If you are anything like me, the smallest decisions can quickly become material for the greatest debates of your life. You can turn the tiniest molehill of an issue into a huge mountain of a decision just by sitting down and analyzing too much.
Sound familiar? Have you ever gotten weighed down in trying to make small decisions of little consequence and had trouble keeping perspective? I definitely have. It is so easy to take a minor decision like 'what should I eat for breakfast?' and turn it into a two-sided debate that can last long beyond normal breakfast hours. You begin to debate whether you should have a healthy, balanced breakfast of wholegrain toast and fruit or if you can indulge (just this once) in a less-healthy meal of packaged pastries and a latte. Did you eat healthy enough the day before to reward yourself witha sugar-filled breakfast? Are you planning to eat better food for the rest of the day? These questions and more can add unnecessary stress and debate to your choice.
Those of us who are analytical by nature have an even tougher time not turning everything into a debate in our head. Take shopping for example. You find a great sweater on sale for ten dollars, but there is an even cuter sweater that you are sure you'd wear more. The cuter sweater, however, is forty dollars. What do you do? People like me start making mental lists of the pros and cons on each side of what has become a great debate during your day. Do you save the money but forfeit the better looking sweater? Or do you splurge and take some dollars away from another item you really needed to buy? What a task it can be to make choices like these when we let ourselves make big issues out of small ones.
Is there anything we can do to stop making ourselves debate each decision we make each day? I for one am tired of living this way. It is one thing to be intentional about the choices you make, but it is another thing entirely to overwork your brain with debates over breakfasts or new sweaters.
I guess I only have one piece of tested and tried advice to give people whose biggest opponent in any debate is themself: stop it. When you feel a silly debate about to be had in your head, just stop it. Take a moment to settle down your thoughts and to really consider how important this decision is. The chances are that it is not anywhere worth near the time and energy you will spend analyzing the choice. You will find, as I am beginning to, that ninety percent of the things I let become a great debate in my head are really not worth having a debate about at all. Have the unhealthy breakfast, buy the expensive sweater. Do what you want. Just stop being so indecisive about what that means.
(sources from Internet)
Friday, October 22, 2010
Friday, September 10, 2010
Hot In Politics
The blog is about politics that happens in our everyday life. I will be looking for topics in politics that may interest you. Most sources are from the internet, that may come from online newspaper, magazine or other people blogs.
I want to make sure that the sources are credited. However I may make mistake, and if I do please let me know, and will fix it for as soon as possible.
I want to make sure that the sources are credited. However I may make mistake, and if I do please let me know, and will fix it for as soon as possible.
Sunday, August 29, 2010
Net Neutrality On The Hill
The internet has always been a source of confusion and angst on Capitol Hill. It has also been one of the more glamorous issues among the lawmakers, because the impact it has had on the way Americans communicate, seek entertainment and do business.
As the speed of the internet has grown, as its "bandwidth" has allowed it to carry large amounts of content at high speed, the internet highway has become an enormously lucrative commercial highway. It has also become much like a utility, in that its services are delivered primarily by cable operators and telephone companies, each industry operating in most markets as a de facto monopoly.
Now, those cable and telephone companies that are the internet service providers, or ISPs, are looking for additional revenue services beyond the subscription fees that they charge consumers each month. They are considering charging major content providers on the web a fee for massive use of their networks. Large websites such as Amazon, Google and Yahoo would be charged a fee for the amount of traffic they put into the web
pipelines.
Keep in mind, these providers already pay for their bandwidth. They pay for their connections to the Internet through various datacenters and connections to various backbone networks. Some don't do much to dispel the confusion their claims may cause, allowing people to think Google somehow isn't paying for their bandwidth usage already. All major content providers do pay, the issue at the heart of this debate is whether they will have to pay more due to their size, or suffer less-than equal treatment when an ISP's customers attempt to reach their sites.
Net Neutrality Comes to Center Stage
What has brought this issue to a head is the pending ability of broadband cable networks to deliver movies and other first run video programming over the internet. But the success of Google and Yahoo with their advertising revenue model and Amazon with its enormous retail presence has convinced the cable system operators that they are entitled to some of the revenue these companies are deriving from services delivered and transactions concluded over their networks - at no cost.
Thus "net neutrality" has become a buzzword on Capitol Hill and the focus of more than one proposed piece of legislation in the past eighteen months. One of the problems facing the lawmakers is that no one is exactly sure what net neutrality means. For the big content providers, it means no additional fees for their presence and availability on the internet. For the ISPs, it is a veiled term for regulated rates - or more accurately, the inability to create a rate structure for major websites.
The National Cable and Telecommunications Association (NCTA) has fought cable regulation for years, and sees net neutrality as another governmental threat. Says a spokesman, "For instance, does network neutrality mean that network operators can't block spam? Should network operators be allowed to stop viruses from spreading? Should large users of peer-to-peer software be allowed unlimited bandwidth so service for other users is slower?"
The major internet search engines and retail sites are active in their support for net neutrality, and they are joined by some likely allies including internet freedom of speech advocates, liberal organizations such as MoveOn and some libertarian organizations.
The legislative concern is that the monopolistic service providers would be in a position to favor some websites over others - and that providing unlimited high speed delivery capability to major sites will push other websites into slower lanes on the internet highway. There is also the possibility of ISPs denying some websites access to their networks altogether. These scenarios are viewed as an inherently unfair model subject to antitrust consideration, at least by some Democrats.
Google recently threatened to use antitrust lawsuits should net neutrality initiatives fail and they detect any signs of discrimination against their traffic.
Freedom of Speech or Freedom of Profit?
The philosophical issues are interesting. But more important in this issue are the potential business opportunities for both content providers and network operators. The telephone companies that have large numbers of high speed internet subscribers intend to get into the television business via the internet.
Yahoo and Google see opportunities in online video, and alliances between such websites and movie companies are a real possibility. The cable companies that provide internet service are also interested in proprietary pay-per-view services delivered via the internet. The service providers would like to see a "tiered" structure wherein they can charge large websites (with large revenue streams) a fee. In addition, they would like to get into the
content business themselves.
The ISPs argue that additional revenues are necessary in order for them to continue to invest billions in high speed networks to better serve their customers. They are finding some allies among hardware manufacturers, who see the implementation of a fee structure online as requiring additional in-home equipment. Some conservative Republicans are opposed to net neutrality as well, agreeing that the ISPs would be denied the ability to expand their networks without the additional revenue.
A Regulatory Conundrum
The FCC has left the issue alone. At one point, they dismissed the issue when raised by Amazon and other major web content providers, saying that regulation was unnecessary for activities that had yet to occur. Then Madison River, a telecommunications company in North Carolina, blocked internet telephone service over their telephone network which they used to deliver both internet access and telephone service. The FCC is no longer in a position to ignore the matter, as they will be the enforcement body for whatever rules emerge from the current debate
A bill addressing net neutrality that was proposed by Democrats failed in the House in April. However attitudes are shifting. In May, a seemingly bipartisan bill came out of the House Judiciary Committee that would add specific language to existing antitrust law guaranteeing net neutrality. The Judiciary bill would make it illegal under antitrust law for network operators to impose fees or to fail to provide their services on "reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms."
Further, the bill would bar ISPs from blocking or impairing internet sites. The house has two other pending bills as well, both emanating from Democrats. One of the proposals is from Congressman Ed Markey, a longtime expert on cable and telecommunications issues. He proposes to amend a telecommunications bill slated for consideration by both houses later this year.
On the Senate side, there is a major rewrite of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 underway and debate over this issue has made its way into the process. At the moment, the proposed bill includes language that charges the FCC with watching for potential violations of net neutrality and reporting its findings to Congress. This "when in doubt, commission a study" approach suits the NCTA perfectly. It's a good-government approach to continued non-regulation, and as the NCTA president told a Senate committee "This is the kind of issue that is most appropriately studied a lot more."
(sources from Internet)
As the speed of the internet has grown, as its "bandwidth" has allowed it to carry large amounts of content at high speed, the internet highway has become an enormously lucrative commercial highway. It has also become much like a utility, in that its services are delivered primarily by cable operators and telephone companies, each industry operating in most markets as a de facto monopoly.
Now, those cable and telephone companies that are the internet service providers, or ISPs, are looking for additional revenue services beyond the subscription fees that they charge consumers each month. They are considering charging major content providers on the web a fee for massive use of their networks. Large websites such as Amazon, Google and Yahoo would be charged a fee for the amount of traffic they put into the web
pipelines.
Keep in mind, these providers already pay for their bandwidth. They pay for their connections to the Internet through various datacenters and connections to various backbone networks. Some don't do much to dispel the confusion their claims may cause, allowing people to think Google somehow isn't paying for their bandwidth usage already. All major content providers do pay, the issue at the heart of this debate is whether they will have to pay more due to their size, or suffer less-than equal treatment when an ISP's customers attempt to reach their sites.
Net Neutrality Comes to Center Stage
What has brought this issue to a head is the pending ability of broadband cable networks to deliver movies and other first run video programming over the internet. But the success of Google and Yahoo with their advertising revenue model and Amazon with its enormous retail presence has convinced the cable system operators that they are entitled to some of the revenue these companies are deriving from services delivered and transactions concluded over their networks - at no cost.
Thus "net neutrality" has become a buzzword on Capitol Hill and the focus of more than one proposed piece of legislation in the past eighteen months. One of the problems facing the lawmakers is that no one is exactly sure what net neutrality means. For the big content providers, it means no additional fees for their presence and availability on the internet. For the ISPs, it is a veiled term for regulated rates - or more accurately, the inability to create a rate structure for major websites.
The National Cable and Telecommunications Association (NCTA) has fought cable regulation for years, and sees net neutrality as another governmental threat. Says a spokesman, "For instance, does network neutrality mean that network operators can't block spam? Should network operators be allowed to stop viruses from spreading? Should large users of peer-to-peer software be allowed unlimited bandwidth so service for other users is slower?"
The major internet search engines and retail sites are active in their support for net neutrality, and they are joined by some likely allies including internet freedom of speech advocates, liberal organizations such as MoveOn and some libertarian organizations.
The legislative concern is that the monopolistic service providers would be in a position to favor some websites over others - and that providing unlimited high speed delivery capability to major sites will push other websites into slower lanes on the internet highway. There is also the possibility of ISPs denying some websites access to their networks altogether. These scenarios are viewed as an inherently unfair model subject to antitrust consideration, at least by some Democrats.
Google recently threatened to use antitrust lawsuits should net neutrality initiatives fail and they detect any signs of discrimination against their traffic.
Freedom of Speech or Freedom of Profit?
The philosophical issues are interesting. But more important in this issue are the potential business opportunities for both content providers and network operators. The telephone companies that have large numbers of high speed internet subscribers intend to get into the television business via the internet.
Yahoo and Google see opportunities in online video, and alliances between such websites and movie companies are a real possibility. The cable companies that provide internet service are also interested in proprietary pay-per-view services delivered via the internet. The service providers would like to see a "tiered" structure wherein they can charge large websites (with large revenue streams) a fee. In addition, they would like to get into the
content business themselves.
The ISPs argue that additional revenues are necessary in order for them to continue to invest billions in high speed networks to better serve their customers. They are finding some allies among hardware manufacturers, who see the implementation of a fee structure online as requiring additional in-home equipment. Some conservative Republicans are opposed to net neutrality as well, agreeing that the ISPs would be denied the ability to expand their networks without the additional revenue.
