Political Corruption in America

Political corruption has been a problem since the first European settlers arrived in America. From officials to politicians, laws are circumvented to obtain riches and/or power. If you search today's newspaper headlines, articles about bribes, fraud, and illegal tactics can be found in all levels of government. Right now this includes two U.S. senators and a state governor.

This threatens our democracy and the American people's overall confidence in city, state and federal officials. It undermines the legitimacy of government and the ethics we trust. Political corruption can be defined as bribery, graft, extortion, robbery, patronage, conflict of interest, and kickbacks.

When elected officials enrich themselves using the availability of their office they break the law of our American Constitution. From our highest office of the President, to the local Sheriff, past scandals have darkened the reputations of those who have crossed the line of the law.

Many of these crimes go unpunished. Sometimes the evidence is destroyed or the person's involved are murdered to cover-up unscrupulous deeds. Why have Americans turned their cheeks to this injustice?

As citizens we pay taxes, enjoy certain freedoms and are expected to behave morally and ethically in our society. Our expectation of government is to keep us safe, show leadership in crisis and follow those same rules. Do you believe this is the case today?

When out-of-control drug cartels, organized crime and blatant injustices thrive in our society, it screams the fact that something is seriously wrong with our system.

Previous reforms like the Pendleton Act of 1883, to create a federal civil service to cope with patronage problems, the Select Committee on standards and conduct for members of Congress and the 1978 Ethics in government Act, created to investigate government misconduct, have reduced these crimes. Though questionable lobbyist behaviors still seems to go unchecked.

Somehow we hesitate to believe that political corruption is as much a crime as the shady criminal who robs your local convenience store. The main difference is our corrupt political officials are undermining our economic development and increasing the need for higher taxes.

Political corruption affects the United States at every level. It increases the cost of business and reduces the quality of government services. It can effect the personal lives of all those involved. The consequences if remained unchecked can last for decades like the story of political icon, Otto Preston.,

Political sex scandals can also compromise our trust in government officials. This breach of ethics can lead to charges of perjury, obstruction of justice, bribes, withholding evidence and contempt of court.

Corruption in the Legislative branch of government reduces accountability and distorts representation in policy making. Corruption in the judiciary branch of government compromises the rule of law and when in public administration it can result in a lack of transparency and loss of trust.

We need to be more alert and conscious as an American public to local, state and federal corruption. We need to also understand what motivates someone to commit this crime.

In 1998 Michele joined Willamette Writers and has attended writers workshops and conferences. After meeting a new friend in Oregon, who read some of her writing, she was asked to give life to the heart-wrenching story of her husband's murder. Thus began her debut novel, Blood, Money, Power. Many hours of research followed to give this historical novel's readers a trip back in time.

Communication - Our Emerging International Society

Communication is a necessary and primary skill in life. The old truism "No man is an island" is particularly appropriate in a world that is developing porous borders. This will make our communication skills crucial as we cross the barriers of culture, society, language, philosophy and religion, gender, sexuality, economics, politics, legalities and health to name a few. The diversity of the human race is fascinating, yet complicated and at times frustrating. The international melting pot that mankind has become had its beginning centuries ago with seafaring explorations that connected all continents and areas on this globe we call home.

Driven by curiosity, creativity, need, commercial interests and more, the explorers set out on their journeys with a goal or an end result in mind. Yes they wanted to explore because we are a curious lot. However building, outfitting and maintaining a vessel and a crew took time, effort and money and that investment was to be repaid by what was developed or discovered during the journey. The explorers and their crews were prepared for hard work, difficult conditions, uncertainty, danger and even a fight to the death should it become necessary. Many who set out to explore never survived the unknown and their particular investors lost the gamble. As a rule, explorers and their crews understood they were commissioned to make the trip worthwhile for both the investors and their country's leader as well.

It should have been exciting to learn of new cultures but the explorers were a hardy bunch, not necessarily skilled in the nuances of society. Not all introductions of explorers and indigenous people went smoothly, due in part to a lack of communication. The developed exploring countries had an enormous advantage in the technology of their day with skilled workers and they used what advantage they had to enforce their own terms as they encountered less modernized and skilled societies. While conversation may have been a good avenue, pure might triumphed over right and less developed societies fell victim to the explorers and their goals. It has been a sad commentary on society that we used such a negative solution in light of the loss of languages, customs, music, ritual, philosophy and individual skills -- treasures of humanity that can never be recovered. At times mankind is not too bright.

With the introduction of the airplane and the shrinking of the barrier of distance, the spread of a homogenous international community has ballooned dramatically. We are edging closer and closer to completion of a total melding and not everyone is happy. Our homeland, our cultural values, our languages and customs are valuable to us and we want to preserve and honor them. We don't speak each other's language that well and besides, words don't always convey the full meaning of what we are thinking or saying. Exact translation from one language or culture to another doesn't exist on many levels. We must apply ourselves to understanding each other and that is a very demanding people skill.

Look around you at the diversity of people, their thoughts and the words used to express who they are and what they think or believe. Within our own country, we have so many different cultures and belief systems that we don't even understand our citizen neighbors. Imagine that cultural divide and the languages used to bridge that divide between different societies.

The way to success in developing these communication skills is to know that there is more than one way to think, say, feel, express any thought and that each way is thought to be the right way by the user. Due to the living of life, people are conditioned by their circumstance, family, society, beliefs, stations in life and experience. For example, if throughout my life I have been conditioned by my family or my culture to be polite, that is a characteristic that may not be understood by others who did not have my personal conditioning. If I am not treated in the polite manner to which I am accustomed, I may not understand my less-than-polite treatment by that other person. Such a simple misunderstanding can interfere with our communication, thwart a friendship, or perhaps develop an enemy.

Many years ago I shared a chocolate candy with my co-workers. It tasted good and I do love chocolate. Later I learned it was chocolate covered ants. They chewed like a crispy chocolate bar. Nothing was wiggling while I had it in my mouth, but the very idea caused me to run for any way possible to spit it out. In some societies, my action of ejecting the offensive would have been a direct insult but there would have been no intent to insult on my part. I was lucky, my co-workers were pranksters and expected my reaction. It could have then been my turn to be insulted by that prank. See what happened here? Something simple such as cultural conditioning or common habit can get in the way of basic communication. The incident and the potential of misunderstanding could have gotten out of hand easily and escalated into a real problem. I'm so glad it did not.

As we develop this homogenous society of mankind, we are going to have to develop our communication skills way beyond our current level. We will have to look at all the conditioning factors that are part of the barriers we are attempting to remove. You and I, as divergent as our conditioning, language, philosophy, etc. may be must reach past those factors which act as barriers and actually communicate with one another.

Marilyn Muir, author of "Presidents of Hope and Change: Bringing Hope to our Future by Reaching into our Astrological Past."

Jefferson, Lincoln, Kennedy, Obama... The Lineage of Hope

Based on ground-breaking research by noted astrologer Marilyn Muir, this book describes the remarkable similarities of these four presidents in their Aquarian connections to the USA and their commonalities of character and motivation.

In a non-technical way, the author details how their sky maps (astrological charts) synchronize with the important events that took place during the lifetimes of presidents Jefferson, Lincoln and Kennedy-all of whom held office at profound moments in our nation's history. Ms Muir reaches deeply into the USA past to predict our nation's future. Demonstrating through meticulous astrological research how, under each of these president's watches, the country not only survived deep setbacks, but went onto greater and more successful heights.

The author takes the reader on a fascinating journey through the stars as she details the strengths and weakness in President Obama's own sky map; describing how and where it aligns to not only the birth chart of the USA but also his connections to the specific chart of his own inauguration. Is he the right man for the job?

The Price of Political Correctness

The price of "political correctness" has been the loss of spirit in the American culture. In order not to offend anyone, we have become morally and spiritually sterile. The holidays have degraded into a time to shop and all inner meaning has been lost from what was once a time of joy.

While I do not advocate any particular religion, it seems a loss to our society when we prohibit celebrations that are rooted in the spirit of love and brotherhood. Working in a school system it was dis-heartening not to be able to celebrate Christmas in the way we did when I was a kid. Gone are the decorations, the songs and the parties. It could just as easily have been April vacation as it was Christmas. After all, saying "Merry Christmas" is not politically correct.

What is wrong with celebrating all major holidays? We could even have an atheist day. By negating these celebrations we have lost the ability to express our inner most spiritual thinking. By making celebrations taboo, we turn holidays into commercialized opportunities for big corporations to get richer. Holidays are now measured by retail shopping and consumer spending reports rather than by how many people were helped, housed or clothed. Times meant for inner reflection have turned into times of increased anxiety, stress and sadness.

