of now" quoting Dr. King) -- he may not match the public sentiment in the next season, he does now.
In spite of Senator Barack Obama's surprising strength, Senator Clinton could have still, probably, won the Democratic Party nomination but her well-placed confidence and certitude led to two tactical misjudgments that are now costing her so dearly.
The two misjudgments are: (i) not competing in party caucuses vigorously (among the pledged delegates from the primaries, Senator Clinton trails only by about 20 pledged delegates but when you factor the caucus results, Senator Clinton trails by over 150 pledged delegates); and (ii) not doing enough due diligence about the Democratic Party rules, and absorbing and internalizing those rules for proper strategy execution [e.g., believing that victory in big states should provide the numbers (not so because of proportional representation rules), not absorbing the Texas dual system.]
That's the way life is sometimes. Timing (and some may call it luck or providence) is such a determinant in life. Just as Bill Clinton was wise (or lucky) in taking a pass at the 1988 Presidential elections and equally wise (or lucky) in joining the fray in 1992, Senator Hillary Clinton's time may have been 2004 or it may be 2012 or 2016.
It appears from all conventional metrics that the mood of the electorate favors the Democratic nominee in fall but who really knows? No poll can measure this.
© Gurumurthy, Kalyanaram (2007)
Gurumurthy, Kalyanaram is a management consultant and a professor. He can be reached at gurumurthy.kalyanaram(at)gmail.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