A Regulatory Conundrum
The FCC has left the issue alone. At one point, they dismissed the issue when raised by Amazon and other major web content providers, saying that regulation was unnecessary for activities that had yet to occur. Then Madison River, a telecommunications company in North Carolina, blocked internet telephone service over their telephone network which they used to deliver both internet access and telephone service. The FCC is no longer in a position to ignore the matter, as they will be the enforcement body for whatever rules emerge from the current debate
A bill addressing net neutrality that was proposed by Democrats failed in the House in April. However attitudes are shifting. In May, a seemingly bipartisan bill came out of the House Judiciary Committee that would add specific language to existing antitrust law guaranteeing net neutrality. The Judiciary bill would make it illegal under antitrust law for network operators to impose fees or to fail to provide their services on "reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms."
Further, the bill would bar ISPs from blocking or impairing internet sites. The house has two other pending bills as well, both emanating from Democrats. One of the proposals is from Congressman Ed Markey, a longtime expert on cable and telecommunications issues. He proposes to amend a telecommunications bill slated for consideration by both houses later this year.
On the Senate side, there is a major rewrite of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 underway and debate over this issue has made its way into the process. At the moment, the proposed bill includes language that charges the FCC with watching for potential violations of net neutrality and reporting its findings to Congress. This "when in doubt, commission a study" approach suits the NCTA perfectly. It's a good-government approach to continued non-regulation, and as the NCTA president told a Senate committee "This is the kind of issue that is most appropriately studied a lot more."
(sources from Internet)
Monday, August 23, 2010
What Do You Know About Richard M. Nixon?
Depending on who we are, how old we are, and where we come from, associations with Richard M. Nixon vary greatly. The best is the SEINFELD episode wherein Elaine tricked into dating a guy because he has the perfect come-on.
He makes bets with total strangers (women he is attracted to) about trivia topics and names that he intentionally gets wrong. In Elaine's case, upon meeting her, he bets with her that Dustin Hoffman was in STAR WARS�then by the end of the show has moved on to Jerry's girlfriend, Nikki (though the freak doesn't know she's Jerry's girlfriend as he hits on her) what the M stands for in Richard M. Nixon.
There is also the brilliant, campy STRIPTEASE performance of Burt Reynolds playing Congressman David Dilbeck, who greases himself up with Vaseline to have his way with a token piece of fresh lint from his fantasy girl, Erin Grant (played by Demi Moore), then is cleaned up and hastened to a stage to speak to a huge group of Christians: as he enters to a standing O he holds both politician hand up in the sign of the V for victory but more looking like the Richard M. Nixon signs of peace. Such are the implications, anyway.
This is the silliest of associations I have with that name, Richard M. Nixon, as I was in high school when the 37th U. S. president was waving his phony peace signs and mumbling as if he had marbles in his mouth that he was "not a crook"�both becoming signature marks for the fallen president of the United States.
I recall actual silent periods in Latin class, for instance, when we would de-rail from our declensions and go into grave, oppressive quiet time once the overhead speakers piped the latest news on the infamous Richard M. Nixon, interrupting our "normal" class periods.
Yes, he has been made fun of, has been villanized and glorified equally by left and by right�. He was an iconic president, for numerous reasons, that is. Richard M. Nixon was responsible for issuing policy that brought price control and established SSI (Supplemental Security Income). Richard M. Nixon made electronic spying of the Big Brother of George Orwell's 1984 a reality by spying and bugging (Democrats and others, including his own people) and bringing about his impeachment.
And Richard M. Nixon is, conversely, known as the president who�in a detente with the then USSR and China, ended the miserable Vietnam War. So whatever your associations are with Richard M. Nixon, may they be more accurate than mine were when I was a pot-smoking, Latinate language-struggling, anti-authoritarianistic teen.
(sources from Internet)
Saturday, August 21, 2010
North Korea: Yes, You Have Our Attention
North Korea has tested a low yield nuclear device with 4% of the destructive power of the bomb that the United States dropped on Hiroshima, Japan at the end of World War II.
Some believe that the device was much larger but may have failed for technical reasons.
We don't know the truth, because the United States has not devoted the resources to know what is really going on. If you are surprised, don't be. Intelligence collection is a tricky business.
When Richard Nixon was President, you may remember that one of our ships, the USS Pueblo was brazenly attacked and hijacked in international waters in 1968, off the coast of North Korea. The 82 member crew was taken prisoner and tortured over an 11 month period before their release was negotiated.
There is such a thing as institutional memory. The senior members of the military remember the Pueblo incident well, and it still influences our behavior towards North Korea. As an aside, President Nixon gave the order to attack North Korea in retribution for the Pueblo incident. At the time the President believed a show of force was absolutely necessary to dissuade the Koreans from further provocative acts. Nixon's Secretary of Defense at the time did not carry out the Presidential directive. To the end of his life, Nixon felt the biggest foreign policy error of his administration was the failure to carry out a retaliatory raid against North Korea for the Pueblo capture. The Pueblo incident has emboldened the North Koreans ever since.
Both the Clinton and Bush Administrations were aware of the Pueblo incident and its aftermath, when attempting to configure a new US policy towards North Korea's nuclear program. We have 37,000 American soldiers stationed in South Korea protecting our alliance and interests with South Korea. There is a phased troop withdrawal from the South Korea Peninsula taking place.
You have to wonder why we are willing to withdraw troops from South Korea during a time when they wish to pursue a nuclear development process. The answer is that this area of the world is loaded with dynamite, and if it blows up, you don't want to have 37,000 American troops sitting in the middle of it. North Korea has one of the largest stockpiles of artillery weapons of any army in the world. They are capable of striking Seoul, South Korea's capital from across the border.
It was recently reported that Prince Bandar, the Saudi Arabian Ambassador to the United States had a private conversation with President Bush. In the conversation the Prince told the President that the United States should withdraw US troops from South Korea. Bandar felt it was too dangerous to leave our soldiers in the middle of a possible confrontation where our OPTIONS would be limited. As Bandar put it, without troops on the border, if there's problem, it's a REGIONAL PROBLEM. With troops, you could have thousands of American lives at risk, and it becomes a major WAR instantly.
So what do we do about the North Koreans announcing the ACTUAL testing of a nuclear weapon? We have to realize that words have power. We have to be careful what we say. President Bush announced the "axis of evil" speech several years ago. He named North Korea and Iraq as two of the three countries. It would seem that he started his anti-terrorism campaign in the wrong end of the world.
Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction (WMD), while North Korea has gone live with them. Now we are in a bind. Our defense policy has been altered whereby we can only fight one war in one country at a time, while fighting a holding action in a second country. Prior to the Bush Administration holding power, we were postured to fight two simultaneous wars on two fronts.
The bad guys know our new policy and will take advantage of us being pinned down in Iraq to expand their own power bases. Since we have a fear of losing pilots or better yet, having a pilot shot down, we are not doing the reconnaissance flights that we would normally do over North Korea.
The best thing to do right now is to realize that if North Korea is a problem for the United States, it is a much bigger problem for Japan, China, Philippines, and South Korea. This is a regional problem in spite of our alliances, and treaty involvements. Its one thing to build and detonate a nuclear weapon, it's quite another to have a long range missile delivery system. North Korea could fairly easily develop a delivery system capable of hitting the countries in its immediate vicinity.
Hitting the United States from a 9,000 mile plus distance is another story, not so easy really. Since the countries bordering North Korea have the most to lose, they should be the ones bearing the brunt of the responsibility for multi-lateral talks among the powers involved.
The real deal is that North Korea is a dictatorship that routinely starves its own people for the benefit of the small leadership that has basically enslaved the country. This leadership wants to play the cards that it can. What it now has is nuclear weapons. They will use this card to maximize whatever concessions they can from the United States and the immediate surrounding neighbors.
Are we going to cave, and make concessions to the North Koreans? Of course we are, because that's what superpowers do. It's not about appeasement, it's about business, and what makes good business sense. Churchill said that "People have friends, nations have interests".
It is in our interest to not divert ourselves from the issue of extricating ourselves from a tortuous situation in Iraq. It is costing us treasure, and beginning to eat at the social fabric our country as Viet Nam did a generation ago. We must put a good face on Iraq and get out. The President may not be aware of it, but he is on a short leash in Iraq. The American people are very intolerant of wars without objectives that last too long, and that's precisely where George Bush finds himself. It is highly questionable that his party will survive the mid-term elections intact. The country will embrace CHANGE, even from a Democratic party that is devoid of ideas.
(sources from Internet)
Some believe that the device was much larger but may have failed for technical reasons.
We don't know the truth, because the United States has not devoted the resources to know what is really going on. If you are surprised, don't be. Intelligence collection is a tricky business.
When Richard Nixon was President, you may remember that one of our ships, the USS Pueblo was brazenly attacked and hijacked in international waters in 1968, off the coast of North Korea. The 82 member crew was taken prisoner and tortured over an 11 month period before their release was negotiated.
There is such a thing as institutional memory. The senior members of the military remember the Pueblo incident well, and it still influences our behavior towards North Korea. As an aside, President Nixon gave the order to attack North Korea in retribution for the Pueblo incident. At the time the President believed a show of force was absolutely necessary to dissuade the Koreans from further provocative acts. Nixon's Secretary of Defense at the time did not carry out the Presidential directive. To the end of his life, Nixon felt the biggest foreign policy error of his administration was the failure to carry out a retaliatory raid against North Korea for the Pueblo capture. The Pueblo incident has emboldened the North Koreans ever since.
Both the Clinton and Bush Administrations were aware of the Pueblo incident and its aftermath, when attempting to configure a new US policy towards North Korea's nuclear program. We have 37,000 American soldiers stationed in South Korea protecting our alliance and interests with South Korea. There is a phased troop withdrawal from the South Korea Peninsula taking place.
You have to wonder why we are willing to withdraw troops from South Korea during a time when they wish to pursue a nuclear development process. The answer is that this area of the world is loaded with dynamite, and if it blows up, you don't want to have 37,000 American troops sitting in the middle of it. North Korea has one of the largest stockpiles of artillery weapons of any army in the world. They are capable of striking Seoul, South Korea's capital from across the border.
It was recently reported that Prince Bandar, the Saudi Arabian Ambassador to the United States had a private conversation with President Bush. In the conversation the Prince told the President that the United States should withdraw US troops from South Korea. Bandar felt it was too dangerous to leave our soldiers in the middle of a possible confrontation where our OPTIONS would be limited. As Bandar put it, without troops on the border, if there's problem, it's a REGIONAL PROBLEM. With troops, you could have thousands of American lives at risk, and it becomes a major WAR instantly.
So what do we do about the North Koreans announcing the ACTUAL testing of a nuclear weapon? We have to realize that words have power. We have to be careful what we say. President Bush announced the "axis of evil" speech several years ago. He named North Korea and Iraq as two of the three countries. It would seem that he started his anti-terrorism campaign in the wrong end of the world.
Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction (WMD), while North Korea has gone live with them. Now we are in a bind. Our defense policy has been altered whereby we can only fight one war in one country at a time, while fighting a holding action in a second country. Prior to the Bush Administration holding power, we were postured to fight two simultaneous wars on two fronts.
The bad guys know our new policy and will take advantage of us being pinned down in Iraq to expand their own power bases. Since we have a fear of losing pilots or better yet, having a pilot shot down, we are not doing the reconnaissance flights that we would normally do over North Korea.