In the book "Fahrenheit 450" society became sterile and docile because writing that offended anyone was basically rejected by publishers and society. The move towards political correctness drove society into intellectual stagnation which allowed the many to be dictated to by the very few. The end result was the burning of books that contained any type of offense to anyone. I am sure that my books, like Waking God and Jesus taught It, Too: The early Roots of the Law of Attraction and even Raping Louisiana: A Diary of Deceit would hit the fires because each book offends someone. Will the day come when such books will not see the light of day because they are politically incorrect? When we lose the ability to celebrate traditional holidays in a traditional way, is the day of censorship really that far off?

It is said that one of the chief causes of the decline of the Roman Empire was due to moral and spiritual decay. By moral, I do not mean religious morality, but rather that ideas and values that make a society what it is. Values are societal glue. Why associate with people if there is nothing in common? How can our society remain cohesive if we cannot share and experience the values and traditions of all of our members? Rather than embrace each others differences and celebrate our varied heritages, we ban such interactions all in the name of correctness.

Perhaps the greatest tragedy in this entire "correctness" trend is its impact on the children. They seem to be growing up devoid of values and traditions. To them, the whole purpose of a holiday is to "get." While "getting" is by no means a negative thing, they have lost the balance to the equation which is "giving." I do not mean material gifts when I say giving. Here is what I see: fewer calls and visits to grandparents, little concern for the less fortunate, little desire to even explore spiritual issues or share spiritual ideas, a take and no give attitude, loss of respect for just about everything, no concern for taking responsibility and the loss of the ability to just be kids and play.

To be "correct" you cannot really question or ask question for fear of being offensive. You cannot celebrate for fear of being offensive. You cannot discuss meanings of things for fear of being offensive. You cannot express values or stand up for what you believe to be right because it may be offensive. Where will this all lead?

Mr. Harris was born in Massachusetts. He attended The American University in Washington, D.C. and received his degree in Political Science. His graduate work was done at the University of Northern Colorado and Howard University. While in D.C., he spent several years working for local and regional government agencies. Upon moving to Maine he worked with three governors and served as the Assistant Director of the Maine State Planning Office. He worked on a White House Task Force for the development of a National Rural Policy and later served as Rural Policy Coordinator at the Federal Regional Council of New England. He has worked on gubernatorial and senatorial political campaigns and currently works in Special Education.

Mr. Harris is co-author of the novel WAKING GOD and is a nationally syndicated / featured writer for The American Chronicle. He is working on Book II of the Waking God trilogy. His second novel, A MAINE CHRISTMAS CAROL was released by Cambridge Books, his third book, JESUS TAUGHT IT, TOO: THE EARLY ROOTS OF THE LAW OF ATTRACTION was released by Avatar Publication.

On Democratic Delusions and the Politics of Publicity

The crucial but complex relationship between the public and political parties has been under extreme pressure in recent past due to the lack of an efficient, reliable and dynamic exchange between the two sections. The existing setting was lowering the credibility of politics in general and was looking somewhat 'risky' for democratic progress. To come out from this position, it was required to expose and amend the limitations and problematic aspects of the existing form and find out a newer form. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, capitalist lackeys have found an excellent opportunity to popularize the idea that a strategic partnership between democracy and market economy constitutes the favorable conditions essential for economic growth. The changing situation with its variants has fundamentally distorted the relationship between public and political parties. The political arena has been altered into a keenly competing market where essential marketing mechanisms are allowed to regulate the system for carrying out the 'right' message in the 'right' place at the 'right' time. Some choice marketing phrases like relationship, credibility, loyalty and motivation are frequently being heard from the everyday political talks.

The ruling ideas of every age have always been the ideas of the ruling class. Bourgeois analysts today are spawning lot of hope around a market driven symbiotic model between the public and the political parties. The analysts feel that this model, under an extensive presence of the 'free' media, will strengthen and eventually improve the democratic institutions, its representatives and instruments of democracy promotion. Toeing the line, political doctrines are being shaped according to bazaar rules, ideas and strategies. It has also started to significantly regulate and shape opinions of the public.

Though public opinion germinates in the imagination of the public mind, "It is not the consciousness of man that determines their existence," as Marx has famously said, "but, on the contrary, it is their social existence that determines their consciousness." Public opinion is the human response to a wide range of feelings that originates from socio-political relations; from the conflicts, choices, ambitions, compromises, purposes and uncertainties of human life. But the image that appears to the human mind from the varied aspects of the social structure can also mislead the people in their dealing with the outer world. This happens if interpretation of that image is shaped into a pattern of mental stereotypes that is influenced by preconceptions and prejudices. All sorts of complex human issues like individual aspirations, economic interests, class views, enmity and hatred, religious and racial prejudices distort the way people see, think and act.

Besides, people's access to information is always obstructed by the establishment. Having supreme control over the access of facts, the authorities of establishment consciously decide how much the public should know. Facts are circulated in a deceptive way that prevents the public from separating the truth from the myth. On several important issues pertaining to their life, people make up their minds before the facts are verified and defined. In his major work Public Opinion, American political columnist and social critic Walter Lippmann has shown how public opinion is "pieced together out of what others have reported and what we can imagine" and depends upon "what group of facts we shall see, and in what light we shall see". "The tendency of the casual mind" Lippmann continues, "is to pick out or stumble upon a sample which supports or defies its prejudices, and then to make it the representative of a whole class."

Public opinions are therefore, rarely spontaneous and mostly subjective. Opinions formed from disingenuous facts mixed with emotions, instincts, and prejudices do not remain just as opinion but transforms into delusion.

Delusions consistently influence the consciousness of the public and deprive them to perceive reality in its true sense. Fences of naïve political perceptions are erected all around the public mind that hinders them to appropriately make right decisions for their own future. It is widely acknowledged that public opinions are the deciding factor in a democracy. But delusion concerning democracy is extremely dangerous in the sense that it can smooth the progress of fascism. By damaging the rational and moral fiber of the public mind, democratic delusions drive them to follow demagogues. Experiences from history have always shown that demagogues have initially secured a following among the petty bourgeoisie and the intelligentsia - the 'thinking section' of the society. Their power and influence get reinforced when they further appeal to the emotions, instincts, and prejudices of other sections of the masses through a non-centralized, awkward and discrete manner. Fascism was born in Italy under Benito Mussolini as a political revolution and was blessed by the people for being 'too good to be true'. The hypnotic and rosy beginning did not take long to turn into disillusionment. Similar delusional behavior of the German public had immensely helped the Nazi Party to grow popular. By mixing actual dangers with imaginary scares, the fascist demagogues have always created an atmosphere where the bewildered masses lose their ability for the constructive use of reason. The mass psyche is weighed down with meandering, invisible, and perplexing facts.

In his highly influential work Ways of Seeing, the English art critic John Berger has revealed that, "without publicity capitalism could not survive" because "publicity is the life of this culture." Publicity needs to be dynamic and must be continually renewed and made up-to-date. It is also closely related with certain ideas about freedom. Berger further observes that publicity is not merely an assembly of competing tactics since all forms of publicity follow a certain logic which confirms and enhances one another. Publicity talks only about the future. It can offer different choices but makes just a single proposal - to transform human lives for a better future, to make them feel good. Publicity helps to put up a mirage by filling the public mind with "glamorous day-dreams" because existing social contradictions "make the individual feel powerless". The choice of day-dreaming becomes a substitute for political choice. It is this key reason, Berger argued, why publicity remains credible. According to him, "Publicity helps to mask and compensate for all that is undemocratic within society."

Publicity is basically a political device which dispenses a massive influence on the society. It systematically works upon mass anxiety and offers a superior alternative to overcome the anxiety. It also works upon emotion. Emotional reactions motivate and guide the people for their future thoughts and actions. It gradually builds up a physiological mechanism or a mind model with the assumptions about what is important in life. This mind model is also attached to various kinds of incentives. Any challenge to this mental status quo faces stern resistance as it threatens the established routine of lives.

The way people perceive things are influenced by what they know or what they believe. Public opinions are manufactured through gradual, systematic but insidious application of publicity. The manufactured opinions are then set into action to influence and control the courses of the land. The best way to control the minds of people is to control their perceptions. The fundamental purpose of publicity therefore is to manufacture fake realities and deliver them right into the people's mind. The media, governments, big corporations, reactionary religious and political groups are all hand in glove in this manufacturing process.

