There is No Business Like Political Show Business

Sen. Obama trotted out Oprah. Sen. Clinton put her family on display, including former President Bill, and she teared up in New Hampshire. These are just the warm ups for the main political show of election 2008.

Gov. Huckabee had Chuck Norris at his side at numerous events. The Chuck Norris appearance with Gov. Huckabee was not as extensively covered by media as were the Oprah and Clinton family events. Sen. Clinton's choking up on camera was shown over and over and over just prior to New Hampshire. It gave her the boost she needed from women voters to grab a close win after being upset by Sen. Obama in Iowa.

The campaign trail will increasingly be like going to the movies or watching the "tube" as Hollywood tries to take advantage of the lazy voters among us. Most recently, Boston Legal on A.B.C. took some strong swipes at the Bush administration and the Iraq war. They attacked the National Guard as well. This propaganda will be seen more and more on TV in the coming months.

Let's look at the Obama-Oprah and Clinton family events.

Sen. Obama proudly proclaimed that the turn out for one Obama-Oprah event was the biggest turnout for a political event ever for any candidate in this campaign. Yet, after Oprah gave a rousing speech, people began leaving the stadium in droves while Sen. Obama was making his speech. Obviously, star struck Oprah fans came to see their idol and could care less about Sen. Obama's views on the issues of this campaign.

To counter Oprah, Mrs. Clinton put family members on display as if to say - "Family values, not star power, are more important to me." Well, that should be the case in every election whether it's a Democrat, Republican, or Independent saying it. The truth, however, cannot be hidden from active voters. The love affair between the Clinton's and Hollywood is well documented. Hollywood money is being poured into the Clinton campaign, along with advice about how to influence star-struck voters.

The only bright spot in media thus far has been Charlie Gibson and A.B.C. News for putting on the live debates. The debates were largely balanced efforts to give voters some solid information from the candidates. In my opinion, the Republican debate was much more lively and revealing than was the Democrat debate. I was disappointed that Sen. Clinton's claim to offering "35 years of change", as qualification to be President, was not challenged by an opponent or media.

You may think that I am anti-Clinton, anti-Obama, or anti-Democrat. I really don't care about political party affiliation, male-female, or black-white-brown-yellow, or Christian-Mormon-atheist-agnostic.

While I am decidedly conservative, I do not lean toward the G.O.P. In fact, there are conservative Democrats and Independents, too. At this point, I haven't begun to decide whom I will vote for. To be honest, I am not impressed by any single candidate of either party. Likely, as it always does, it will come down to the lesser of two evils. But, I will vote because, if I do not vote, I will have no right to complain about my government.

So, what is my motive for this article?

I am antagonistic toward any group that attempts to manipulate the electorate by virtue of money or star power. These are the people we need to guard against and any candidate who makes deals with any special interest group should be crossed off our list of choices.

Think about it. Will Hollywood moguls and other power brokers not expect something in return for their support if their candidate wins? And, can the candidate ignore them once in office? No, not if he or she wants to be elected to a second term in the White House.

Hollywood's agenda is the most dangerous one for America. They want the government to leave Hollywood alone so they can promote their liberal agenda and make piles of money. They claim the rights of "free speech" and "artistic freedom". In fact, it's all about the money they make by appealing to the basest leanings in our human nature. The more unfettered are the movie moguls, the more tickets and DVD's are sold.

If Hollywood gets control of the White House and Congress, look for laws regulating them being watered down or repealed. Look for violent crime and drug use in the movies and on television becoming even more graphic because the movie and TV rating systems will be scrapped or watered down. The result will be a society that will increasingly believe there is no right or wrong and will no longer be hindered in satisfying the basest of desires at the expense of others.

Perhaps you think I have gone off the deep end and see a demon behind every bush. My answer to that is simple - "When in doubt, shout it out!" I would rather find that my fears are unfounded than have to admit I knew the truth and remained quiet.