The best thing to do right now is to realize that if North Korea is a problem for the United States, it is a much bigger problem for Japan, China, Philippines, and South Korea. This is a regional problem in spite of our alliances, and treaty involvements. Its one thing to build and detonate a nuclear weapon, it's quite another to have a long range missile delivery system. North Korea could fairly easily develop a delivery system capable of hitting the countries in its immediate vicinity.
Hitting the United States from a 9,000 mile plus distance is another story, not so easy really. Since the countries bordering North Korea have the most to lose, they should be the ones bearing the brunt of the responsibility for multi-lateral talks among the powers involved.
The real deal is that North Korea is a dictatorship that routinely starves its own people for the benefit of the small leadership that has basically enslaved the country. This leadership wants to play the cards that it can. What it now has is nuclear weapons. They will use this card to maximize whatever concessions they can from the United States and the immediate surrounding neighbors.
Are we going to cave, and make concessions to the North Koreans? Of course we are, because that's what superpowers do. It's not about appeasement, it's about business, and what makes good business sense. Churchill said that "People have friends, nations have interests".
It is in our interest to not divert ourselves from the issue of extricating ourselves from a tortuous situation in Iraq. It is costing us treasure, and beginning to eat at the social fabric our country as Viet Nam did a generation ago. We must put a good face on Iraq and get out. The President may not be aware of it, but he is on a short leash in Iraq. The American people are very intolerant of wars without objectives that last too long, and that's precisely where George Bush finds himself. It is highly questionable that his party will survive the mid-term elections intact. The country will embrace CHANGE, even from a Democratic party that is devoid of ideas.
(sources from Internet)
The Boss Endorses Barack Obama
Folk rock legend Bruce Springsteen endorses Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama. The musician recently posted a letter on his official website that stated his support for the Illinois Senator. The endorsement was posted before a debate between Hillary Clinton and Obama in Philadelphia.
In Springsteen's letter to fans, he said he supported Obama because he reached out to the same demographic of the USA that the folk rocker's songs reached out to. The musician believes that Obama's ideals and dreams for the country reflect his own. He even criticized the detractors of the presidential hopeful for taking attention away from important issues to distract voters.
Bruce Springsteen is only the most recent celebrity to jump on the Obama train. Since the beginning of the caucuses and primaries, all presidential hopefuls have received both financial and vocal support from various celebrities. While some celebrities are content to host fund-raising events or send in checks, others accompany their candidate to public outings and debates and speak out about why they chose a candidate.
The musician is known for his eloquent lyrics and soulful music that deal mostly with the problems of America. His songs have been tied to progressive politics as his lyrics express the concerns of ordinary middle class men and women to make ends meet. Known as "The Boss", Springsteen is recognized as an icon for the blue collar demographic and it is believed that this will help Obama connect more with those voters. Springsteen also endorsed Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry in the 2004 elections.
Senator Obama has had a lucky string of celebrity endorsers who passionately speak for him and draw attention to his causes and ideals. Most notable among Obama supporters is the talk show host, media mogul, entrepreneur and philanthropist Oprah Winfrey. The internationally known "Queen of TV" publicly spoke about her reasons for endorsing Obama. She sincerely expressed her belief that Obama should be the next president.
However, Obama is not the only one with big names backing his campaign. Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York also has star power enlisted in her campaign. Some prominent Clinton endorsers are Madonna, Barbara Streisand, Steven Spielberg, poet Maya Angelou, the novelists Anne Rice and John Grisham, Quincy Jones, America Ferrera of Ugly Betty fame and musicians 50 Cent, John Mayer and Jon Bon Jovi.
It has been a bit more difficult for Republican candidate John McCain to get endorsements from the predominantly Democratic world of show business. However, he did manage to garner some support from celebrities. Action stars Arnold Schwarzenegger and Sylvester Stallone, actor Tim Selleck and Red Sox pitcher Curt Schilling are some of the names that support the Arizona senator.
Other celebrities who have endorsed Obama are George Clooney, Will Smith, Halle Berry, Matt Damon, Will.i.am of the Black Eyed Peas, Scarlett Johannsen, Morgan Freeman, Usher, Stevie Wonder, Sharon Stone, Ben Affleck and former basketball player Charles Barkley.
(sources from Internet)
Friday, August 20, 2010
Six Thought Provoking Questions
Thought provoking questions usually put forth a certain viewpoint, if only because they inherently challenge the accepted one. However, they don't require you to agree with that viewpoint, and a question is just a question. We'll each have different answers to the following, despite their provocative intent.
Thought Provoking Questions - Politics
1. When several million want a given person or party in power, but can never elect them because only Democrats and Republicans will be elected by the other 90 million voters, can they believe that this is a representative government? Would a system that allowed them to send their own representatives to congress be more fair? Is there a way to devise a system which allows any million voters that agree on a candidate to have representation? (There are a couple million libertarians, for example, who never get represented.)
2. It is considered immoral for me to steal from my neighbor Joe in order to send my kids to school, or to paint a picture, or to subsidize my tobacco crop, so how can it be right for me to do it using the government as my agent? Is it moral just because enough of us vote to take Joe's money for something we want to do? Is this "mob rule" okay for any purpose, or only if it is a "good" purpose? If so, who decides what a "good" purpose is?
3. Hitler was elected to parliament, and the ancient Greek parliament, which was more representative than what we have today, voted to kill Socrates for teaching young men to think, so is Democracy the best we can do? If people vote to violate their own rights or those of others, is it okay, just because the majority wants it that way? (Another question: Why did we start calling our constitutional republic a democracy just because it votes for it's leaders?)
More Thought Provoking Questions
4. Since a moral rule like, "don't steal," can lead to immorality, as in not stealing to feed your child when that's the only option, is it possible we need a new way to define morality? Can morality be permanently codified in words, or should we use words only to point at what is beyond the definitions, and alter the definitions as often as we come to understand new things about the world and our role in it?
5. If the laws are recognizing more and more that animals shouldn't be treated cruelly, do animals have "rights," as children do? Children are dependent but with basic rights. If animals are the same, are their "owners" obligated to give them them proper food and medical care, and should they be prosecuted if they fail to provide it? Should they be forced to care for pets for life, with no option to have them killed when they become inconvenient?
6. Holy books instruct us to kill people for working on the wrong day (Exodus 31:15), or saying the wrong words (Leviticus 24:17) or because they're homosexual (Leviticus 20:13), and millions believe these are the words of God, so is it possible that religions inherently breed violence, or is it just some religions, or do they only do so if people really take their religions seriously? Most people would condemn a person who said these things, so why do they worship gods who say them? Religion gives us some of the most thought provoking questions.
(sources from Internet)
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Simple Solutions to Global Problems? � Tai Chi and Qigong
Copyright 2006 Bill Douglas
According to modern medical research between 70 and 85% of all illness leading people to doctors is caused by stress (Kaiser Permenente twenty year study). The United States annual health care costs exceed one-trillion dollars each year. This means that effective stress management techniques, if provided to people en masse through education, business, healthcare, etc. in an aggressive national campaign to train our citizens in such techniques, could save our nation alone hundreds of billions in health care costs year after year.
Tai Chi and Qigong have been proven over many centuries, including in emerging modern medical research to be powerful stress reduction technologies. The results of this are found in studies like the one at UCLA indicating that Tai Chi practitioners doubled their immune resistance to viral infection. Many studies also show Tai Chi can provide cardiovascular benefit, lowering high blood pressure, and providing an effective gentle rehabilitation therapy for those with heart disease.
So bottom line, we know stress costs us hundreds of billions annually in health care costs. We know that Tai Chi and Qigong can help millions lower stress levels and the deleterious health effects of that stress. Yet, there is to date no aggressive national effort to spread the knowledge of these health tools to the mass population through public education etc.
This is a tragedy, not only because of the unnecessary health problems people suffer, but for other important reasons as well. If the world employed these tools on a massive scale and began to save the trillions of dollars they could be saving, major global social and environmental problems could be addressed with that money.
It is estimated that for a mere $20 billion annually, we could end starvation on the planet, which could lessen the pressure on societies that spurs instability and violence. If we saved trillions worldwide each year on saved health care costs, $20 billion would be hardly missed. We'd still easily be able to afford clean water programs and global education programs that could also help stabilize the world, making us all safer and healthier. Global health is affected by poverty, as nations in extreme poverty pay little attention to environmental laws, and may hunt extinct animals or decimate rain forests in order to earn money to eat and live on.
A few billion dollars could pay for the one hundred square miles of solar cells in the Mohave desert that experts say could supply "ALL" of the electrical needs of the United States, and perhaps create technology that could be exported worldwide. Also, by supplying all the electrical needs with cheap renewable solar, we could explore more efficient and effective electric cars that could be fueled by electricity supplied from solar collection, creating an absolutely non-polluting economy eventually. In a world where oil production has peaked and will only dwindle and become more and more expensive, this is an exciting possibility for all of us to have cheaply fueled personal transportation that will never run out.
Global health and personal health are more closely related than one might think at first glance. Holistic solutions are simple and make a great deal of sense, once we look into the heart of possibility, unclouded by cynicism that tells us we are victims of "what is." We are not victims. By allowing our minds to explore possibility we imagine, "image-in" a new more expansive reality that could make our lives not only healthier, but more exciting and profound. Einstein wrote, "imagination is more important than knowledge," and those words were never more true than they are today. Dare to imagine what is possible, and the veil separating reality from that vision becomes thinner with every new person willing to step beyond the walls of limitation.
(sources from Internet)
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Scare tactics and the art of war
Fear and anxiety have been crucial elements in any general's strategy since the dawn of time. The Assyrian empire was reputedly formed through the use of generous amounts of terror and brutality. The Spartans struck such terror in their enemies that their forces often won their wars with other Greek city states simply by arriving on the battlefield. Gaius Marius, a Senator of the ancient Roman Republic, once quelled the threat of rebellion in a client kingdom by imposing upon his rival the might of a single Roman legion. The Mongol hordes claimed entire kingdoms as they swept through Europe through the use of scare tactics. The fact is, even before scorched earth strategies, fear and anxiety have long been in the arsenal of military commanders.
Fear and anxiety are immensely helpful in keeping enemy forces from not only fighting effectively, but in some cases, it might inspire them to leave your territory entirely. This was the case when Vlad III Dracula (yes, the name is in that format), more commonly referred to in history as Vlad the Impaler, faced against an overwhelming Turkish and Ottoman force. According to historical accounts, when the Shah-in Shah's forces encountered the massive field of impaled soldiers captured from previous encounters with Vlad's army, he turned back. He was greeted with an image that inspired fear and anxiety even in his supposedly invincible army: the sight of thousands of impaled Turkish and Ottoman troops. Most military historians acknowledge Vlad's tactic as one of the most effective uses of psychological warfare and terror in history.
The use of fear and anxiety, however, is not merely limited to enemy forces. During the Second World War, in the infamous Battle of Stalingrad, the Soviets employed fear and anxiety on their own forces. Soviet conscripts troops, forcibly taken for their homes and barely even armed properly for combat, were informed that to retreat would mean death. Faced with a choice of either German bullets or Russian bullets, the Red Army was reported to have charged repeatedly into German lines, seemingly showing little regard for their own safety.
History also has several examples of fear and anxiety having effects on the maneuvering of troops. One example occurred again during World War II. German troops of the time were notoriously effective, such that the Allied commanders felt it was a tactical mistake to send their troops to face Hitler's blitzkrieg army. The front lines also experienced fear and anxiety, particularly when faced with sizable German infantry and panzer divisions. As a remedy, American and British commanders took a cue from the Soviet Red Army on the Eastern front and ordered their forces to engage the less well-trained Romanian and Italian armies, which lacked the discipline and equipment of their German counterparts.