Manufacturing of consent, as Walter Lippmann has depicted, is a revolution "infinitely more significant than any shifting of economic power". He has further explained the design in the following passage:

"Within the life of the generation now in control of affairs, persuasion has become a self-conscious art and a regular organ of popular government. None of us begins to understand the consequences, but it is no daring prophecy to say that the knowledge of how to create consent will alter every political calculation and modify every political premise. Under the impact of propaganda, not necessarily in the sinister meaning of the word alone, the old constants of our thinking have become variables. It is no longer possible, for example, to believe in the original dogma of democracy; that the knowledge needed for the management of human affairs comes up spontaneously from the human heart."

When a political party gains popular support by encouraging its band of cohorts to callously violate basic democratic principles, when a political party which wishes to acquire its legitimacy through popular votes is found to have no real faith in democratic institutions or democratic practices, it squarely indicates the ineffectuality and fallacy of the democratic system. It also raises serious doubts about the mindset of the people who sanction the craven acts. But whether the people are to be blamed or they are "only a pawn in their game" is the pertinent question here.

In the disguise of democratic freedom, consents will continue to be manufactured in a deliberate way "under the impact of propaganda" to "alter every political calculation and modify every political premise".

Political Ideas on a New Agenda - Work in Progress

Preamble:

The collapse of Soviet styled socialism characterised by the bringing down of the Berlin Wall saw the slow acceptance and absorption of the majority of socialist counties into some form of market economy based on the West. Western (USA & UK) styled capitalism had its day and was heralded a success. The 'East' and notions of its 'controlled equality' were demonised as failed conceptually.

Over the passed few months we have seen a collapse in the Western styled capitalism characterised by the credit crisis and failed institutions of the financial sector. It would appear Western styled capitalism has now had its day. The 'West' and notions of (Thatcherite) unregulated 'liberty' in the form of a de-regularised open market economy has failed to deliver. It has suffered the entropy of its own greed.

From this we are seeing the New Beginnings of a post capitalist economy. It appears a new hybrid is emerging. A new form of Capitalism where its financial foundations - the institutions on which it depends - are fully or partially nationalised. In other words socialism is at the very core. Thus we have a new form: a socialist based capitalism - Socio-capitalism (Hegel and Marx would be proud).

To underpin the new and emerging model it is time to re-evaluate the foundations of society. Now is an ideal time to re-assess and re-establish community values. To try and get it right or at least better than we have evolved under the two failed systems. Now is a time to act. We need a new value system to guide the new and emerging political ideals. A system well worth fighting for and promoting. A system that brings out, and brings back, the best in individuals and society, but where do we start?

Successful institutions are a good beginning. What has succeeded and survived the 'old failed system'? Voluntary organisations and associations stand out. They have (in the UK at least) been plastering over the cracks in the very fabric of British Western Capitalism for years. They have been the mortar to the bricks, the institutions, of society. So what can we learn from them? How have they worked and what hidden human values underpin their continued success? What in the best cases do they suggest should form the value foundations for a new and emerging Soio-capitalism? Two flags fly high: loyalty and support.

An Introduction:

The foundations of human existence are in the family unit. The family is worth fighting for. It is here that primary values are formed. If appropriate values cannot be instilled through the family unit they are not likely to pervade society as a whole. The success of family process lie (it can be argued) in fraternity (brother/sisterhood) at the value base of which is found loyalty and support. These form the basic foundation stones to life and living. Yes, we need unpack the terms and this will follow but initially, as with Wittgenstein, this will occur through their use.

Firstly, it will be through notions of loyalty and support that we will refined the terms and application of equality and liberty. The relationship between these two relics of the failed systems will still form the key to the new. Any new value system has to equate freedom to regulation in meaningful ways. This will form the first task...

Myers Briggs Personality Type and Political Affiliation

We've all come across people who just seem incapable of modifying their perspective based on new data being presented. Most of us still mouth the words that additional education (or indoctrination/propaganda as is often the case) is what is needed since surely this person will turn around if his/her consciousness is sufficiently expanded with additional data backing your perspective. However, all too often deep inside we know that some people are "hopeless". This conclusion concerning failure of propaganda is reached from all over the political, cultural, and religious spectrum at one point or another. It thus becomes fashionable to outright dismiss "inconvertible" individuals and opposing zealots (on political and religious fringes of any given population) as nuts and crazies.

Personality theory in psychology allows us to better categorize individuals in society without resorting to name calling. Myers-Briggs typology in particular offers a better construct (compared to useless terms like conservative and liberal for example) to predict how an individual will act politically and socially. Myers-Briggs research combined with biology and brain scan techniques also offers us hints at understanding the underlining anatomical basis that predisposes a person to be either a disagreeable radical or a gentle follower.

There's been little relative popular attempts to scientifically explain why the bulk of the population is always a warzone between the extreme fringes. It's just assumed that it will always be this way just like there will always be criminals and extremely altruistic self-sacrificing givers. This assumption seems reasonable and obvious but gives rise to two other creeping and unsettling assumptions:

1) The human population is relatively fixed along a bell curve type continuum. Perhaps this is better visually represented by a sphere with a number of spikes extending from it. The moderate population is the bulk of the sphere and the zealous "radical" factions (whose opinions differ dramatically from the statistical average) are the spikes extending from the sphere's surface (as well as into the interior to some degree which would represent silent sympathizers). It is irrelevant to label the spikes as extreme left, right, etc. All that is important is that a relatively fixed minority of the population (lets say 10-20% range) will be:

a) prone to modes of thought that are tangibly different from majority's

b) prone to action and lifestyle based on these thoughts

Authors like Friedrich Hayek for instance, observed that in 1920s Germany roughly a million workers swung their support between communists and Nazis based on who was winning. It was noted that the two seemingly opposing ideological parties clashed with one another the most because they were very often competing for recruits in the same psychological pool of young people. Considering how many overexcited Americans called both Bush and Obama the new "Hitler" in recent years, we can easily imagine how an aggressive drooling at the mouth anti-war protestor from a big city could have been an equally excitable protester at a teabag rally if only he was born in a small town and into a different culture.

2) Since the ratio of intensely active people (prone to being perceived by population at large as "wingnuts"or criminals or radicals or genuinely informed and committed activists, etc) to more relaxed apathetic majority seems to be roughly fixed across all societies and globally as a whole, the explanatory basis for such a dynamic can only be biological. Just like there exist (and can further be bred) aggressive dogs and peaceful friendly dogs, there exist aggressive people, natural Buddhist-esque peaceful people, etc. A person who is an aggressive pit bull equivalent (and who wants to impose his views of the world onto others the most) would differ in his relatively extreme ideology depending on what part of the world he was socialized in. Psychiatry has shown us that people are born with different ratios of neurotransmitter production and quantitative as well as qualitative differences in the types of chemicals that affect their mood and cognition. We now understand that people differ a lot more in terms of brain architecture than they differ in terms of things like body type, skin color, fast twitch/slow twitch muscle ratio, etc.

The reason why these assumptions are unsettling is not because there is a degree of fatalism involved ("he will be a radical of one stripe or another no matter what" or "he will be socially lazy, shallow, apathetic, and uninvolved no matter what). Obviously with modern socialization methods and pharmaceutical modification (with psychological genetic and cybernetic modification to follow in near future), an individual can be shaped more than ever before by society and by himself. The assumptions are unsettling because if the broad direction of our views, opinions, and political/cultural/religious affiliations are largely physiologically determined at birth, then societal progress becomes enormously more difficult. Societal progress can be defined here as one zealot faction (that is seen by majority as the most "correct" in its socioeconomic policy perspectives and formulations of what humans should do next) dragging everybody else along behind it as has always occurred throughout history.

Obviously people will disagree on what constitutes progress (some actually thought arrival of Reagan was progress) but if majority of people are physiologically predisposed towards the status quo, progress of any sort becomes a lot harder in a democratic society. In the past, one intense dedicated fringe of the aristocratic elites dragged the other nobility along behind it (since majority of nobility would also have a soft apathetic bulk) and thus dragged the rest of the population behind it as well. We also had scenarios of power vacuum developing and one intense fringe political faction overpowering the others (as in the case of Bolshevik and French revolutions) and filling the leadership position to then drag the rest of the serfs behind it.

In today's democratic structure however, protection of the status quo is a lot more preserved since the moderate bulk of the population has a political voice and thus a way to provide the ruling elites with legitimacy. The moderate bulk of the elites now also has ever more sophisticated consent and perception manufacturing methods to influence the newfound voice of the majority. For a small number of dedicated activists, pushing society along towards desired version of progress against the forces of social inertia is now harder than ever. The powerful activists now need to sway both the fellow elites and the people simultaneously.

