Politics

How The Elite Control Politics

In the workplace power is not only part of the game; in many ways it is the game. Thriving in the workplace, then, is often about discovering who has the power and then using that knowledge wisely, learning not to fight the powerful–unless you have the clout to defeat them and find it necessary to do so.

In other words, your objective in relationship to power should be to find where it resides and then to live there in concert with it. The productive idea is to work with power: to flow with it as it comes, or sidestep it in graceful avoidance when you see it gathering focus against you. The alternative, fighting with others or holding contentions and complaints against those in power, serves only to retard your progress.

Below are a few facts why talking about these types of subjects, can be a very hazardous approach.

First and foremost if you do not want to get into an argument within a group discussion, do not just say silent. The saying that silence is golden is not necessarily true for this occasion, as some people may feel as if you are agreeing to aspects if you do not open up and speak.

Once you welcome its return, or better said, your return to it, it will allow you to question your anxieties and brush aside your convictions of personal frailty. As you become free of such debilitating barriers to certainty, you will begin to see yourself in a more kindly light and wonder how you ever let the darkness of doubt have its way with you for so long.

When people speak about politics, especially if they of an extremist nature, they tend to get all worked up. So avoiding any discussions of politics in the work place, would be the best bet, as team spirit has the potential to be broken by a wave of insults. The only thing that can end up happening once team spirits are broken is work not being completed to full satisfaction.

Even if you agree with each other in your discussions and are on the same wave length, this can still spell a recipe for disaster. You may well be overheard or understood by a different variety of other characters. Which could ultimately end your career promptly.

In a nutshell, gaining the power you really want–power accompanied by a quiet certainty–lies in remembering your ability to remain at peace, regardless of externals. Keeping the power you have–that same quiet kind–lies in respecting it enough not to abuse it, this, above all, making a difficult life worth living.

Resource Author Francisco Rodriguez H.
Trabajar desde casa es fácil si sabes como
Todo sobre Juegos para gente que le gusta jugar
Encontrar un Trabajo – Empleo es fácil si sabe dónde buscar

Dualism — meaning our infernal desire to look at things in black and white — is a block to solving our problems. Can’t we overcome this seemingly embedded characteristic?

It also prevents us from seeing solutions to our problems. In local school districts, it’s either whole language or phonics (in reality, just about any reading program has both). In politics it’s liberal versus conservative. In Washington, DC politics, it’s black versus white. In the Bible belt, one finds Christians versus anyone who isn’t.

On the radio, the battle is clear — there aren’t any stations that are both liberal and conservative, or a reasonable combination. The country isn’t served by this. When pressed on his liberal credentials, then-President Clinton said, “that dog won’t hunt anymore.” Like him or hate him. his effort to blur the distinction might have merit.

Around the Internet there is a campaign to paint the world as a coming battleground. The Muslims are coming and coming fast! Soon they will take over Europe, then Islamify the US. Then won’t Christians who ignored all the signs be sorry!

In matters of race, we have issues, but we show progress. The quiet progress comes from interracial marriages and mixed race neighborhoods. Moreover, it comes from mixed race people. Tiger Woods signaled by his notoriety a change in our concept of race. Black/white distinctions are being blurred by the idea of multi-racial.

Our true selves as Americans show up not as blots of black, white and other, but as a mix. If Tiger by virtue of his parentage is cool, having a mixed-race president is way cool.

Religious distinctions, products of our minds and not physical characteristics, should be easily bridgeable. But we insist on exclusivity. Maybe it’s time for make it cool to be multi-religious. Mike Mansfield in his book The Japanese Mind describes how the Japanese can be, with no internal contradictions and no social discomfort, be of several beliefs. They may be Christian, Buddhist, and Shinto at the same time, choosing rituals from each, as they deem fit.

And why not? Why can’t I choose a theology drawing on the Wisdom of Solomon and David, the meditative awareness of the Buddha, the poetry of the Quran, and the humility of Jesus? Religion at its best creates community, and our diverse society is rich in the wisdom of the ages.

Yet we feel we must choose one and only one.

I know someone whose wife is a Muslim Moroccan who followed her white, Christian husband to the US from Spain. She believes in celebrating everyone’s holidays. She enjoys St Patrick’s Day with the relish of the Irish, Christmas with the sense of joy experienced by Christians, and Eid with the reverence of her own faith.