The tank was initially developed as a weapon of intimidation, designed to scare infantry into breaking rank as the approaching mass of steel and gunfire came closer to them. The tanks were maneuvered straight into enemy infantry lines, regardless of how much damage the machines would have taken, simply to use the tank's intimidating effect to the fullest.
The fact is, scare tactics were, are, and will always be part of warfare for as long as there are human beings fighting on the front lines. Terrorizing your own troops as a substitute for morale and horrifying your opponents as a means of demoralizing them will inevitably be considered part and parcel of any comprehensive guide to warfare.
(sources from Internet)
Keeping Warm on the Slopes
Here is a list to make sure you have all the proper gear for going skiing.
Tune Up:
Before your skis are going to be ready for this ski season you need to blow the dust off your skis and get them back into shape. During a day of skiing you can get scratches and gouges in the bottom of your skis. These scratches and gouges cause surface friction and will actually reduce your speeds and your control over the skis. It won't affect you that much unless you are a professional racer, but by taking care of your skis they will last you longer. Skis come with sharp metal edges and every year if not every week during ski season these edges need to be sharpened with a file. This edge is for cutting into the ice incase you hit a slick spot on the slope during a turn. A sharp edge will help keep you in control.
Footwear:
Special hard shell boots are used in skiing. The boots snap into the bindings that are mounted to the skis. These boots have foam inserts to provide great comfort to the skier to prevent things like blisters from destroying your ski trip. The hard outer shell keeps you from twisting your ankle if you should fall by keeping your foot and ankle totally immobilized in the boot.
Your polls:
The ski polls you need depend on the type of skiing that you are going to be doing. Straight polls are for downhill recreational skiing and bent polls are for racing so that they can be tucked in behind your body to make your body more aerodynamic. Just like the edges of the skis need to be sharp the tip of the ski polls need to be regularly sharpened for the same reasons. Ski polls also provide balance for beginner level skiers. Ski polls have to be the right height for their user. When the poll is planted in the snow you want your hand to be on the grips and your arm should be bent at 90 degree angle.
Hand Protection:
Just keeping your hands in your pockets when you are on the lift is not enough to keep your hands warm. When you are skiing it is a must to have a good pair of gloves. The gloves must be insulated to keep your hands warm and be water resistant, to keep your hands dry.
Long Johns:
Long Johns are insulated tops and bottoms designed to keep your body heat close to your body and the cold winds out, and are not only good for skiing but any activity that puts you out in the cold for several hours.
Pants and Jacket:
Ski pants and jackets are designed to keep the wind out and will stop water from penetrating in case you should fall and get covered in snow.
(sources from Internet)
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Political Ideologies: Pacifism
For pacifism one agrees tipologia of opinion, in ideological kind, founded on the conviction that the conflicts between various be communities(, etnie, etc.) or between various factions to the inside of the same community, they must be resolved without to resort to the military crash.
Therefore, the refusal, for most categorical, expressed from the supporters of the pacifism regards the war, that is that organized litigation between etnie or states or cultures, lead with the force, for economic reasons, acquisition of territory, obtaining of superiority or dominion, or other reasons, and that it comes fought from various individuals from those who decide it, and - for the great part - endured from still various persons. On all the other shapes of violence it would have to stop case for case, with the risk to generalize and therefore to banalize the concept. In so far as, it is well to avoid to carry out an any parallel between the interpersonal situations of war and conflicts, aspect, this, rather misleading within the arguments on the opportunities of the several strategies of conflict resolution. The only found likeness between a war conflict and an interpersonal one resides in the ascertainment that - as in international politics - the greater part of the interpersonal conflicts is not resolved at all with the violence, but in pacific ways (to pact to accept to consider the threats pacific means).
In other words, not only the pacifist thinks that the peace is a better option from the point of view moral: egli/ella he thinks that it he is also functional, that is - banally - that convene more, if the objective is to resolve a conflict.
An other element important to consider is the variety and the degree of effectiveness of the pacifist strategies of fight: it is not rare opinion that, to part celebre the example of Gandhi, not is important examples of efficient pacifism. In truth, the picture is very different, and touches circumstances and contexts many several for times and ways (some scattered examples:
During II the World war, to the next day of the German occupation of Norway, the schools opposed not violent resistance to the nazis. The Germans imposed they didactic charter in 1941: teaching struck, supports to you from parents, pupils and from the churches. More than thousands teaching they were it arrests and it sendes to you to you in the concentration camps, in the north of the country. Hundreds were tortured, but least they will yield. In the 1942 it arrests to it to you came rilasciati and that same autumn the schools reopened without the nazi programs.
In Denmark, always during nazism, when the racial laws were proclamate, all the people it was opposed. When the order was given to write "Jude" on the display windows of the Hebrew storees, all the traders - also the not Hebrew ones - wrote. When it was sets up the yellow star to the Hebrew, all the population, to begin from the king, made equally. To the end, Denmark can boast the percentage and the number of Hebrew deports to you in the lower concentration camps of II the world war.
During XIX the century, inHungary dominated fromAustria, the churches protestants endured a hard repression. To the processes against bishops and shepherds it arrests, the students made solidarity manifestations to you, in total Hush and dressed of black. The entire people made nonviolent resistance for independence of the country. They were boycotts the products to you Austrians; nobody paid the taxes. In 1866, the emperor Francisco Giuseppe introduced the military conscription for the war against the Prussia: nobody was introduced. In 1867, Hungary obtained independence.
Always in XIX the century, Norway obtained independence from Sweden with exclusively not violent means, above all for the fundamental mediation of subsequently the Prize Nobel Fridtjof Nansen.
The cited examples belong to situations substantially already hasty, that the not ago justice to the pacifism idea therefore as would go understanding, that it adds, to the attempt to resolve conflicts already starts to you, two main contexts:
Those in which not violent means (diplomacy, manifestations, deal and quant' other to you) have avoided ' in via preventiva' that a situation fell. This portion of events goes considered the greater force of the pacifism, even if less eclatante;
those in which the use of the war the example Israel - Palestine has been demonstrated incapable to resolve the conflict( are sin too much paradigmatico), putting more than other to knot the complex net of economic interests that wheel around the war industry.
The tension between supporters of the peace and supporters of the armed conflict today is replaced from a shape of apparently more tenuous contrast, but in truth much similar one. To prettamente dialectic level, the old figure of ' guerrafondaio' is probably passing to the end of the Second World war, replaced from that thinnest one of the supporter of the badly necessary one, that is of who it thinks that determined situations they catch up a such state of deterioration from painfully being able to be resolved () only with an armed conflict. The contesa intellectual it today seems to carry out itself on this land.
(sources from Internet)
Is Safety in South Africa Really suc a big Issue?
In 1986 my parents moved us to a farm just outside of a small little God forsaken town, about 60 kilometers outside of Johannesburg called, Delmas.
As a young child, I had grown up with the apartheid era, and being white in those days had put you automatically in the "good' side of the fence.
Now, as you can imagine, as a child of 10, rasicm and apartheid had no meaning to me. I had no idea what was going on, things were as they were, and have always been. We had a good life. We had enough money to live. We had not been rich, but at least we had food on the table, and a good sized house to live in.
We could play outside until late, sometimes our parents didn't even know what we were up to, or where we were doing it. As long as we were home by the time it got dark, they were not worried about us.
The maid who worked in the house, had looked after us during the day, because my parents had to work. The gardener was also semi- in charge of us kids, because we were a bunch of hooligans, o say the least!
My parents had brought us up to be strong people, and to back up what we believe in, and in that had tought us that no human being is greater than another.
The house we moved into was a huge old farm house. It had no security, no burglar bars, and certainly no alarm system. We had dogs, but that was it, and everybody had a dog or two, especially when you had the space to keep them. So it turned out that we grew up with Rottweilers and ducks in the back yard.
All the time we had black people in and around our house. Either working in the house, garden or for the business my parents had started there. Al-in-all we employed more than 60 people at one time.
Some of the people that works for my parents to this day, had moved with us when we decided to start a new life. Those people are like family and have been around much longer than most of my parents friends.
As the years progressed, the house received somewhat of a make-over. Bare windows were closed up with burglar bars, because of an attempted break in of what we had concluded to be a bunch of kids fooling around.
Then came 1993-1994. The big revolution had been flung into action. As a Child, I didn't even know about the riots and the bombings, until my mother and brother narrowly escaped death at a restaurant bombing in Benoni, a town much closer to Johannesburg.
They had been into the "Wimpy" a fast food restaurant. My mom had bought them some lunch, and they had just sat down, when my mom caught a glimpse of a black man, sitting very uneasy at a table in the middle of the restaurant. He had no food with him, and he was clearly on edge. Thank God, my mother had the sense to listn to her instincts, and grabbed my brother up, and left. As they got to the car, they heard the big BANG! The restaurant had gone up in flames, and people all around, black and white were yelling and screaming.
I guess that would be the day I realized that things aren't just as nice as they seem. People aren't always nice, and does not always care for the children in a certain situation. I could probable refer to Germany, in the time of Holocaust, not even children, who had no say in things, or even knew what the problem was, could escape punishment.
As the years grew on, apartheid became a thing of the past. I can still remember watching Mr. Mandela getting out of jail, the inauguration and his first day in parliament. We were all stuck to the television, waiting for the end of the world to strike at any moment.
Suddenly, all that was a white person had become the anti-Christ! Even little children, who didn't even know how to tie their shoe laces were blamed for the horrible things our so called "leaders" of the day had implemented.
Luckily for us, Mr. Mandela is a wonderful person. He had not once taken the stance of tyrant, and had treated each and every person as an equal individual. Black, white, coloreds and Indians alike. We were all just people to him, and I'm sure to this day.
Back on the farm, things have changed even more. Electrical gates were put up, and the stringy little fence that stood there for years had been replaced by a six foot monster of a fence. People were cutting up the fences to get into the yard, so they could steal the electrical wiring we used inside the greenhouses for lighting.
So, later, up cam the electrical fence! But before that, a real break in. Money stolen, straight out of the vault, with no effort, no cutting machines, they knew exactly where the keys were, and the safe. No TV's were taken, no radio's, nothing but the money, not even my mother's jewelry. That same day the maid had wanted to know from my mother if I would be home that night, or if I would be going out with my friends.
It turned out the maid was the culprit, and her boyfriend, who had masterminded the whole thing was in the Police Service, he even "investigated the case". So there goes your trust in humanity, right out the window!
The maid was fire, a security system was put in, and everything was now locked at night, from the bathroom door, to the door of every room that was not in use! My parents had also put a slide security gate in the house, to section off the house from the bedrooms, and that was locked too.
So here we are in our Huge old farmhouse, trapped like rats in a cage! Lovely!
The simple truth is, that no one is safe any more in South Africa. I don't are what our safety minister tells the world. No one is safe. Black people are being discriminated on by black people, whites by whites. It's an endless vicious circle, and all the while the word rasicm is swung around like a toy in the air.
Friends have been hi-jacked, assaulted, stolen from, shot and killed. Not just because someone else is hungry and needs the money, but because they are white, they owe the world. One farmer in the community had been terrorized by the people living in the town ships, because he refused to sell his land to the municipality for more housing. He was tortured, his children tortured beaten. He had been shot in the face and left to die, and with the grace of god still lives.
For the people living in the townships the story is the same, except, they don't have police protection. The police rarely venture into a township, and justice is left up to the people. They cannot go out of their houses when the sun goes down. Their children are being raped and abused by "Tsotsi's" while they are at work.