Let's finally get to the Myers-Briggs part of the article to see what we are now dealing with.

The most widely used way to get a glimpse of people's underlining neural physiology has been the Myers-Briggs psychological questionnaire (one of the better versions found online for free can be found here). Over the past few decades, the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator has been utilized to collect enormous amounts of statistical data on personality types found within the human population. The statistical type breakdown (I am using a combination of 3 different sources on the %. Don't mind the catchy positive nicknames each type and group cluster has been given. What matters here is the number within a population.) so far has been as follows,

Protectors (SJ)

ESTJ - Overseer, supervisor = 11.8%
ESFJ - Supporter, provider = 11.7%
ISTJ - Examiner, inspector = 9.8%
ISFJ - Defender, protector = 9.9%
All SJs = 43.2%

Creators (SP)

ESTP - Persuader, promoter = 8.4%
ESFP - Entertainer, performer = 10.3%
ISTP - Craftsman, mechanic = 6.4%
ISFP - Artist, composer = 7.9%
All SPs = 33%

Intellectuals (NT)

ENTJ - Chief, fieldmarshal = 3.2%
ENTP - Originator, inventor = 3.7%
INTJ - Strategist, mastermind = 1.5%
INTP - Engineer, architect = 2.2%
All NTs = 10.6%

Visionaries (NF)

ENFJ - Mentor, teacher = 3.4%
ENFP - Advocate, idealist = 4.2%
INFJ - Confidant, empath = 1.2%
INFP - Dreamer, healer = 2.4%
All NFs = 11.2%

Each of the personality types (the well defined strong ones at least who haven't self reported to be a mutt of 2 or more different personalities) can be seen as a specific brain type. As mentioned above, the physiological neural difference between 2 people of vastly dissimilar brain types is a lot more significant than how a person looks on the outside. That is because the brain type determines a mental and emotional predisposition of a person for the rest of his life. People classified as "bipolar" or "anti-social/sociopathic" for instance, have neural structures that will make them lean towards some things more than others during their entire lives.

We can see from the statistical breakdown that SJ (left-brained people with parietal lobe strength) predominate in the overall population. The second biggest group are the SP (right-brained with parietal lobe strength). Together they are almost 80% of the population. The SJs tend to be conservative, authoritarian in outlook, conventional, focused on concrete "what is", and protective of the general society. They don't rock the boat too much and defer to tradition. The SPs tend to be fun loving, crafty, entertaining, and have uncanny ability to focus on "what is" (with their parietal lobe) in order to fix and modify it.

If you look at the cute nicknames given to different brain types, you can see that the human herd pretty much needs all of them if it is to evolve and survive. Some types are needed more than others in the great scheme of things. The SJ and SP groups for example are conveniently numerous. SJ population provides a great amount of soldiers, policemen, social workers, self sacrificing charity givers, accountants, and status quo protectors. In other words they keep the herd safe even if it means stagnating the herd through using their positions in the executive to slow down rapid change. SP group provides us with artisans who improve quality of life for the herd through provision of entertainers, artists, dancers, singers, and resourceful improvising mechanics. SPs can be said to exist to entertain SJs and keep them on their toes by having more fun than them.

It's easy to see how SJs lean republican and SPs lean democrat overall. The jokes that democrats have better sex lives than republicans begin to acquire an element of truth (considering the different approach left and right sides of the brain take in deciding on how to deal with the here and now). However, the two large groups are united by their concern with all things as they are in the now. That makes the two groups friendly and status quo leaning by default. An ESTJ born in Brooklyn may identify as a traditionalist democrat whereas an ESTJ born in West Virginia may identify as a traditionalist republican, but both are more likely to seek similar professions and get along if they hang out together. Brain type identification provides a lot more material to predict a person's behavior and views on the world than simple political identification.

The overall theme emerges that people with neural computers that predispose them to either protect the status quo or be apathetic about it (since they are busy pursuing hedonistic adventures) are the supermajority that are not as interested in "what can be" (as the less numerous NP and NJ groups tend to be). A point must be made here that not one group is more important than another and that even their numerical breakdowns seem amazingly appropriate. It would be turbulent for the herd to have for example, more ENTJs/INTJs than ISTJs/ESTJs since the problem with authority that NJs have (due to their desire to be the authority themselves) would create unsustainable infighting and not allow enough people who follow orders. Each brain type has a very key social niche and function and over thousands of years there evolved an intricate genetic balance and ratio. There are of course also multitudes of physiological "mutts" who are a hybrid of all and can't be "pigeonholed" (the most common complaint brought against psychological typology in general).

Interestingly enough, the Hindus have spent thousands of years evolving classification of human beings into 4 broad psychological varnas or classes. Each was considered as important as the other (all parts of the same body) with their own particular temperaments and duties.

Some brain types are literally made to create new theoretical constructs on how society should be organized and which steps it should take next (INTPs, ENTPs,). When balanced by the emotional consideration and input of INFPs and ENFPs (since strong T theorists are prone to being too rigidly rational and thus not take into consideration the emotional impact of their constructs) new paths for society can be developed that would be acceptable to SJs and SPs combined. However, as explained above, these people will always be outvoted and marginalized by politicians who mobilize the other more numerous groups. "Think of the children!" is a call to arms for ESFJs and ISFJs for instance whereas being tough on crime, national strength, and defeating foreign enemies is the bread and butter of ESTJs and ISTJs.

This dynamic reinforces the need for proportional representation in our system of governance. Proportional representation is practiced in most European Union countries to great effect. This way each brain type cluster can get a political party of their own. The marginalized 20% of the population can get representation and even serve as coalition kingmakers. New voices can be heard in the discourse. Today the 20% of population has to either join the big parties they don't like and "radicalize" them (seen by the tail wagging the dog phenomenon of militants dominating today's Republican party and driving moderates out of it) or abstain from the process thus depriving society of valuable input. In proportional representation, each batch of brain types seen as "radicals" can find a party to call home and really support. They would also have more political representation to vent out their frustration and to institutionalize their presence and views. Citizens can then pick and choose which vision of progress to support and which to leave behind.

Politics in Islam - The Khilafah

Since Islam is a deen, it covers all aspects of life including the political aspect. Here is an overview of the Islamic political system. In brief, religion concerns only the personal part of life whereas deen covers all aspects of life, therefore it can be called a lifestyle.

The word khilafah has been taken from the Arabic root word Khalifa meaning to follow or to succeed. When the Prophet Muhammad (S) died, Hadhrat Abu Bakr became the leader of the Muslims. He was called KhalifatulRasulullah. Even though, Hadhrat Umar (RA) assumed the title of Ameer-ul-Momineen, the title of Khalifa was also retained and in time the Muslims adopted this title, Khalifa, for their leader.

The first four khalifas were called the rightly guided khalifa, or caliphs. During their reign, Islam was fully enforced on their people. However, soon after these four khalifas, the khilafat changed into monarchy but the name of the post remained unchanged.

By the first world war, the khalifa had shifted his headquarters to Turkey. In the first world war, Turkey fought against the British and was badly defeated. Even though the British had decided to abolish the seat of caliphate, they could not do this because the nationalist party under Mustafa Kemal Ataturk abolished it and took control.

The khilafat, in reality, is a system given by Allah. Since this system has been made by Allah, it cannot contain any flaw. This system was followed by the four rightly guided caliphs. According to this sytem, the sovereignty belongs to Allah and the Islamic Shariah or Islamic law is enforced. This law is the law given in the Quran, Ahadith, decided by ijma or consensus and qiyas or analogy.

The current system in the world, capitalism, has taken its foundations from the system of khilafat. However, since people tried to change it, it lost many of its advantages. Here's an example to prove this. If a person has a specific recipe to make a cake and he modifies it, the cake will either become better or worse. However, it is for time to prove what it has become. Similarly, time has proven that while the Muslims were using the system of khilafat, they remained the superpowers for centuries. However, no other country has remained a superpower for that long because no other country has used the system of khilafat.

It is the duty of every Muslim on the face of the earth to strive for the establishment of khlifat.

Many groups have been formed to start the journey towards the khilafat. However, it has to be considered that the group must follow the Sunnah way. This methodwas the one followed by the Prophet (S). This was that the Prophet (S) first preached and propagated Islam. While this was being done, none of his followers or him (S) was allowed to defend themselves. After gathering enough support, the Prophet (S) started teasing the Quraish and Makkans by following their caravans, etc. Finally, however, the Prophet (S) attacked Makkah and established the Islamic political system.