But that we all could embrace such an outlook. But we seem stuck in our dualist nature. Pro-com. Go-no-go. We argue to argue. We can, however, be more than the residue of our little philosophical encampments.

I admit there are limitations. One cannot, for example, be both a Patriots and Giants fan. That would be silly.

The advertising campaign that helped Barack Obama to win the US presidential election has received recognition at the Cannes Lions International Advertising Awards. Advertising agency Droga5 won the Titanium prize for presenting an idea that is “provocative, challenges assumptions and points to a new direction” for ‘The Great Schlep’ campaign featuring Sarah Silverman intended to boost support for Obama amongst Jewish voters. In addition to a video where Silverman urged young “Jewish grandchildren” to travel to ’swing state’ Florida and persuade their grandparents to vote Obama, the campaign also included an interactive website.

The integrated prize was also given to the Obama campaign, for its effective use of three or more different medias combining to produce a convincing advertising campaign. It got recognition as a clever use of different media across the board from television, new media and online to grass roots door to door campaigning.

The film category also included aspects of Obama’s election campaign, with creator of Budweiser’s classic ‘Wassup’ ads, Charles Stone III, being awarded a special jury commendation for his new version of the ad. The new version saw the original characters who were once happy and chilled out going through tough times after eight years under George Bush, suffering under the recession and being posted to Iraq. Unfortunately this ad was not eligible to win a prize in the film category as the rules state that all entries must be commissioned by a commercial client and work towards promoting a corporate identity design, but the judges felt it deserved special recognition for being such a powerful political statement.

Another big winner was newspaper The Zimbabwean, for their campaign which used the country’s almost worthless banknotes on billboards, giving a whole new meaning to sign printing and scooping gold awards in both the Titanium and integrated categories. Other winners included T-Mobile’s “dance” ad featuring a huge dance sequence in Liverpool Street Station, and an interactive ad for a Philips TV featuring a bank robbery frozen in time.

I can understand why Lions for Lambs, Robert Redford’s recent movie, received mixed reviews; in fact, I can completely understand why many people would hate it. It is incredibly preachy. Just about a third of the movie shows a Republican senator (Tom Cruise) lecturing a veteran reporter (Meryl Streep) in support of the administration’s war on terror, while the reporter in turn lectures the senator about the misguided war in Iraq. As the movie develops, Streep’s character and Cruise’s character preach at each other about their complicity in America’s failures.

Up to this point, that is already a lot of preaching.

But here is the brilliant insight within the film: it questions whether or not the political debates in academia and government have any meaning at all. The sympathetic heroes of the movie are two young men who tire of the arguments and choose action, to wit, going to Afghanistan to fight for their country. They end up in mortal danger as a result of political decisions that are being debated in offices and hallways a long way away.

The motion picture itself has four primary settings. The first setting is in the office of the senator. In the second, a university professor’s office, Robert Redford’s character debates a promising but disengaged student about his role in life. In the third location, the reporter is at odds with her editor about the role of the press. The fourth is a cold and wintry mountain ridge in Afghanistan.

The first Great Debate is between the senator and reporter. Both are skilled insiders. The senator is a crucial player in a new hard-hitting military strategy in Afghanistan, with repercussions for Iraq, Iran, and the entire Near East. The reporter’s initial job in her profession concerned Vietnam, and her left-wing sensibilities — anti-war and anti-Republican sentiments come through loud and clear. After running through the worn out pros and cons for, and against, military action in Asia, the two end up challenging each other over who is using who in the relationship between media and government. The reporter takes the argument back to her editor and it takes on a different slant: what is the relationship between the corporate world and ‘real’ news?

The more accessible argument is between the professor and the student. The professor is a Vietnam vet turned protester, who became a professor. He believed that he could use his intellect, his writings, and his professorial credentials to change the world. He was ineffective. He resigned himself to a different mission: to single out a few exceptional students and push them toward greatness.

Now, those of us who teach the social sciences can be forgiven, I think, for considering the professor something other than a failure. We teach students about history, geography, and politics, but these are things that do not necessarily reach most students, but for good reason. They do not have a frame of reference for understanding the vital importance of these subjects. But as the kids develop, they will utilize what we teach — though most likely without awareness —- as they connect the mental dots and make sense of the world.

The student opposite Redford’s professor became a cynic, figuring at a young age that certain elites make the decisions, and that even entering those elites is corrupting. So make some money, live the good life, and wash your hands of the decisions made in the halls of power.