So you cannot say that there is a difference in treatment for white or black people.
In my conclusion. No, South Africa is not safe. It is not a place where you want to live. People are scared to set foot outside their houses. People don't want to employ any more houseworkers, because they get stolen from. People are scared for their children, who in my opinion, does not deserve the rap their getting
(sources from Internet)
Monday, August 16, 2010
How cults create an artificial personality in their followers (and how you can do it too)
The title seems ominous because it mentions that cults make an effort to change ones personality but in a sense we create artificial personalities all the time. We use one when we are shopping, another when we are dating and one when we are buying a car. They are all a different and useful form or "I/me".
Cults may do this in the most dramatic way with an end result that even Jack's family members agree "This isn't the Jack I know."
The methods that cults use can be used by anyone in any group setting and can be thought of as a "Management system" or a technique of motivation. Thus there is a benefit to applying this knowledge in other areas.
ISOLATION
An obvious way a cult does this is through isolation from other social networks. The extreme of a cult does not have to be applied. If this is applied to a work setting then the stated rule is "This is work. Leave the other parts of life at the door." Likewise the person can go home and leave work at work. The result is a "work personality" and a "home personality".
ENLIST THEM IN A CAUSE
Nothing is quite so motivating than to be involved in a glorious cause. To do this make the success of the group linked to the individuals success. Make the cause lofty and ideal and progressive always on the wave of the future.
DESCRIBE FOR THEM THE QUALITIES OF A "GOOD SOLDIER"
Once you've enlisted them in a cause you can now tell them how best to serve the cause. By describing the qualities of "good soldier" you create an ideal of behavior. On the one hand it's important to point out qualities that they already have to affirm their part in the cause. But it's also important to describe qualities that they will have to work to develop. These qualities can be actual behaviors or they can values that you wish to impose on them. Either way you are holding them to an ideal and letting them know that they play a vital role in the cause.
DRILL THE "GOOD SOLDIER" INTO EXISTENCE
A cult may do this process with intense drills and exercises that emphasize the qualities and values of a good soldier. They will create scenarios and situations where these qualities can be tested and followed up with feedback and correction when needed. You can do this in a management setting much the same way. The goal is to make them WANT to bring on this new personality and do it without prompting. This is done mostly by creating a high standard and through a subtle application of rewards and punishment.
CREATE A GROUP MYTH
Nothing will solidify the new personality than getting a group of "good soldiers" together and having them work with some great purpose in mind. By getting your employee, staff, cult member involved in a group and putting them into action as a group you help create an "esprit de corp" that unifies them and helps solidify the newly created personality. Thus, find tasks that your group can do together. It could be a project, a field trip or anything where they have to work together as a group.
Every one of these tactics can be used and applied in your business and social settings.
If your response to this is to recoil at the idea of using cult strategies then stop it. These strategies are used all the time in many different setting and situations. A good manager is a person who would make a good cult leader if they choose to do it.
The benefits of this strategy include highly motivated people who support the team and, when needed, can put work on hold to develop a personal life.
(sources from Internet)
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Government Obstacles On The House Building High Road
Two proposals set out by the government during the last quarter of 2007 are likely to have major impact on the house building industry in 2008 and beyond. The first being the call for 3 million new homes by 2020, and the second and most significant, the proposed introduction of a statutory new planning charge.
The planning charge is designed to help pay for the infrastructure needed for new developments, and encourage regions and local authorities to plan positively for housing and economic growth.
The Government's decision to scrap the controversial Planning Gains Supplement (PGS) in favor of the planning charge will be a relief to the industry, which feared that PGS would create a vacuum on the number of new sites brought to the market, and make many schemes financially unviable.
While the planning charge is a better way forward, it is not without its concerns. Any tax on land, which this undoubtedly still is, will either mean a rise in the cost of homes or will reduce the land value, which may have a negative effect on the number of sites coming forward for development.
The proposal for the planning charge is that it will based on a costed assessment of the infrastructure requirements specific to the development, taking into account land values. This is crucial as the cost of land in the South is significantly higher than in the North, and if the charging structure fails to take into account this regional difference then this will have severe consequences for the ability for house builders to develop new homes in higher priced regions.
The initial proposals by the British Property Federation, Home Builders Federation, London First and the Major Developers Group to the Government suggested that the charge should vary according to whether a site is greenfield, brownfield or regeneration scheme. Developers should be able to argue for a reduced tariff payment, if a scheme is not viable because of the tariff or other impositions, such as Section 106. This proposal will be key to the success of this idea.
One of the aims of the planning charge is to help make the planning process simpler. While this is to be welcomed this needs to go hand in hand with creating more land opportunities. Britain's house builders cannot build 3 million new homes by 2020, just on brownfield sites alone, the use of the greenbelt will be essential to achieving this. The Social Marketing Foundation said in August that approximately 2 million of these new homes will need to be built outside of existing town and city boundaries.
Natural England is currently proposing a review of the greenbelt, which will look into the possibility of releasing parts of it for development. The emphasis would be on creating green wedges and corridors to link the natural environment to built areas. I would welcome, as I am sure most of the house building industry would, a review which takes a realistic view of the existing greenbelt alongside the need for new homes. Originally the greenbelt was created to protect and prevent urban sprawl. However, in recent years it has become a political issue, which has resulted in it becoming untouchable.
Building on the greenbelt in sustainable locations where access to infrastructure is already in place, will ensure a much better solution to England's housing shortage than the development of new towns with little infrastructure or community.
The Government's decisions on planning and housing need to be carefully considered to take into account the needs of the population and not be based on what is likely to be a vote winner. What often seems to be forgotten is that it is house builders who build homes and not the Government. Therefore the Government needs to take care not to jeopardies development opportunities by implementing policies which might hinder supply or make developments economically unviable.
House builders have the capability and willingness to build more homes but are prevented from doing so through a lack of land, long and drawn out planning legislation and a lack of commercially viable opportunities. It is to be hoped that this new planning charge will aid and not hinder the industry.
(sources from Internet)
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Empty Holsters Leave Students Feeling Defenseless
From April 21 to 25, 2008, members of the organization Student's for Concealed Carry on Campus (SCCC) will be holding the second Empty Holster Protest in several campuses nationwide. Students who are members of the SCCC will be wearing empty holsters or shirts that advocate the right to wear concealed weapons.
The goal of the SCCC is to promote discourse on every citizen's right to bear firearms. Several universities and colleges have policies that restrict licensed gun holders from bringing their weapons unto campus. These areas are called "gun free" locations and were designated to provide students and faculty members a feeling of safety when walking around the campus. The group believes that campus violence such as mass shootings, rapes, burglaries and murders could be prevented if responsible gun owners are allowed to bring their own guns.
U.S. law awards licenses to carry concealed firearms to adults of legal age and sound mind as long as they provide the proper requirements. Concealed firearms are allowed in 39 of the 50 states. The SCCC believes that prohibiting licensed gun holders from carrying their guns provides people a false sense of safety. Several schools in Utah such as the Blue Ridge Community College, the Colorado State University and 9 public schools allow licensed students to carry concealed weapons on campus. There have been no records of firearm incidents in any of these schools that involve licensed gun holders.
The first ever National Empty Holster Protest was held by the SCCC in the week of October 22-26, 2007. Students participated from about 125 colleges and universities. Like the first protest in 2007, the organization wants to show that people are defenseless and left unprotected when they are not allowed to carry weapons which they have licenses for.
There are SCCC members in all 50 states as well as some from other countries such as England, Israel and Canada. In 2007, the organization had about 28,500 members with 90% of the membership being college students, 10% made up of faculty members, concerned citizens and parents. There are organized and recognized chapters of the Student's for Concealed Carry on Campus on approximately 350 colleges and universities as well as several members in campuses without any recognized chapters.
For the Second Empty Holster Protest, members of the SCCC from over 600 campuses have declared their desire to participate in the protest. The University of Kentucky, University of Cincinnati, Virginia Tech and the Texas State University, which are some of the SCCC's most active chapters, have intentions of holding about a dozen protests each. Other members from campuses without organized chapters will hold about one or two protests during the week.
(sources from Internet)
Monday, July 19, 2010
Boots on the Moon - Lunacy Run Amuck
Why would we spend an estimated $104 billion (that's billion with a 'B') to go back to a dead world when ours is dying? It seems no one can come up with a compelling reason for NASA to repeat the "been there- done that" Apollo project of the 60's and 70's that President Bush has envisioned. In fact, we have been told by NASA to think of this as "Apollo on steroids.""Yep, this ill advised and uninspired platitude (yawn) is essentially the very same space vehicle architecture of the 60's- only a bit beefier. That says it all. There is really nothing new here. If you want to experience the buzz of this cold war relic anew, I would recommend a great book (at a fraction of the $104 billion that it would cost otherwise) Apollo 11: The NASA Mission Reports by Robert Godwin. It truly is a spectacular book, complete with a double sided CD Rom with lots of raw footage of most aspects of the adventure, allowing you to relive the heady days when we trumped the Commies in the space race and brought us such tangible benefits as Tang- the last time around.
And speaking of saving a bundle, when has NASA ever been under budget on any large project? Can you say 'Space Shuttle'? Get real! Does anyone really believe it will only be $104 Billion? The irony of all this fluff is that it's likely to be a substantial drain on resources for what actually is working at NASA. The "boots on the moon" program is in contrast to recent, highly spectacular and successful NASA missions, including the Hubble Space telescope, the Mars Rovers, and Explorer missions, which have provided a treasure-trove of scientific information of our universe, while relying on comparatively cheap, safe, unmanned robotic instruments. It is apparent that such programs will have to be scaled back or eliminated in the wake of a much more expensive (with limited return on investment), and dangerous manned moon project. "Trekkies" not withstanding( and perhaps Mr. Bush), it hardly stands up to any rational justification on any level, financial or otherwise, given the serious challenges we currently face in the real world.
Is it not time that we had a truly inspirational, practicable vision for our country in meeting the challenges of our generation?. We don't have to look far. A blind man could see it in a minute. Remember last year's hurricane season? The worst on record. With melting polar caps, massive mudslides and other environmental alterations due to global warming, we just might be starting to reap the ecological whirlwind of our blatant greenhouse emissions from fossil fuels. Now is the time to have a renewed "JFK Apollo mission" on the scale, urgency and funding of the Apollo program, to eliminate all fossil fuel based power generation within this decade. Given that we live in an unstable world, such a far-reaching initiative would not only make sense from an ecological, but also from a national security standpoint as well. As James Kunstler points out in his definitive book, The Long Emergency, we have no idea how life altering our condition would be if we suddenly had a serious disruption to our dependency on fossil fuels. A renewable solution for power would go a long way to addressing these germane issues that are bearing down on all of us.
But what do we do? Go solar? Wind? While anything we can do in this arena would help, the truth of the matter is that these alternatives are relatively diffuse in their ability to harness energy and they are intermittent in nature. In other words, their "cost to calorie" ratios are not all that efficient and they are not always dependable. Probably not what we would want for the national power grid. However, imagine having a river that is over a thousand times as massive as the Mississippi, dependably running year round. This vast, untapped, renewable resource of energy would be capable of generating many giga-watts of power for our homes, computers and businesses- and lies just off our shores in the form of perpetual ocean currents. Perhaps the most famous of these "ocean rivers""is the Gulf Stream, running nearest to us around the tip of Florida and up the cost of the Carolinas. While not particularly fast moving, (just a few miles per hour) the kinetic energy of the Gulf Current is massive, being about 60 miles across. Given that ocean water is 832 more dense than the atmosphere at sea level, this translates into an equivalent hurricane force wind night and day- miles across and running over a thousand miles along our eastern shores. And this seminal approach doesn't require NASA rocket science to harness the capacity of generating large-scale sustainable electrical power. By using existing hydro turbine technology, clean, low cost power could be generated underwater, out of sight, with no greenhouse gases, and with minimal impact to sea life as the hydro turbines (albeit with high torque) would turn at just a few rpm allowing virtually unimpeded fish and silt migration.