So far, I know about three groups that have been made in Pakistan for this purpose. Jamaat-e-Ulema-i-Islami (JUI), Hizb-ut-Tahrir and Tanzeem-e-Islami.

The JUI is of the opinion that they should win the support of the people by winning the elections and then establishing the Islamic political system in the country.

The method of Hizb-ut-Tahrir is as follows:

1. Secret stage: where individuals who join the call are cultured in Islam and the da'wah.

2. Interaction stage: where the group openly calls the society to implement Islam and interacts with all levels of society in showing (intellectually) the superiority of Islam and exposing the reality of non-Islamic systems/practices. The objective in this stage is to win public opinion in favour of Islam.

3. Seeking nusrah: takig the da'wah to those who have material and other power in society, in order to win them and through that power to implement Islam comprehensively (by establishing the state).

Tanzeem-e-Islami thinks that they should gather enough support to challenge the authority of the current political system. After that, non-cooperation movements should be started and finally, the people should stand up in open revolt. The people will not be allowed to defend. This group is of the opinion that the people who will try to resist their revolt will eventually stop resisiting as all of them are in fact each other's brothers.

Personally, I think that the best and real sunnah method is that of Hizb-ut-Tahrir. I think that gaining support by elections should not be done because the system is faulty so that rules out JUI. As for Tanzeem-e-Islami, the last step is by an analogy (qiyas) analogy of Dr. Israr Ahmed, the founder of the group. Hizb-ut-Tahrir has proved its method through the sunnah.

Finally, I conclude by saying that each one of us should strive for the establishment of the Khilafat and the best way to do this is to join one of the groups which is on the journey to establishment of Khilafat. However, you should join the group or follow the way you think satisfies you the most.

Another Month, Another Doomed Political Class Stimulus Program

According to an Associated Press article today, the political class is about to pass a $30 billion piece of legislation that is supposed to jump start the small business market and get the economy moving again. Components of the legislation include the following:

- Establish a $30 billion fund to help community banks lend to small businesses.

- Cut some taxes on both small and large businesses.

- Boost Small Business Administration loan programs by cutting loan program fees, raising loan guarantee limits and spending limits.

According to the article and common sense, this stimulus package will fail just as dramatically as the other ones that the political class has implemented:

1) According to the article, demand for credit and loans is down and many businesses are sitting on cash reserves, precluding them for needing to go out and get a loan. Thus, this money set aside could go unused and have no impact on the economy or unemployment.

2) According to Jade West, a lobbyist for the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors: "It won't do any good. Business doesn't need credit - business needs customers. If they don't have a customer base because demand is down, they're not going to borrow because there is nothing for them to borrow for."

3) The Republicans' concern, and it may be a valid one, is that the banks may start to lend some of this taxpayer money to businesses with less than desirable credit worthiness, eventually sticking the taxpayer for the bill if these shaky small business loans go sour since the banks will not be at risk, the government in the name of taxpayers is taking the risk.

4) Congressman Lincoln Diaz-Balart said: " What we have today before us is junior TARP." And we all know that the original TARP was useless.

5) According to tax counsel Bill Rys of the National Federation of Independent Business: 'There's some OK stuff in it, but the impact's going to be minimal."

6) The small business tax cuts include tax breaks for restaurant owners and retailers who remodel their stores or build new ones. However, if unemployment stays so high, what good will better looking stores and restaurants be if no one has any money to spend in them? How do new paint jobs and new carpeting help grow the economy?

7) And, what good is a tax break for certain small businesses is if Obama has his way and does not renew the Bush tax cuts for those small business people making over $250,000 a year? Any savings they get from this mini-TARP are likely to be offset by higher income taxes.

8) Let's do some math. According to the trade association that supports community banks, there are about 20,000 community bank locations in the country. If you divide the $30 billion by the number of bank locations, each bank location will get about $1.5 million to loan out. If the average small business loan is $100,000, each bank location will only be involved in about fifteen loans, hardly enough to move the economy forward. And this assumes, that the small businesses around each community bank actually needs a loan (see the points above).

9) More math. There are about 14 million unemployed Americans workers today. If you divide the size of this stimulus program by the number of unemployed, we see that this program is the equivalent of spending about $2100 per unemployed American. Now, if spending $800 billion in the original stimulus program did not prevent unemployment from soaring to about 10% and 14 million people (about $57,000 per unemployed person), this program is highly unlikely to do anything but waste another $30 billion.

10) And finally, if this idea of a program is so good, why was not introduced sooner? It seems that this is the "Hail Mary pass" or the scraping the bottom of the economic idea barrel. Nothing else has worked, even programs that were considerably larger, so what makes anyone think that this johnny-come-lately program will do anything but waste $30 billion more of taxpayer wealth?

Obama and the political class do not get it. They keep trying to "push" the recovery through the economic system. They push out rebates for Cash For Clunkers and Cash For Appliances, they push out money for infrastructure jobs, they push out money for teachers' pay, etc. The problem with this push strategy is that everything is finite. Once the Cash For Clunkers rebate money is distributed, the incremental economic stimulus affect, if any, is gone. Once the infrastructure work is done and paid for, the incremental economic stimulus effect, if any, is over. These push tactics provide no lasting, positive changes to the economy or the players involved, as witnesses by our first hand negative experience over the past two years.

More of a pull strategy is needed, especially since all of Obama's push tactics have been failures. In this context, a pull strategy would provide, positive, long lasting, stable incentives for the economy. This means that tax rates for individuals and businesses and families would be as low as possible for as long as possible. Families and businesses could then plan around this stable tax environment and think longer term with certainty.

With certainty comes confidence and growth. The money that is in family and business pockets can now be confidently and efficiently spent to pull economic activity through the economic system based on the personal needs of each family and business, not the dictates of a central government. That is why the one year exemption for small business self employment taxes is so inane. Next year those expenses are back so why would anyone do any long term planning and spending for such a short term exemption?

In addition to a pull strategy, the political class needs to remove the tremendous amount of uncertainty they have introduced into the market and the economy, with uncertainty comes a hunkering down mentality that no amount of Clunker money, home mortgage relief money, or short term tax exemption money can overcome:

- By stretching out the debate on what Bush tax cuts will be extended, the political class has introduced uncertainty into the market and economy, resulting in depressed economic activity, since no one knows what the tax bite will be.

- By passing a mammoth and probably ineffective health care reform bill, the political class has introduced uncertainty into the market and economy, resulting in depressed economic activity, since no one know what the increased business and family tax and health costs will be, and there will increases.

- By proposing a mammoth and probably ineffective cap and trade energy program and legislation, the political class has introduced uncertainty into the market and economy, resulting in depressed economic activity, since no one knows what the increased energy costs will be for their business and family.

- By passing a health care law that requires any extraordinary amount of incremental business paperwork and bureaucracy, the political class has introduced uncertainty into the market and economy, resulting in depressed economic activity, since no business knows how much financial and human resources they will have to divert to fulfill the increased paperwork requirements of the law.

We have seen what push economic stimulus planning has done and what uncertainty has done to the economy: it has done nothing of any positive significance. Sky high deficit spending and sky high unemployment. It is time for a change and a move away from silly programs like this $30 billion waste. All it does is satisfy the egos of those in charge in Washington, it gives them a sense of accomplishment.

But, to use an old cliche, they have spent a lot of time and effort to line up the deck chairs on the Titanic while the ship continues on a disaster course. These programs are way too small to leverage the economy, it is like pushing on a string. Nothing usually happens. You need to get to where you are pulling on that string to leverage things and enable growth.

A number of simple steps would help move to any effective pull approach to fixing the economy, would remove uncertainty from the market, and reduce overall government spending to help pay down the national debt and offset lower family and business taxes:

- Step 1 - start a systematic reduction in the size fo the Federal government by reducing every government function by 10% a year for five years.

- Step 2 - keep ALL of the Bush tax cuts in place in order to help pull demand through the economic system.

- Step 3 = increase government fraud and waste investigation resources in order to greatly reduce the self-admitted waste of $100 billion a year in government programs.

- Steps 4 - raise the retirement age and eliminate Social Security payments to Americans with more than $3 million in net worth in order to put Social Security on a solid financial footing and get this major government expenditure under control.

- Step 5 - implement an expert driven, not lobbyist and politician driven, strategic planning process for the development of a coherent, easy-to-understand and doable national energy program that would provide clear long term goals and tactics for national energy usage, removing the uncertainty and confusion of Obama's doomed cap and trade program.

- Step 6 - implement a comprehensive and expert driven, not lobbyist and politician driven, analysis and planning process to determine the root cause of rising health care costs and implement a coherent, understandable plan to address these causes, providing certainty in tactics and costs going forward. This, of course, would require the repeal of Obama Care.