This brings me to Afghanistan. Two of the soldiers were in the professor’s class. They decided on action, they decided to do something. They thought that serving their country gave them credibility as the driving forces of change that academia did not. The professor tried to dissuade them, but they joined the Army, as special forces soldiers. This put them in serious peril, and this tied them to the other debates.

Should the young man stay home and live the good life, or run the risk of being shot at by the Taliban in an icy gorge in the Hindu Kush? How much does it matter if the senator’s military plan is the right one? Does it diminish the soldiers’ nobility and exonerate the professor and student who choose a battlefield of words in a cushy college setting? If soldiers are killed, is the reporter culpable for playing the insiders’ games instead of sounding the alarm? Does the path of action turn the soldiers into pathetic pawns in a game played for the benefit of distant powers? Or are they the lone bona fide players, and the pitiful ones are the suits who send our hopes into the snowy skies over a shadowy and barren country?

Maybe the world is just too complicated for regular folks, and the noble life of action is the morally correct one. Maybe the debates of wonks in Washington or New York no longer connect to the real world.

Could 2009 be the start of the post-democracy era, thanks to the current financial crisis?

Francis Fukayama once declared the ‘end of history,’ to wit, that the Great Questions of History have been answered, and that the consensus was that the best course for mankind was economic capitalism combined with a democratic government. There would be no more need for conflict; the case was closed in favor of modern Western values. The triumphant model included human rights, free and fair elections, and free markets.

Then came 9-11, which left no doubt that conflict remains, and that the consensus was not so consensual. There are people who object to modern notions of economics and government, and some become violent.

Asia can be seen as a case study substantiating that capitalism and democracy do not need one another. Post-World War II Japan was democratic on paper, but a one-party state in reality. South Korea and Singapore followed appropriately. All three developed into wealthy countries. President Lee, the former leader of Singapore said that personal freedoms, which we value as key to our democracy, will lead to the downfall of the US. Such liberty unleashes individualism, which leads to decadence and instability. For the time being ‘soft authoritarian’ countries on the Pacific Rim are exhibiting growing economies; their price is personal freedom, which Confucian societies value less than conformity and stability. China is following the same lead as the other ‘tiger economies,’ and this formerly-communist economy is increasing its GDP faster than any other nation, while its currently communist government swats away the flies of dissent. This example says that government will offer a steady environment for business; people are free to do as they yearn for, within the restrictions of this structured society, and everyone benefits. With the exception, perhaps, of artists, oddballs, wierdos, innovators, non-conformists, rebelling teenagers, and anyone else not in line with the grand scheme of things. And why defend them, at the sacrifice of a rising affluence?

So maybe we are too liberated, and our depraved existence will cost us our location atop the pecking order of nations. But the financial crisis of 2008-2009 brought another possibility: that the sheer complexity of economic life in the modern world is in the process of making democracy as we know it obsolete.

When the largest financial crisis in three-quarters of a century occurred, who took the lead in addressing the issue? Bureaucrats that were appointed, not elected. The Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Paulson, and the Fed chairman, Ben Bernanke, explained the national response, leading our representatives in Congress to at first interfere with and then approve President Bush’s economic team’s proposal. For the time being, we regular citizens tried to take hold of both the causes and the vastness of the situation. Seven-hundred billion tax dollars to start to fix this? In all probability a trillion-and-a-half when all is said and done? To paraphrase the late Senator Dirksen, a trillion here and a trillion there and now we’re talking real money.

The people of China understand a system run by unelected bureaucrats. That is not what Americans expect out of government. But we have to manage the intricacies of re-regulating investment banks, supervising complex investment instruments, manipulating our $13 trillion economy, not to mention coordinating with central banks around the globe. It is likely, very likely, that the community politician we elected (wherever in the US we may reside) as our congressperson because she, or he, did such a excellent job on the school board is not up to this?

As a matter of fact, the President had little visibility at the forefront of the crisis, which played a part in the inclination of the nation to elect the opposition political party to the presidency. What bold actions are in store from our new elected officials? Well, the new president brought in skilled bureaucrats to fill his economic team. Other essential changes? No. There is a stimulus plan, pretty much like the one pushed by President Bush, only bigger.

Is this abrogation of the policy limelight by elected officials in favor of insiders a good thing or a bad thing? If the central bankers believe it necessary to rescue big corporations, raise unemployment benefits, and create jobs, why should we raise any objections? If the wellbeing of big business means the welfare of most of us, what is the dilemma? If we need fast action, why put our faith in the slow, political process of democracy?