However, like the continental rail road of the 19th century, or the Apollo project of the 20th century, this 21st century project would also be colossal in scale requiring federal funding to accomplish the task- at least at first. If we unleashed our best minds of industry and science to this endeavor, and invested the $104 billion now erroneously slated for the moon into an array of marine power generation farms, we would be addressing the challenge of this, the 21st century. Future generations might view us as wise stewards of our charge, who on our watch, with our boots well grounded on earth, made the prudent choice.
(sources from Internet)
Sunday, July 18, 2010
Air Force Medical Team Performs Goodwill Mission In Thailand
A U.nited States. Air Force medical and dental team and members of the Royal Thai Air Force participated in a humanitarian mission at Thairat 72 School in Udon Thani on Feb. 6, 2007.
This was the second civil-action project and the first in northern Thailand conducted during exercise Cope Tiger 2007. Cope Tiger is one of the annual joint Thai-US exercises that are usually referred to as "war games" but in reality are joint training missions and humanitarian assistance.
According to Royal Thai Air Force Capt. Mathin Piyaamornmatha, the people here have no chance to receive medicine because they are in the country far from the city and they have no money.
"Today they see that the U.S. is friendly, and they have a chance to have medicine," said Captain Piyaamornmatha.
Not only did the students and local community members get medicine, they were treated to foot massages, hair cuts, a concert by members of the Royal Thai Air Force's 23rd Wing and a demonstration of tarkaw (a cross between volleyball and soccer). Amid all the festivities, the medical teams from U.S. Air Force units in Japan performed dental and eye exams.
"We get a chance to take a small child out of pain, which gives them a chance to concentrate on learning," said Capt. Alan Neal of the 35th Dental Squadron at Misawa Air Base Japan.
Captain Neal said this event is more than just pulling teeth or checking eyesight; it is a two-way street of sharing.
"It is about building a relationship of trust," Captain Neal said.
"This is a chance for the Thais to get a firsthand experience as to what type of people make up the American military," said Senior Airman Joseph Reed, a satellite technician with the 18th Communications Squadron at Kadena AB, Japan. "Hopefully, they will know that people from other parts of the world care about them and their future."
"Who knows? Our visit might inspire them to become dentists or expand their education," added Captain Neal.
"This was an eye-opening experience," said Senior Airman Hilary Easkin, a dental assistant from the 35th Dental Squadron at Misawa AB. "I came away with an appreciation for our job and our ability to help these people. They were very appreciative of our help and we were grateful for their hospitality and the chance to help them."
Lt. Col. Michael Akiona, the 13th Air Expeditionary Group commander and KC-135 detachment commander, noted that the gifts given to the school are tokens of friendship between Thailand and the United States.
"We look forward to Cope Tiger to renew our friendship," he said.
If you have ever participated in a goodwill mission like this, then you know that you come away feeling better than the patients that you treated.
(sources from Internet)
Saturday, July 17, 2010
18 Ways To Join The Illuminati
The idea of a secret cabal of mysterious forces that make up the Illuminati has for some a "romantic" appeal. Granted that appeal may be filled with fear but it's a concept they hold on to in spite of reason.
Most of the Paranoid Conspiracy Theorists (PCT) have a habit of jumping to conclusions based on faulty evidence and reasoning. They are so good at it they could be finalists in the Olympic Conclusion Jumping Event. One of the common errors they make is that of constantly referencing each others works without going further back to find original source material.
But I digress... .
Let's suppose that in spite of reason and logic an Illuminati does exist and you were one of the rare people who wanted to join it. By joining the Illuminati you could build an empire that increased your personal holdings while further subjugating the uninformed masses of humanity.
Let's further assume that you were not born into the so-called "blood lines of the Illuminati" to whom access is most easily granted.
There must be a way to get "in".
Here are 18 things you can do to increase your chances of becoming a part of the Illuminati.
1) Take the long view of things. Be patient. The Illuminati is, if nothing else, patient with their goal of world domination. For the Illuminati nothing is "win or lose". It's a process, a game about collecting more power, money, security and influence.
2) Start your own form of Illuminati group that models everything you know about the so-called "real" Illuminati. Your members should want nothing less that more power, money, control and domination while at the same time making their influence appear invisible.
3) Study up on what the PCT say about The Illuminati and learn as much as you can.
4) Get a degree from Harvard. While there make it your intent to join the Skull and Bones Society or the Pen and Quill.
5) Subtly incorporate Illuminati symbolism in everything that you do. This will include The Pyramid with the All Seeing Eye, the snake swallowing it's tail, the ankh and any variations to them.
6) Join the Masons and aspire up the hierarchy of degrees. As you progress up the Masonic Degree system be on alert for those who might be hiding their secret ambition for world domination.
7) Join any other occult group that has a hierarchy like the Rosicrucian's and work up the degree system within it.
8) Study the "mystery religions" and occult practices.
9) Form a coven or magical group.
10) Strategically find your way into the social circles of the elite. This may be done by joining various boards of directors or volunteer groups. Or by finding people who are 'connected' and working into their social circle.
11) While in these groups cautiously demonstrate a) your ambition and b) your inclination toward the occult.
12) Build a group of "slaves". For legal reasons it's best that these relationships be consensual and from the Dominance/submission community.
(sources from Internet)
Friday, July 16, 2010
14 Billion Doesn't Buy What It Used To
I am not sure how much national attention this story has gotten but there was a tragedy that took place in Boston's Big Dig on July 10th. One of the ceiling panels that are hung in the tunnels of the biggest construction project in the world, the "Big Dig", fell and crushed a car killing a woman inside. The panels are 20' x 20" and reports have said they weigh anywhere from 3 to 12 tons.
This is a huge story here in Massachusetts where I live, as it should be. Politicians are once again using this to their advantage to either make themselves look better or the other party look worse. Everyone in this country is the victim, because it is all tax money, although the woman that died and her new husband are directly victimized.
The bill for the project is approximately $14 billion at this point. I am not sure how much of that is federal money but it is in the billions for sure. Since it has opened there have been leaks in the tunnels and now this debacle.
What this project is, is an example of how poorly our government is run just on a smaller scale. It is no secret here in Massachusetts of how much money was wasted in this project. Governor Romney had to create a group responsible for pursuing the contractors that were overpaid and trying to collect money they should never have received. The story of our government, which is obvious when you look at the 8 + trillion dollar deficit, you spend all you want and have no control and then try and fix it after. This is how things get so out of control. If things were done correctly the project would have cost a couple billion less, they wouldn't have to pay people to recover the other couple billion, and the work would have probably been done right.
But, we are back to reality. A woman has been killed. The number of ceiling tiles with problems is increasing with the continuing inspections. The last count I heard was over 200 tiles that are coming loose. Governor Romney had to file emergency legislation to take over control of the decision on when the tunnel in question will be safe to reopen because the Chairman of the MA Turnpike Authority, Matt Amarello, has been saying it is safe and it clearly isn't.
This particular story is very troublesome to me because I am constantly analyzing our government and trying to open people's eyes to how incompetent our government is from top to bottom. I continue to make as strong of a case as I can for people to begin seeing that they need to pay more attention to who they vote for in upcoming elections. We cannot just allow the politicians to spend, spend, spend our money with no consequences. It still bothers me that our federal government contracts with China to build some of our most valuable weapons to protect our country. Yes, China, a communist country, is responsible for building some of the weapons we use to protect the country in times of war.
So I ask you, please do not see this recent accident in Massachusetts as just an accident. It is more than that. It is proof that the people we elect to run our country are virtually incompetent. They make poor decision after poor decision and the citizens of the country are the ones that suffer. Use this as motivation to make better selections during the next election. If you haven't voted in past elections because you didn't feel you had a candidate worth your vote I would like to say you are right. There wasn't a candidate worthy of your vote. But, you need to make a statement in upcoming elections. Cast a write-in vote. If you don't know who to vote for write my name down. I know I can do a better job.
(sources from Internet)
Sunday, June 20, 2010
Masaru Emoto is a Japanese scientist
Masaru Emoto is a Japanese scientist. He puts words on bottles of water and then freezes the water. After that, he lets the water warm itself. Then he hired a photographer to check under a microscope the crystal structures of the water.
He claimed that putting good words on the water, like thank you, or love, would result in good crystal formation.
On the other hand, putting bad words on the bottles, like "I hate you" will produce bad crystal formation.
You can search for Masaru Emoto on the web, or read more about him in wikipedia.
According to Masaru, the words we use are natural and somehow interact psychically with the water. Hence, the water retains memory.
Followers of Masaru suggest that we shouldn't tell ourselves that we're stupid. Less, it'll change the structure of water in our body and make us really stupid.
When I first saw the pictures of it, I was quite surprised. Part of me thinks that this couldn't be true. However, being a businessman for so many years stopped me from just diminishing this extraordinary finding.
So, I looked him up on the web. You should check out this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masaru_Emoto
It turns out, just like many conclusions made by those believing in spiritual stuffs, the method of the experiment is not robust.
In particular, the photographers knew before hand which water has good words in it and which water does not.
Hence, it is possible that Masaru got his result even though there is no causal effect whatsoever between the words and crystal structure.
How? Well, there are plenty of crystals in the water. That's pretty obvious. A photographer that knows before hand and expect "good" crystal will pick the beautiful crystal from the positive water.
The photographer that knows before hand that the words are negative, like "I hate you" then he'll simply photograph the bad crystal.
Now, that seems like a much more plausible explanation. James Randi, a skeptic, offers Masaru $1 million dollars if he can perform his experiments with double blind tests that would solve the original problem.
So far, Masaru still promotes his idea ignoring Randi's pleas.
The scientific part of me says that Masaru's work is total bullshit.
However, the businessmen parts of me see that it is indeed significant.
Just like there are many crystals in the water, there are plenty of potential events in our life. You see, just like the positive-thinking photographers pick the beautiful crystal to photograph, in the same way, thinking positively will put our attention to potentially good events in our life.
Just like the photographers turn the beautiful crystals into permanent photographs, the same way, we positive-thinking people put potentially good events into profits and fortunes.
This is just another proof how positive thinking works. So think positively, but judge facts skeptically.
(sources from Internet)
He claimed that putting good words on the water, like thank you, or love, would result in good crystal formation.
On the other hand, putting bad words on the bottles, like "I hate you" will produce bad crystal formation.
You can search for Masaru Emoto on the web, or read more about him in wikipedia.
According to Masaru, the words we use are natural and somehow interact psychically with the water. Hence, the water retains memory.
Followers of Masaru suggest that we shouldn't tell ourselves that we're stupid. Less, it'll change the structure of water in our body and make us really stupid.
When I first saw the pictures of it, I was quite surprised. Part of me thinks that this couldn't be true. However, being a businessman for so many years stopped me from just diminishing this extraordinary finding.
So, I looked him up on the web. You should check out this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masaru_Emoto
It turns out, just like many conclusions made by those believing in spiritual stuffs, the method of the experiment is not robust.