- Step 7 - implement a process to return virtually all foreign deployed U.S. military personnel to significantly reduce our defense budget without sacrificing homeland security.

- Step 8 - prohibit the use of Federal taxpayer money on any program or project that does not materially affect a large number of citizens in at least five states.

These steps should not be this hard. We know what does not work, why do we have to have the same repackaged, doomed, non-leveraged, ineffective "push" ideas come around every month? The political class needs to learn from its mistakes and start doing something different, something innovative for a change. Its called leadership and unfortunately, it is in short supply in Washington these days.

Elected Officials Come And Go, But The System Stays The Same

Every few years, clever and astute politicians "feel" the angst and disdain of the people. and campaign against what the incumbents have either done, or not achieved. We have all witnessed tax revolt parties, independent parties, and parties with "catchy" names like this year's "Tea Party." Unfortunately, in most cases, these negative anti-incumbent campaigns often bring up valid complaints and concerns, but have rarely developed workable solutions to "solve the problem."

Many of the candidates that are being opposed this year were originally elected, sometimes decades ago, as the anti-establishment candidate. Many candidates, especially in under-functioning economic times, or periods of high joblessness, and low consumer confidence, represent themselves as being the "outsider" that works for the people. If it were generally factual, that might be a factor, but in most cases in the past, it has been far more rhetoric and hype, than reality. I recently heard a radio advertisement for one of the "outsider candidates" that began with, "I'm like you. I'm a parent and face the same struggles as you." The truly funny thing was, at least in this case, that the incumbent opposed the status quo while in office, made himself very accessible to his constituency, and even had more children, and less money than the opposition candidate did.

Our political system appears to be broken in many ways. The system discourages openness, because if you don't have a record, your record can't be "nit-picked" over, nor distorted. It is always easier to complain, and many of those complaints are valid. However, voters must begin to demand that any candidate that criticizes explain, in detail, what his program, how it would work, what the possibility of it being enacted, etc.

Isn't it amazing how many voters complain about a particular issue, and blame someone running for an elected office that has little to nothing to do with that issue? It is even more unbelievable how many candidates campaign against an issue that is unrelated to the office they are running for.

Politicians love to "spin" the facts. They will tell you that they have lowered taxes, but what they often merely do, is transfer certain expenses to another authority, that then has to pay for it. The reason that "tax caps" have very rarely worked is that unless expenses are streamlined, there will then be insufficient revenues. Countless politicians have campaigned on lowering taxes, balancing the budget, reducing waste, and still maintaining all programs that people need. However, I still have trouble understanding their mathematics!

Richard Brody has over 30 years consultative sales, marketing, training, managerial, and operations experience. He has trained sales and marketing people in numerous industries, given hundreds of seminars, appeared as a company spokesperson on over 200 radio and television programs, and regularly blogs on real estate, politics, economics, management, leadership, negotiations, conferences and conventions, etc. Richard has negotiated, arranged and/ or organized hundreds of conferences and conventions. Richard is a Senior Consultant with RGB Consultation Services, an Ecobroker, a Licensed Buyers Agent (LBA) and Licensed Salesperson in NYS, in real estate.

Politicians and Political Parties Agree On One Issue

The 2010 midterm elections are only weeks away. At stake are all the seats in the House of Representatives and over thirty senate seats. Polling research determined the menu of the issues, but as always the primary goal of each candidate is election or reelection. This midterm really focuses on the side dishes of regional and local preference, since the federal government's iron chef competition won't occur until 2012.

TV's Iron Chef requires contestants to feature a secret ingredient as the primary source of their finished dishes. Just as in pre-scripted professional wrestling matches those competing are actually told that their featured ingredient will be one of three items. The show's producers apparently have made a judgment that the show is edgier by misrepresenting the amount of choices. Now our primary political parties are employing the same production tactics.

Pretending that government legislative conduct is limited only to poll-winning issues empowers politicians to continue business as usual. When television ratings for a particular show decline the result is modified content or cancellation by the network. As ratings of government legislative participants continue lower and lower, both parties spice up the action by infusing a minor ingredient into their political concoction. This year's spice of choice for Republicans is the Tea Party, a dicey element that does not have a consistency of desired change. The Tea Party is truly American goulash seeking a different dish. Some are from the camp wanting to feature smaller government. Others want to change our tax system. They are in agreement that change is needed.

The Democrats changed tactics because (thanks to the 2008 election) they were turned loose to cook up the final dream dish dream that progressive liberals have dreamed about for almost a century. Stunned that the American populace has turned up their noses at the ultimate perfect concoction, they truly believe that with more time those same voters will appreciate their work.

A suggestion for the political Iron Chef showdown in 2012 is to introduce a totally foreign base ingredient. It could be something removed from the prep kitchen in the 1960s by President Johnson, something that strikes terror to all political operatives. What is that ingredient?

Accountability is an oxymoron when married to the word federal government. Some states do have limited accountability; however, elected members of Congress who suggest using accountability as a base ingredient are almost extinct as the dinosaurs. In fact oftentimes they are referred to as dinosaurs.

To prep accountability for the 2012 contest is so simple even Einstein could do it. It is a five-step process, two of which will be revealed here. They are truly the stock needed for the accountability battle. The other three steps are just as critical but have no value without the first two.

First, one of the best pieces of legislation in this decade was a bill of less than one hundred pages - the Sarbanes Oxley Act. Corporate accountability was legislated almost organically. The Enron panic extinguished lobbying; pig squeals were heard far and wide across the land. The choir singing in unison was led by the chambers of commerce and other palace guard serving special-interest groups. It is significant to note that the Supreme Court ruled Sarbanes-Oxley constitutional, and not a single company (public or private) compelled to follow Sarbanes-Oxley's mandates has failed.

The black swans of the financial destruction were all flying with an exemption from SOX. Banks and financial institutions, primarily headquartered on Wall Street, were given an accountability bypass in the bill. The Federal Reserve Bank, an institution with more secrets than the CIA, certainly could not be entertaining any kind of accountable conduct mandates. Fannie and Freddie, those twin sons of different mothers, along with the insurance companies were also outside the law's coverage. In those short days of yesteryear we didn't realize they were outlaws because they presented themselves as our in-laws.

Amending Sarbanes-Oxley requires only one sentence: The federal government, the Federal Reserve Bank, insurance companies and all investment banking or banking institutions are required to comply with Sarbanes-Oxley. Consider how discomforting the squeal of the corrupt corporate pigs was. Magnify that a hundred times because that one sentence will turn up a chorus of hogs.

Step two concerns conduct required in Sarbanes-Oxley that must be restated to guarantee compliance and produce true accountability. It's also one sentence in length: All institutions that now fall under Sarbanes-Oxley as amended must use generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) to compile mandated filings.

For over 15 years the Association of Certified Public Accountants has requested that GAAP be used for federal government accounting. They did not request this system for the Federal Reserve Bank because it is unknown what they account for.

Those two short sentences guarantee a 2012 election that will feature meaty issues for the first time in fifty years. If our new Congress will legislate these two modifications, along with three others to be revealed later, our grandchildren may have a future. Refusal guarantees the circus tent collapsing on our society.

Demand certified organic government and financial information. It's critical to your health, and to the health of your grandchildren.

Political Scenario in Kerala

Kerala political system is unicameral (single legislative house). The government is entrusted with the responsibility of executive, legislature and the judiciary. However the judiciary constitutes a series of lower courts, state tribunal and the State High Court. The state is headed by the chief justice who presides over the Governor's swearing. Apart from the chief justice, there are 26 permanent judges and two other additional judges (also called tempore judges) who hold office. The Kerala legislative assembly consists of the MLA (representatives of the people) who hails from various different regional and national parties. Different parties in Kerala have different ideologies and sectional interests. This multi party political system ensures that every part of the society is duely represented and looked after. The party who wins the majority selects or elects a head that represents the executive council presided over by the governor. Thus the governor of Kerala is vested with special powers by the President of the nation. However it is the chief minister that his executive council works for.

The chief minister has the power to elect / select the members of the executive council. The various members are appointed in various ministries which makes sure that the governance is efficient enough and encompass all. Individual portfolios are assigned to the ministers. The state executives are answerable to the legislative council. Local self-governing bodies like the municipality and the panchayats are chosen by regular polls.

At present the Kerala government is pictured by two main alliances, the United Democratic Front (led by Indian National Congress) and Left Democratic Front (led by the CPI (M)). The later is the present ruling alliance while the former party plays the role of the opposition. Mr. V.S. Achuthanandan heads the CPI (M). Racist sentiments sometimes become a major issue concerning Kerala governance.