Perhaps we shouldn’t agonize about the rights of those on the political and social fringe, because our idea of the fringe has changed over time. In his book Supercapitalism, Robert Reich, who is more optimistic than I am about the state of democracy today, looked back at the ‘50s as the Golden Years, saying that America offered high-paying blue collar jobs, corporate statesmanship, and a government-industry-labor partnership that maintained stability and prosperity; he noted that the cost was a rigid and stifling conformity. Peter Beinart recently wrote in Time that “The public mood on economics today is a lot like the public mood on culture 40 years ago: Americans want government to impose law and order — to keep their 401(k)s from going down, to keep their health-care premiums from going up, to keep their jobs from going overseas…”

Maybe people need only the appearance of control over their own lives. We can debate personal rights, protest over the internet a military action we disagree with, and decide local issues. Are we prepared to leave the essence of national/global policy-making, the part that is in charge of how people make a living, to the experts? That is how China does it and they are expanding at 8% a year.

Although the election of Barack Obama is history, it’s probably still too early to see if the interest that people showed in the political process during the election will continue. The fact that we elected our first African American president was significant, but only over the long haul will we know whether that will be enough to foster peoples’ ongoing interest and support.

It would benefit everyone in the United States if that happened, because there’s been so much strife for so long. One group that would certainly benefit would be American veterans. Many left pieces of themselves on foreign battlefields and in the case of the Viet Nam war, they sometimes didn’t get the appreciation they deserved when they came back to the United States. That’s the reason I felt compelled to create some free Veterans Day clip art that promotes the idea that we should honor veterans. Using the clip art wherever veterans will see it is a small way we can pay tribute to them. That support just might renew the spirit of veterans feeling disenchanted with their country’s response to their military service. It’s important that we not just celebrate American veterans with occasional vintage patriotic greeting cards. Americans need to value them all the time. As fellow Americans, we owe it to them. If we don’t extend that respect toward them; who will?

Not only veterans would benefit, however, from the unification of our country. I would love to see people saluting the American flag when on parade, because they genuinely believe in what the flag stands for. One would hope that love of country will help Americans achieve peace. But it’s up in the air whether this unification will take place. Some people are vehemently opposed to President Obama’s changes. But that’s just the way American politics works. To a certain extent, those differences protect us. We hope so anyway. The people of the United States will just have to see what happens.

The recent European elections proved to be some what of a disaster for Labour and their leader Gordon Brown. Some how Gordon Brown has stayed on as the party leader. Despte the assurances of Mr Brown that he will change etc. It is something that we have heard many times in the past. I doubt whether the British public would forgive him for his errors. So what are the potential solutions to this problem? What could Labour do to give themselves a chance of staying in power?

I am not an MP. I am merely an average guy on the streets who enjoys the whole subject of politics. I am a web promotion specialist based in the heart of England who promotes websites to do with stuttering, increase self-confidence and professional web promotion.

I do however believe that I have the answers to the above questions and the solution to the current Labour woes! Who is the one person, the one member of parliment who has spoken the most sense in the last twelve months? For me there is only one answer to this question - Vince Cable. Mr Cable is the MP for Twickenham and is the Lib Dem Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer.

So here is my idea and by the way I am by no way saying that it would be easy to carry off. I would offer the leadership of the Labour party to Vince Cable as a way of convincing him to switch parties. He may be required to enter a leadership election however I am sure he would end up victorious if this was the case. I would let him have full control of the Labour party and to therefore choose his own cabinet, this really goes without saying of course.

As leader of the Labour Party I am sure that Vince Cable would become Prime Minister and that he would lead the country out of the desperate state that it is in. I suppose it all boils down to whether Vince Cable wants the responsibilty of being Prime Minister and whether he would be willing to switch to the Labour Party. I sure hope that he does complete the switch and that he becomes Prime Minister.

political war is a  site where one can put forward ones outlook on the current political and finance world. It gives a chance to everyone to share and post their {views-political views}; whether it is about US or  war on terrorism, Israel or Palestine, the Iraq war, or about the ongoing inancial crisis the world is facing.

The users are all required to register themselves to use all the features. The registration is for free  and you have to give your email address. After that, your registration is complete. After becoming a member, you can access personal messenger and control panel.,Control panel is where you can enter your preferences and can edit your avatar and information, your signature, your photo, the display name and the likes.