In particular, the photographers knew before hand which water has good words in it and which water does not.
Hence, it is possible that Masaru got his result even though there is no causal effect whatsoever between the words and crystal structure.
How? Well, there are plenty of crystals in the water. That's pretty obvious. A photographer that knows before hand and expect "good" crystal will pick the beautiful crystal from the positive water.
The photographer that knows before hand that the words are negative, like "I hate you" then he'll simply photograph the bad crystal.
Now, that seems like a much more plausible explanation. James Randi, a skeptic, offers Masaru $1 million dollars if he can perform his experiments with double blind tests that would solve the original problem.
So far, Masaru still promotes his idea ignoring Randi's pleas.
The scientific part of me says that Masaru's work is total bullshit.
However, the businessmen parts of me see that it is indeed significant.
Just like there are many crystals in the water, there are plenty of potential events in our life. You see, just like the positive-thinking photographers pick the beautiful crystal to photograph, in the same way, thinking positively will put our attention to potentially good events in our life.
Just like the photographers turn the beautiful crystals into permanent photographs, the same way, we positive-thinking people put potentially good events into profits and fortunes.
This is just another proof how positive thinking works. So think positively, but judge facts skeptically.
(sources from Internet)
Saturday, June 19, 2010
Keeping Warm on the Slopes
Here is a list to make sure you have all the proper gear for going skiing.
Tune Up:
Before your skis are going to be ready for this ski season you need to blow the dust off your skis and get them back into shape. During a day of skiing you can get scratches and gouges in the bottom of your skis. These scratches and gouges cause surface friction and will actually reduce your speeds and your control over the skis. It won't affect you that much unless you are a professional racer, but by taking care of your skis they will last you longer. Skis come with sharp metal edges and every year if not every week during ski season these edges need to be sharpened with a file. This edge is for cutting into the ice incase you hit a slick spot on the slope during a turn. A sharp edge will help keep you in control.
Footwear:
Special hard shell boots are used in skiing. The boots snap into the bindings that are mounted to the skis. These boots have foam inserts to provide great comfort to the skier to prevent things like blisters from destroying your ski trip. The hard outer shell keeps you from twisting your ankle if you should fall by keeping your foot and ankle totally immobilized in the boot.
Your polls:
The ski polls you need depend on the type of skiing that you are going to be doing. Straight polls are for downhill recreational skiing and bent polls are for racing so that they can be tucked in behind your body to make your body more aerodynamic. Just like the edges of the skis need to be sharp the tip of the ski polls need to be regularly sharpened for the same reasons. Ski polls also provide balance for beginner level skiers. Ski polls have to be the right height for their user. When the poll is planted in the snow you want your hand to be on the grips and your arm should be bent at 90 degree angle.
Hand Protection:
Just keeping your hands in your pockets when you are on the lift is not enough to keep your hands warm. When you are skiing it is a must to have a good pair of gloves. The gloves must be insulated to keep your hands warm and be water resistant, to keep your hands dry.
Long Johns:
Long Johns are insulated tops and bottoms designed to keep your body heat close to your body and the cold winds out, and are not only good for skiing but any activity that puts you out in the cold for several hours.
Pants and Jacket:
Ski pants and jackets are designed to keep the wind out and will stop water from penetrating in case you should fall and get covered in snow.
(sources from Internet)
Friday, June 18, 2010
Casting The Role Of An American President -- 'all Business Is Show Business!
So, I'm channel surfing in my New York City hotel room, organizing the junk I lugged from a conference to my hotel room floor, junk I'm about to pay an exorbitant surcharge to lug over the border and then throw out once I get home. No point in channel surfing,'cause there's only one thing on, presidential hopefuls strutting their stuff.
Even with the volume turned off it didn't take me long to size 'em up.
Disclaimer. I have no business writing an article about American politics. I know nothing about politics and I'm Canadian to boot.
But I do know that all business is show business and politics is no exception.
After glancing at the chorus line of official Democratic contenders, I picked a couple to whom I'd give a call-back (or as they say on American Idol, send "To Hollywood" for the next round). Who? An uptight looking woman and a magnetic "what's his ethnicity?" guy with an intriguing name. The rest of 'em? A bunch of boring looking old white guys in suits.
A month later, I see an headline in The Huffington Post from The New York Times, "Young Americans Love Obama, Clinton". The article says that young Americans are really familiar with only two of the candidates. Duh. I doubt it's just young Americans.
In his best-selling book, Blink, Malcolm Gladwell writes of a study in which students were shown 3 ten second video-clips of a teacher and asked to rank that teacher's effectiveness. Those results were compared with the opinions of students who'd been in that teacher's class for a whole semester. The results were virtually the same, despite the fact that the clips were shown with the volume turned off. No surprise there.
I didn't need 3 ten second clips. Woman, African American, old white guys in suits.
But let's dig a bit deeper and check their back stories.
The woman's a no-brainer. She's a sharp tongued Yale Law School graduate who used to be Mrs. President. Forget that she's got the charisma of a carp, the former first lady's got an interesting story and best of all, she's a woman, and we've never had a woman president, so she stands out. She's the long-suffering "he done her wrong" wife of an affable but naughty donut eating President who "did not have sex with that woman".
OK, so we never really liked Hill, but we did always suspect that she was the brains of the operation. We weren't sure about her "stand by your man" attitude, but we understood why she did it--the woman had bigger plans. A stain on some other woman's dress wasn't going to derail her.
Who can resist renewing the melodrama for four more years? Think of the ratings!
Will Bill schlep around the country to stand behind her podium? Was there a deal? She looks the other way, he gets her into the White House"? What will he be doing behind the curtains? Don't touch that dial!
And we won't just be getting the first "First Man" in U.S. history, we'll be getting two Presidents for the price of one. The Mr and Mrs. President Show. But the real reason this woman has a shot? She'll get the curiosity vote. We all wanna see how she's going to wear her hair.
The other contender, is a Hawaiian born product of a "black as pitch" Kenyan father and a "white as milk" mother from Kansas (his words, not mine). Throw in a stint in Indonesia and things are starting to look interesting. He says his name means "Blessed by G-d" in Swahili and you gotta admit, the guy does have an angelic look about him.
The other choices? Like I said, a bunch of old white guys in suits. (OK, so one has a Mexican mother and a couple aren't grey haired yet, but they might as well be.)
I didn't notice 'em.
You can't get elected if people don't know you exist. It's no coincidence that actors do well in politics. The Republicans have figured this out. Sonny Bono, Clint Eastwood, Arnold Schwarzenegger. Ronald Reagan got the lead. (Don't think Law and Order guy will.)
Actors get that "all biz is showbiz". You gotta confidence. You gotta have a story. And know how to tell it. You gotta have a look. A name. You gotta give us something to remember you by.
Most important? You gotta be able to connect with your audience.
A brief look at recent history proves my point. No one would ever accuse George W. of being the sharpest tool in the shed, but he's sharper than the cardboard cutouts they threw into the ring to run against him, smart enough to know that we won't vote for guys we don't relate to even if they are smarter, more articulate and have a better plan.
So whatever you're running for, whatever role you're after, V.P of Finance, Girlfriend, PTA President or American President-- remember, all biz is showbiz!
And that, my friends, is the inconvenient truth.
(sources from Internet)
Even with the volume turned off it didn't take me long to size 'em up.
Disclaimer. I have no business writing an article about American politics. I know nothing about politics and I'm Canadian to boot.
But I do know that all business is show business and politics is no exception.
After glancing at the chorus line of official Democratic contenders, I picked a couple to whom I'd give a call-back (or as they say on American Idol, send "To Hollywood" for the next round). Who? An uptight looking woman and a magnetic "what's his ethnicity?" guy with an intriguing name. The rest of 'em? A bunch of boring looking old white guys in suits.
A month later, I see an headline in The Huffington Post from The New York Times, "Young Americans Love Obama, Clinton". The article says that young Americans are really familiar with only two of the candidates. Duh. I doubt it's just young Americans.
In his best-selling book, Blink, Malcolm Gladwell writes of a study in which students were shown 3 ten second video-clips of a teacher and asked to rank that teacher's effectiveness. Those results were compared with the opinions of students who'd been in that teacher's class for a whole semester. The results were virtually the same, despite the fact that the clips were shown with the volume turned off. No surprise there.
I didn't need 3 ten second clips. Woman, African American, old white guys in suits.
But let's dig a bit deeper and check their back stories.
The woman's a no-brainer. She's a sharp tongued Yale Law School graduate who used to be Mrs. President. Forget that she's got the charisma of a carp, the former first lady's got an interesting story and best of all, she's a woman, and we've never had a woman president, so she stands out. She's the long-suffering "he done her wrong" wife of an affable but naughty donut eating President who "did not have sex with that woman".
OK, so we never really liked Hill, but we did always suspect that she was the brains of the operation. We weren't sure about her "stand by your man" attitude, but we understood why she did it--the woman had bigger plans. A stain on some other woman's dress wasn't going to derail her.
Who can resist renewing the melodrama for four more years? Think of the ratings!
Will Bill schlep around the country to stand behind her podium? Was there a deal? She looks the other way, he gets her into the White House"? What will he be doing behind the curtains? Don't touch that dial!
And we won't just be getting the first "First Man" in U.S. history, we'll be getting two Presidents for the price of one. The Mr and Mrs. President Show. But the real reason this woman has a shot? She'll get the curiosity vote. We all wanna see how she's going to wear her hair.
The other contender, is a Hawaiian born product of a "black as pitch" Kenyan father and a "white as milk" mother from Kansas (his words, not mine). Throw in a stint in Indonesia and things are starting to look interesting. He says his name means "Blessed by G-d" in Swahili and you gotta admit, the guy does have an angelic look about him.
The other choices? Like I said, a bunch of old white guys in suits. (OK, so one has a Mexican mother and a couple aren't grey haired yet, but they might as well be.)
I didn't notice 'em.
You can't get elected if people don't know you exist. It's no coincidence that actors do well in politics. The Republicans have figured this out. Sonny Bono, Clint Eastwood, Arnold Schwarzenegger. Ronald Reagan got the lead. (Don't think Law and Order guy will.)
Actors get that "all biz is showbiz". You gotta confidence. You gotta have a story. And know how to tell it. You gotta have a look. A name. You gotta give us something to remember you by.
Most important? You gotta be able to connect with your audience.
A brief look at recent history proves my point. No one would ever accuse George W. of being the sharpest tool in the shed, but he's sharper than the cardboard cutouts they threw into the ring to run against him, smart enough to know that we won't vote for guys we don't relate to even if they are smarter, more articulate and have a better plan.
So whatever you're running for, whatever role you're after, V.P of Finance, Girlfriend, PTA President or American President-- remember, all biz is showbiz!
And that, my friends, is the inconvenient truth.
(sources from Internet)
Is Safety in South Africa Really suc a big Issue?
In 1986 my parents moved us to a farm just outside of a small little God forsaken town, about 60 kilometers outside of Johannesburg called, Delmas.
As a young child, I had grown up with the apartheid era, and being white in those days had put you automatically in the "good' side of the fence.
Now, as you can imagine, as a child of 10, rasicm and apartheid had no meaning to me. I had no idea what was going on, things were as they were, and have always been. We had a good life. We had enough money to live. We had not been rich, but at least we had food on the table, and a good sized house to live in.
We could play outside until late, sometimes our parents didn't even know what we were up to, or where we were doing it. As long as we were home by the time it got dark, they were not worried about us.