America's Two-Party Political System - A Two-Headed Snake

Here in Georgia, the gubernatorial race is about to get moving towards the election of 2010. The reason I bring this up is that Georgia Congressman Nathan Deal has just announced his intention to run for Governor. He makes a good example for this essay.

Mr. Deal was a lifelong Democrat...that is, until 1995. He had been elected to the Congress as a Democrat in 1992. Then, when Newt Gingrich became Speaker of the House in 1994, Deal had some kind of epiphany. He switched parties and became a Republican. I cannot say whether his switch was for political expediency or whether it was truly philosophical. However, a look at his voting record would show that political expediency seems to be the leading indicator of his motives.

Actions speak louder than words.

Now, he will run for Governor as a Republican in a heavily Republican state.

Politics is defined by negotiation and compromise. As an insurance adjuster, I have been a professional negotiator for many years. The negotiations that I undertook were based upon the premise accepted by both parties that there was coverage under the terms and conditions of the policy. We were simply negotiating the settlement.

But, when it came to matters of coverage, there was no compromise. Either coverage existed or it didn't. If there was a dispute on coverage between the policyholder and insurer, it had to be settled in a court of law.

American politics is comprised of a political party system. Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Green, Communist, Constitution are all names for political parties in America. The two biggest parties, the Republican and Democrat, ignore the others for the most part, as the other parties have little power.

Republicans and Democrats are negotiators and compromisers, just like in insurance claims. They have already accepted the reality of politics, which is that government will grow and tax revenues will be spent. Sessions of Congress, whether controlled by Republicans or Democrats, are simply the negotiations and compromises about where the money goes.

Rarely does the "coverage issue" arise for today's politician. What I mean is that politicians seldom if ever take a position that government should not grow, that laws should not be passed, and that tax revenues should not be spent. The debate in Congress and state legislatures is customarily only WHERE the money is spent.

In the USA, there are only two real philosophical positions that can be taken. The first is the position that the US Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and that all Federal Government action must be controlled by it. Lawmakers guided and governed by loyalty to the US Constitution would concentrate on Constitutional issues. In the parlance of insurance, they might say "Is this legislation covered...by the Constitution?" If authorization could not be found, the action would die before enactment.

These lawmakers would NEVER negotiate or compromise the Constitution. This first philosophical position guarantees maximum freedom for US citizens.

The second position is every other belief system that runs contrary to the first.

The US Constitution was enacted as the supreme law of the land. ALL actions of the three branches of US Federal Government should be bound by the strictures in the Constitution. But reality is that almost no one in the three branches of US Government recognize the authority of the Constitution anymore.

Curiously, every elected official must swear an oath of office in which he or she vows to support, protect and defend the Constitution. For most politicians, the oath is simply a formality with no force of law.

But actions ALWAYS speak louder than words.

This second position, taken to its natural conclusion, guarantees the greatest governmental burden and least freedom for US citizens.

Therefore, I contend that the two-party-dominant political system in America is in essence only one party...with two main heads. Both heads of the snake agree in principle on the foundation of negotiation and compromise. They mostly reject the constraints of the Constitution upon their actions.

The ONLY way to save this nation is to return to the Constitution at the state level and force the Federal Government to obey the law.

DumpDC. Six Letters That Can Change History.

American Conservative Political Philosophy

The Classical Conservative Definition:
A classical conservative values tradition and freedom over governmental power. Conservatives, under this definition, advocate a free market economy without governmental intervention. Conservatives tend to view government as a necessary evil, whose primary responsibility is to protect people from violation of their rights and freedom by others. Conservatives distinguish this from government taking action to guarantee people's rights and freedom (a subtle, but important distinction). Conservatives think of morality as something that binds people into groups through loyalty and authority (in certain cases, substituting religion for authority). Conservatives tend to be tribalists.

There is likely not as much difference between the two philosophies as you may have thought. The distinctions are subtle, but they do lead to a different philosophy of both the purpose, and responsibilities of government. Distinctions between the two philosophies shift and morph to suit the politics of the day.

Conservatives are usually regarded as associated with the Republican Party, liberals with the Democratic Party. This is an over-generalization.

Both parties embrace certain conservative and liberal tendencies. Moreover, it does not account for those that do not affiliate with either party, standing as independents, a very large segment of America's political society.

FOUNDERS OF CONSERVATISM
Edmund Burke is often regarded as the founder of the conservative philosophy. Burke stated in 1791 that it was not necessary to tear apart society to cure its evils:

"An ignorant man who is not fool enough to meddle with his clock, is however sufficiently confident to think he can safely take to pieces, and put together at his pleasure, a moral machine of another guise, importance and complexity, composed of far other wheels, and springs, and balances, and counteracting and co-operating powers.

Men little think how immorally they act in rashly meddling with what they do not understand. Their delusive good intention is no sort of excuse for their presumption. They who truly mean well must be fearful of acting ill."

Burke professed that change should only be made when fully aware of the consequences of the actions. Society is complex and interconnected, so changes must be made with deliberation and knowledge of history. The damage from miscalculated changes can be too disastrous to society, to do otherwise.

This is not to say conservatives oppose change. Conservatives recognize that change is necessary in society; however, conservatives move at a slower pace than liberals.

The Modern Conservative Movement
Many credit Russell Kirk's 1953 book, "The Conservative Mind" with the birth of the modern conservative movement in the United States. In 1957, Kirk condensed he beliefs in "The Essence of Conservatism:"

"...The conservative is a person who endeavors to conserve the best in our traditions and our institutions, reconciling that best with necessary reform from time to time...Our American War of Independence...especially in the works of John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison, we find a sober and tested conservatism founded upon an understanding of history and human nature. The Constitution which the leaders of that generation drew up has proved to be the most successful conservative device in all history."

In this statement, Kirk restated that the U.S. Constitution is an instrument that protects people from abuse by government; in that regard, the Constitution must be strictly interpreted to guarantee that protection.

Barry Goldwater was the first politician to waive the modern conservative banner. His book, "The Conscience of a Conservative" was required reading at Harvard, at least for a while. When running for president in 1964, Goldwater promised to enforce the U.S. Constitution.

However, it was Ronald Reagan that legitimized the conservative political philosophy as President in 1980. He ran on a platform of cutting government, as he did when governor in California, where his main reform was in welfare.

As President, Reagan cut taxes in his first year. Whether as a direct result or not, the U.S. economy began an unprecedented economic boom in 1982 that lasted until 2001. However, Reagan will also be remembered for not only his economic forecast in 1982, but his prophesy that: "The march of freedom and democracy ... will leave Marxism-Leninism on the ash-heap of history as it has left other tyrannies which stifle the freedom and muzzle the self-expression of the people."

The fall of the Berlin wall came in 1989, followed by the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991.

CONCLUSION
In looking at the above comparison of conservative and liberal values, it is apparent that arguments can be made for the value of either position. However, such a limited view misses the point. Combining both philosophies can take the best from each to provide solutions to our problems.

As an example, take the issue of trust as to whether government is the best answer to our problems. Conservatives are wary to trust government as the answer; liberals tend to see government as a necessary evil, but still the best answer to solve our problems. Both are appropriate views. Our Founding Fathers recognized this dilemma and developed a system of checks and balances, a separation of powers for an effective government, but one that never developed too much power over its citizens.

The Founding Fathers listened to both sides of the conservative and liberal argument to try to find a system that meets the needs of all.

Today, our society needs to move forward to meet new challenges; liberals say we need new solutions to those challenges; conservatives say we need to trust proven solutions because miscalculation could make our problems worse. Again, both views have value; and a blending of both is likely the best answer: learn from the past, while we forge the future.

Unfortunately, our politics have become too polarized and too divisive. People take positions rather than work together. Political parties provide those positions. Many Republicans revert to religion as a bastion, while many Democrats turn their party into a religion.

After obtaining a degree in political science, I embarked on a career in insurance and government. For the last 21 years, I have worked for local government and government associations. I have written articles, as well as manuals, assisting local government in effectively managing their activities and exposures. I have also provided training in these areas, been a frequent speaker at educational seminars, and acted as President of an association of governmental employees.

Why Is Our Political System Such A Mess

It is so easy to complain about the government, yet often less than half of the eligible voters actually bother to vote. Call it apathy, or the "my vote doesn't make a difference" mentality, but it is rare to find effective government on any level. Our government leaders do not act as statesman, but simply as a bunch of politicians constantly campaigning for the next election.