There are 3 types of topic displays; outline, standard and linear. Each topic has a list of options for the readers. You can track the topic and have updates about this topic through e mail; can also send a lhyperlink to someone through email; take a print out of the or a post or download it on hard drive or in Microsoft word. You can subscribe to the forum to receive updates for the latest topics.

There are different ways in which you can post on this site. To a particular forum, you can add a new topic and also can create a new poll in a forum. When a user is viewing a topic, he can add a reply to the existing topic through the add a post button. The users can contact the administrators and moderators for anything related to either the account or a post.

The users will also get many options to enable email. To make the site more user friendly, there are options to edit posts, quote posts and also a fast reply option which saves the main posting screen load time. You get a toolbar to choose any font style and size you want, change your text color, decide on your text alignment, formatting, undo and redo your previous actions and many more. The site has a search tool that is very usefull when looking for a topic.

some of the topics that the forum has :

USA and Terrorism

ohio board of elections

USA held its presidential polls to elect the 47th president on 24/11/2008.  In the fray were Senator Barack Obama and Senator John McCain  As anticipated, the US general public showed an unprecedented enthusiasm in the polls.  The Internet went into overdrive from the very beginning to keep up with the latest on the elections.  Webs on the US presidential election results mushroomed, some performing live updates.

The people were enthused over the 2008 polls since they needed a complete change as a result of the low esteem they had for the incumbent president and his performance which was aggravated by the unpopular Iraq war and the 2008 economic crisis.   Hence, everyone was all agog at all times to keep abreast with the latest updates on 2008 US presidential election results.

Making use of the newest technology, the webs gave the browsers a graphic picture of the outcome of the polls.  In a web, it was featured to input the name of the state and present you with the results of that state when that option was executed.  The 2008 US presidential election results as well as the Us House & Us Senate results were shown.  The entire USA results plus the complete map would appear at another click of the mouse.

Several webs exclusively showed presidential election results by maps.  These websites are complete with all the statistics under various categories such as age and demographic data, county results, electoral maps, county maps, winners by county, cartograms, and election maps, etc..  Not only the results of the 2008 election, but also the results and other comprehensive data connected with the previous presidential elections are available on some websites

A search on famous search engines will yield all research workers looking for USA polls data all there is to know about presidential election results.  These searches could be specific about popular votes, electoral votes or other tit bits of data which may seem unimportant to general readers.  Not only the data but also maps and other graphs done on the results are stored on these websites for the reserachers’ benefit.

election t-shirts

On 4-11-2008, the presidential election polls of the USA were conducted.  Democrat Barack Obama from Illinois emerged victorious over Republican John McCain from Arizona in a closely contested election.  This was the fifty-sixth presidential polls conducted every 4 years in the States to elect president & vice president.  Since 1952, this was the first occasion where an incumbent president and vice president had not run for the same offices.

This presidential election polls was very remarkable for several facts.  It was the first time in the history of the USA that an African-American emerged the winner.  A Roman Catholic was never elected to the vice presidency before this election.  In addition, no incumbent two senators were in the fray before.  After a period of 40 years, the highest voter turnout has been recorded this time.

The main themes of the presidential campaign have been the unpopular Iraq war, the president George W Bush’s unpopularity and policies, and the yearning of the USA populace to effect a change.  In the last few months of the campaigning in the presidential election polls, the focus shifted mainly to the economy and domestic policy.  The economic crisis of 2008 increased the importance of all this.

The costs of holding presidential election polls have been rising steadily in the past several years according to the statistics available.  The final count showed that president-elect Barack Obama had expended approximately $ 513,557,218 at the rate of $ 7.39 per vote.  The Republican candidate John McCain had spent about $ 346,666,422 with average amount spent per vote being $ 5.78.  As per Federal Election Commission figures, a collective total of $ 1,644,712,232 had been raised and out of that $ 1,601,104,696 had been spent by a total of 148 candidates for all parties in respect of the combined general and primary campaigns.

When these things are considered, there is no reason to undervalue the enormity and significance of the presidential election polls of 2008.  Following a close contest, Barack Obama polled 69,456,897 popular votes whilst John McCain received 59,934,814 popular votes, 52.92% and 45.66% respectively.  Obama received three hundred and sixty-five electoral votes whereas McCain got one hundred and seventy-three electoral votes.  Ultimately, Barack Obama was elected and officiated as the 47th president of the USA at the State Capital of Washington DC on 20/01/2009.