The maid who worked in the house, had looked after us during the day, because my parents had to work. The gardener was also semi- in charge of us kids, because we were a bunch of hooligans, o say the least!
My parents had brought us up to be strong people, and to back up what we believe in, and in that had tought us that no human being is greater than another.
The house we moved into was a huge old farm house. It had no security, no burglar bars, and certainly no alarm system. We had dogs, but that was it, and everybody had a dog or two, especially when you had the space to keep them. So it turned out that we grew up with Rottweilers and ducks in the back yard.
All the time we had black people in and around our house. Either working in the house, garden or for the business my parents had started there. Al-in-all we employed more than 60 people at one time.
Some of the people that works for my parents to this day, had moved with us when we decided to start a new life. Those people are like family and have been around much longer than most of my parents friends.
As the years progressed, the house received somewhat of a make-over. Bare windows were closed up with burglar bars, because of an attempted break in of what we had concluded to be a bunch of kids fooling around.
Then came 1993-1994. The big revolution had been flung into action. As a Child, I didn't even know about the riots and the bombings, until my mother and brother narrowly escaped death at a restaurant bombing in Benoni, a town much closer to Johannesburg.
They had been into the "Wimpy" a fast food restaurant. My mom had bought them some lunch, and they had just sat down, when my mom caught a glimpse of a black man, sitting very uneasy at a table in the middle of the restaurant. He had no food with him, and he was clearly on edge. Thank God, my mother had the sense to listn to her instincts, and grabbed my brother up, and left. As they got to the car, they heard the big BANG! The restaurant had gone up in flames, and people all around, black and white were yelling and screaming.
I guess that would be the day I realized that things aren't just as nice as they seem. People aren't always nice, and does not always care for the children in a certain situation. I could probable refer to Germany, in the time of Holocaust, not even children, who had no say in things, or even knew what the problem was, could escape punishment.
As the years grew on, apartheid became a thing of the past. I can still remember watching Mr. Mandela getting out of jail, the inauguration and his first day in parliament. We were all stuck to the television, waiting for the end of the world to strike at any moment.
Suddenly, all that was a white person had become the anti-Christ! Even little children, who didn't even know how to tie their shoe laces were blamed for the horrible things our so called "leaders" of the day had implemented.
Luckily for us, Mr. Mandela is a wonderful person. He had not once taken the stance of tyrant, and had treated each and every person as an equal individual. Black, white, coloreds and Indians alike. We were all just people to him, and I'm sure to this day.
Back on the farm, things have changed even more. Electrical gates were put up, and the stringy little fence that stood there for years had been replaced by a six foot monster of a fence. People were cutting up the fences to get into the yard, so they could steal the electrical wiring we used inside the greenhouses for lighting.
So, later, up cam the electrical fence! But before that, a real break in. Money stolen, straight out of the vault, with no effort, no cutting machines, they knew exactly where the keys were, and the safe. No TV's were taken, no radio's, nothing but the money, not even my mother's jewelry. That same day the maid had wanted to know from my mother if I would be home that night, or if I would be going out with my friends.
It turned out the maid was the culprit, and her boyfriend, who had masterminded the whole thing was in the Police Service, he even "investigated the case". So there goes your trust in humanity, right out the window!
The maid was fire, a security system was put in, and everything was now locked at night, from the bathroom door, to the door of every room that was not in use! My parents had also put a slide security gate in the house, to section off the house from the bedrooms, and that was locked too.
So here we are in our Huge old farmhouse, trapped like rats in a cage! Lovely!
The simple truth is, that no one is safe any more in South Africa. I don't are what our safety minister tells the world. No one is safe. Black people are being discriminated on by black people, whites by whites. It's an endless vicious circle, and all the while the word rasicm is swung around like a toy in the air.
Friends have been hi-jacked, assaulted, stolen from, shot and killed. Not just because someone else is hungry and needs the money, but because they are white, they owe the world. One farmer in the community had been terrorized by the people living in the town ships, because he refused to sell his land to the municipality for more housing. He was tortured, his children tortured beaten. He had been shot in the face and left to die, and with the grace of god still lives.
For the people living in the townships the story is the same, except, they don't have police protection. The police rarely venture into a township, and justice is left up to the people. They cannot go out of their houses when the sun goes down. Their children are being raped and abused by "Tsotsi's" while they are at work.
So you cannot say that there is a difference in treatment for white or black people.
In my conclusion. No, South Africa is not safe. It is not a place where you want to live. People are scared to set foot outside their houses. People don't want to employ any more houseworkers, because they get stolen from. People are scared for their children, who in my opinion, does not deserve the rap their getting
(sources from Internet)
Thursday, June 17, 2010
How cults create an artificial personality in their followers (and how you can do it too)
The title seems ominous because it mentions that cults make an effort to change ones personality but in a sense we create artificial personalities all the time. We use one when we are shopping, another when we are dating and one when we are buying a car. They are all a different and useful form or "I/me".
Cults may do this in the most dramatic way with an end result that even Jack's family members agree "This isn't the Jack I know."
The methods that cults use can be used by anyone in any group setting and can be thought of as a "Management system" or a technique of motivation. Thus there is a benefit to applying this knowledge in other areas.
ISOLATION
An obvious way a cult does this is through isolation from other social networks. The extreme of a cult does not have to be applied. If this is applied to a work setting then the stated rule is "This is work. Leave the other parts of life at the door." Likewise the person can go home and leave work at work. The result is a "work personality" and a "home personality".
ENLIST THEM IN A CAUSE
Nothing is quite so motivating than to be involved in a glorious cause. To do this make the success of the group linked to the individuals success. Make the cause lofty and ideal and progressive always on the wave of the future.
DESCRIBE FOR THEM THE QUALITIES OF A "GOOD SOLDIER"
Once you've enlisted them in a cause you can now tell them how best to serve the cause. By describing the qualities of "good soldier" you create an ideal of behavior. On the one hand it's important to point out qualities that they already have to affirm their part in the cause. But it's also important to describe qualities that they will have to work to develop. These qualities can be actual behaviors or they can values that you wish to impose on them. Either way you are holding them to an ideal and letting them know that they play a vital role in the cause.
DRILL THE "GOOD SOLDIER" INTO EXISTENCE
A cult may do this process with intense drills and exercises that emphasize the qualities and values of a good soldier. They will create scenarios and situations where these qualities can be tested and followed up with feedback and correction when needed. You can do this in a management setting much the same way. The goal is to make them WANT to bring on this new personality and do it without prompting. This is done mostly by creating a high standard and through a subtle application of rewards and punishment.
CREATE A GROUP MYTH
Nothing will solidify the new personality than getting a group of "good soldiers" together and having them work with some great purpose in mind. By getting your employee, staff, cult member involved in a group and putting them into action as a group you help create an "esprit de corp" that unifies them and helps solidify the newly created personality. Thus, find tasks that your group can do together. It could be a project, a field trip or anything where they have to work together as a group.
Every one of these tactics can be used and applied in your business and social settings.
If your response to this is to recoil at the idea of using cult strategies then stop it. These strategies are used all the time in many different setting and situations. A good manager is a person who would make a good cult leader if they choose to do it.
The benefits of this strategy include highly motivated people who support the team and, when needed, can put work on hold to develop a personal life.
(sources from Internet)
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
HILLARY! HILLARY! HILLARY!
Where should any self respecting Blog or article whether by remote computer repair, remote helpdesk, outsourced pc repair, online computer repair, or computer man start?
Hillary is soooo far outside traditional American Statesmen like the 55th Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, Thomas Phillip "Tip" O'Neill, Jr., democrat, and the 35th President of The United States of America, John F. Kennedy, democrat, and America's contemporary needs she is laughable if she (Hillary) were not so serious...soooo dangerous!
Computer Man's brother, who shall remain nameless, is a dyed in the wool democrat and homosexual. Da computerman? I used to be republican until the republicans became democrats and the democrats became socialists.
These days Computer Man is independent, more like Joe Lieberman. Anyway, the last time brother/sister/what-ever was seen he/she adamantly and proudly proclaimed "I am a mean, vindictive bitch just like Hillary...don't believe me?...cross me and find out".
Well the time is at hand when we start to think about a new leader for the free world...a President of the U.S...a Commander-N-Chief of the military. Neither the race nor the gender matters to Tennessee Mountain Man, but to get the nation (the world even) caught in the Clinton crosshairs again? I think not and I believe Kathleen Wiley, the secret service, and the military would agree.
Consider these:
Female Leaders Extraordinaire:
Golda Meir:
"Golda Meir (Hebrew: גולדה מאיר, Arabic: جولدا مائير, born Golda Mabovitz, May 3, 1898 - December 8, 1978, known as Golda Meyerson from 1917-1956) was one of the founders of the State of Israel.
Meir served as the Minister of Labour, Foreign Minister, and then as the fourth Prime Minister of Israel from March 17, 1969 to June 3, 1974.
As the BBC put it, Golda Meir was the "Iron Lady" of Israeli politics years before the epithet was coined for Margaret Thatcher. David Ben-Gurion, the nation's first Prime Minister, once described her as "the only man in the Cabinet." She was Israel's first (and, to date, only) female Prime Minister, and was the third female Prime Minister in the world"
Margaret Thatcher:
Champion of free minds and markets, she helped topple the welfare state and make the world safer for capitalism
Benazir Bhutto:
"Bhutto went into self-imposed exile in Dubai in 1998, where she remained until she returned to Pakistan on October 18, 2007, after reaching an understanding with General Musharraf by which she was granted amnesty and all corruption charges were withdrawn."
Dr. Condoleezza Rice:
"Dr. Condoleezza Rice became the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, commonly referred to as the National Security Advisor, on January 22, 2001.
In June 1999, she completed a six year tenure as Stanford University 's Provost, during which she was the institution's chief budget and academic officer. As Provost she was responsible for a $1.5 billion annual budget and the academic program involving 1,400 faculty members and 14,000 students.
As professor of political science, Dr. Rice has been on the Stanford faculty since 1981 and has won two of the highest teaching honors -- the 1984 Walter J. Gores Award for Excellence in Teaching and the 1993 School of Humanities and Sciences Dean's Award for Distinguished Teaching."
Hillary Rodham Clinton?!
Now, honestly, tell me Hillary Rodham Clinton, the purveyor of lost documents and friend of her security advisor Sandy Burger, belongs in that distinguished company!?
"KATHLEEN Willey, who claimed Bill Clinton groped her in the Oval Office in 1993, says he and his senator wife, Hillary, are up to more dirty tricks. Willey tells World Net Daily she was recently the target of a burglar who broke into her house and swiped a manuscript of her new book, which contains revelations that could supposedly damage Hillary's presidential bid.
"Here we go again," Willey told WND. "It scared me to death. It's an awful feeling to know you're sound asleep upstairs and someone is downstairs." "Target: Caught in the Crosshairs of Bill and Hillary Clinton" will hit stores in November. A rep for the Clintons had no comment."
Are you kidding? Hillary Clinton should not even be mentioned in the same breath as Golda Meir, Margaret Thatcher, Benazir Bhutto, or Condoleezza Rice or Kathleen Willey for that matter !!!!!!!
Hillary just does not measure up to Female World Leaders who were and are Presidents, Heads of State, or Premier Ministers. Compare for yourself on the Worldwide Guide To Women In Leadership website at URL http://www.guide2womenleaders.com
People are soooo tired of the Bush Dynasty at the close of 2007! Can you imagine the degradation of America in a Clinton (2 for the price of one) Dynasty?!
//s// computer man
(sources from Internet)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)