Our federal government seems to get nothing done, even often appearing not to even be making the effort. And when there seems to be an effort by some, the system usually breaks down and little real progress is made. The 2 party, 2 houses of Congress system is, to say the least, flawed. Our representatives make compromises on their compromises, simply because the "poll numbers" show them they need to get certain "pork" projects done to get reelected. It is rare that a bill that finally passes through Congress, after the House's and Senate's bills are reconciled, and a "compromise" is reached to reconcile the bills, ends up resembling the original intent. Spending is done haphazardly, because politicians are afraid to vote against something for fiscally responsible reasons, for fear that their future political opponent will use it against them in their next campaign. Rarely does a politician vote his conscience, but rather micromanages votes based on personal political consequences. We see this with jobs, economics, health, foreign affairs, and almost any and every other legislation. It is rare and far between when a meaningful piece of legislation is passed, without major flaws, loopholes, inconsistencies, and waste. Our government leaders are afraid and/ or unwilling to use sound financial reasoning, such as beginning the budget process with "zero-based" budgeting, so that programs that work are encouraged, and waste is eliminated. In the elections of 2010, an alliance of those opposing how things are, informally formed an alliance known as the Tea Party, which unfortunately spent far more time speaking of what's wrong (which most of us know anyway), and made few realistic concrete suggestions for improvement.

Our state governments are in many cases even more flawed. Several states are nearly bankrupt, and in my state of New York, the state senators and state assembly representatives have not submitted a budget in time in recent memory. All these "leaders" resort to the blame and "it wasn't me" game, and threaten each other with lawsuits, vetoes, etc., without having the courage nor foresight to propose viable solutions.

Often, our county and local representatives are even more dysfunctional. In Nassau County, N.Y., out of nearly 240,000 votes cast this past election day for Nassau county executive, the final margin of victory was less than 500 votes. A month after Election Day, the election for State Senator in my district is still being contested, with numerous recounts.As if that wasn't indicative enough of a political quagmire, far less than half of the eligible voters went to the polls. On the local level, the county blames the town, which blames the villages, or vice versa. Infrastructure is often neglected until instead of doing regular maintenance, major repairs are needed. This wastes money, as well as creating ill will, and worsening the quality of life.

So, what can be done? We, the people, need to send a message that we are tired of the empty rhetoric, and that politics as usual will not be accepted. We have to start on the local level, and get leadership that will make the tough decisions, even if they are sometimes unpopular. We must support leadership and statesmanship, instead of being swayed by what a politician looks like, or how well they deliver a speech. We must ask, "What are you going to do about the issues?" Don't accept cliches, but follow up by questioning the how and why, and especially the how much aspect of a proposal. Do not blindly believe the cost nor time proposals given to you to get your vote - - - ask how? Never believe a politician that tells you he will cut taxes without cutting programs! Ask, "How will you balance the budget and pay for the expense?" Ask what efficiencies they are suggesting that would save money. Don't believe that most savings come from cutting big expenses. Anyone who truly understands the realities of budgeting and policy implementation knows that the most effective and realistic way to reduce expenses is to make numerous smaller decreases and look for numerous efficiencies.

Now is the time that the public must become less apathetic and more proactive. They must demand that their political leaders actually become representatives of the people. We must begin on a local level because real change can occur much more quickly on a local, smaller scale, than on the national level. Once we get the local government functioning (instead of being dysfunctional), we can then use that success as an example to change the state system, and eventually the national system.

This is not a short-term easy challenge, but I believe can and must be accomplished and achieved if we are to regain our greatness, and become true leaders of the rest of the world. We must eliminate the waste and dysfunction now!

Richard Brody has over 30 years consultative sales, marketing, training, managerial, and operations experience. He has trained sales and marketing people in numerous industries, given hundreds of seminars, appeared as a company spokesperson on over 200 radio and television programs, and regularly blogs on real estate, politics, economics, management, leadership, negotiations, conferences and conventions, etc. Richard has negotiated, arranged and/ or organized hundreds of conferences and conventions. Richard is a Senior Consultant with RGB Consultation Services, an Ecobroker, a Licensed Buyers Agent (LBA) and Licensed Salesperson in NYS, in real estate.

The Present Political System of Australia

Together with New Zealand, Canada, and other former British colonies around the world, Australia is considered a constitutional monarchy under the throne of Queen Elizabeth II. The present Governor General, Quentin Bryce, is the Queen's representative.

Australia's government today follows the tradition of liberal democracy, which allows religious freedom, and is committed to uphold the freedom of speech and association. The country today has about 20 million people. Australia's territory is made up of six states and seven other external territories and islands in Indian, Pacific, and Southern Oceans. The present political structure is a combination of American and British governments. The country's constitution shares different powers to Federal- and State-level governments.

The Federal Government of Australia
The Federal Government is made up of two Houses--Upper and Lower. The Senate, which is composed of 12 elected representatives from each state is the Upper House; while the House of Representatives composed of 147 members is called the Lower House. A dominant party in the House of Representatives will become the government. A ministry from its members will be distributed in both Houses. The Prime Minister, the country's political leader, will come from the Lower House.

Local or State Government of Australia
Every state in Australia, except Queensland, has 2 Parliament houses patterned after the Federal government. There are 850 local governments from each state and each of these local governments is regulated by State Acts of Parliament.

The Judiciary
The Federal Government is vested with judicial power in the High Court. Part of Federal Government's responsibility is to create other courts like Family Court and Federal Court whenever necessary. The High Court is the highest court of the land. It interprets the constitution and helps settle disputes between the State and Federal Governments.

Political Parties
Political parties are the lifeblood of a democracy. In Australia, a "party system" is the norm, which means that the party or coalition of parties that garnered the highest number of votes forms the government. A good example is the present government under the Labor Party. A party with the second highest number of votes will officially become the Opposition.

Australia has been dominated by two major parties for over 50 years now--the Labor Party and the coalition of the Liberal and National Parties. At present, the Labor Party is the Government and the Coalition is the Opposition. There are however, several minor parties that hold the balance of power for almost 20 years now. The country is also one of the few nations in the world that make voting compulsory in both state and federal levels.

Privacy Policy

Privacy Policy for http://thepoliticandsociety.blogspot.com/

If you require any more information or have any questions about our privacy policy, please feel free to contact us by email at muniradullah@gmail.com.

At http://thepoliticandsociety.blogspot.com/, the privacy of our visitors is of extreme importance to us. This privacy policy document outlines the types of personal information is received and collected by http://thepoliticandsociety.blogspot.com/ and how it is used.

Log Files
Like many other Web sites, http://thepoliticandsociety.blogspot.com/ makes use of log files. The information inside the log files includes internet protocol ( IP ) addresses, type of browser, Internet Service Provider ( ISP ), date/time stamp, referring/exit pages, and number of clicks to analyze trends, administer the site, track user’s movement around the site, and gather demographic information. IP addresses, and other such information are not linked to any information that is personally identifiable.

Cookies and Web Beacons
http://thepoliticandsociety.blogspot.com/ does use cookies to store information about visitors preferences, record user-specific information on which pages the user access or visit, customize Web page content based on visitors browser type or other information that the visitor sends via their browser.

DoubleClick DART Cookie
.:: Google, as a third party vendor, uses cookies to serve ads on http://thepoliticandsociety.blogspot.com/.
.:: Google's use of the DART cookie enables it to serve ads to users based on their visit to http://thepoliticandsociety.blogspot.com/ and other sites on the Internet.
.:: Users may opt out of the use of the DART cookie by visiting the Google ad and content network privacy policy at the following URL - http://www.google.com/privacy_ads.html

Some of our advertising partners may use cookies and web beacons on our site. Our advertising partners include ....
Google Adsense


These third-party ad servers or ad networks use technology to the advertisements and links that appear on http://thepoliticandsociety.blogspot.com/ send directly to your browsers. They automatically receive your IP address when this occurs. Other technologies ( such as cookies, JavaScript, or Web Beacons ) may also be used by the third-party ad networks to measure the effectiveness of their advertisements and / or to personalize the advertising content that you see.

http://thepoliticandsociety.blogspot.com/ has no access to or control over these cookies that are used by third-party advertisers.

You should consult the respective privacy policies of these third-party ad servers for more detailed information on their practices as well as for instructions about how to opt-out of certain practices. http://thepoliticandsociety.blogspot.com/'s privacy policy does not apply to, and we cannot control the activities of, such other advertisers or web sites.

If you wish to disable cookies, you may do so through your individual browser options. More detailed information about cookie management with specific web browsers can be found at the browsers' respective websites.