Religious Leaders and Politics

This topic is sure to be a little controversial. However, I'm not going to allow that to deter me from making observations on a cultural issue that I believe is relevant to millions. Religion and politics. This was broadcast in large scale in 2008 when videos surfaced of President Obama's pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright. I'm sure you've all seen the video with headlines that read "GOD DAMN AMERICA!" Anyways, I didn't really think about the effect religious leaders have on their congregation. Because that seems a little obvious. Of course they effect their congregations in a meaningful way, that's why their attending! It was a conversation I recently had with my husband, who is an avid reader of all religious texts and religious history, and we were discussing religious discrepancy on political policy. Now it's a little strange, because legally speaking, due to a law that was passed in 1954 a religious institution cannot endorse or oppose any political candidate, without their tax exemption status being removed. The way I've interpreted it seems similar to the way teachers are prohibited to disclosing their political beliefs in the classroom. What I want to talk about runs deeper than the simple endorsing or opposing politicians. The major factors here are text, interpretation, and influence. There's an interesting Hermetic mantra that I would like to use to sort of kick off the rest of this entry. "When the ears of the student are ready to hear, then comes the lips to fill them with wisdom."

My short observation below, is purely my, which will soon be clear, liberal opinion. I'm interested in getting a conversation started. Nothing more, nothing less. I surely don't have anything to gain here.

It just so happens that from both the far right and far left we can find strange words of wisdom that seems to directly contradict edict. I'm going to create two categories of spiritual leaders to make things a little more clear. Those whom really believe every word they say, and those who are afraid of upsetting their followers with the truth. Due to the plethora of social issues we're facing. From gay rights, to immigration, to what's recently being referred to as "Islamophobia." It would seem that many people turn to their religious leaders for moral guidance on where they should stand on these issues.

As someone who personally believes that religious text in all forms are indeed sacred, I also believe it is important to regard them first as allegory. That being said, clearly a man like Pastor Steven Anderson really believes the text he reads literally word for word. Then you have people like Father Michael Pfleger and Pastor Joel Osteen who's services are often referred to as "Social Gospel." Let's not forget that churches have a target audience of their own, demographic, location, and financial status, all generally play a part, in terms of who they preach to. I would like to think of any spiritual leader as highly versed in whatever it is they are teaching because they have chosen to dedicate their lives to the cause. But when the Catholic church for instance, is predominantly silent on war fare, but vocal on pro-life shouldn't that pose serious questions about the nature of this linked contradiction.

In an effort to keep this short and to the point. My concern is this. When people of faith hurt others and declare that it is in the very name of their faith, what kind of guidance are they really receiving. It doesn't matter whether or not a spiritual authority is allowed to speak from their pulpits directly about political issues. People will leave with their teachings embedded in their hearts and minds. I believe the actions of those who follow their words really speak for themselves. If peace and love are being preached wouldn't it make sense, that this nation being the inherently religious one that it is, wouldn't have such a problem with hate?

Dinnerware For Polite Society

I detest going to high-end restaurants. In case you are wondering, by "high-end" I mean any restaurant where I am required to use more than one fork and one spoon. Nevermind the knife. My husband, on the other hand, loves fancy dinnerware and the elaborate details it entails. He often tells me that I deserve to be treated like a princess, but how am I supposed to enjoy a formal meal when I have no idea which fork and knife to use for my well-done steak?

I know, my husband can always teach me or at least give me a clue, but it does make me feel a bit embarrassed. High-end restaurants are usually quiet and everyone seems to whisper to each other. I hate to have anyone think I am clueless about formal dinner etiquette. With the holiday seasons looming, not to mention my birthday, I know a formal dinner date is inevitable.

For a formal affair, utensils are typically arranged in order of use. That means that the forks, bread plate, bread knife, and napkin are placed on the left. Knives, spoons, glasses, cups and saucers are placed on the right. Utensils are placed one inch from the table edge, with each one lining up at the base with the one next to it. The rule of use is to work from the outer utensils toward the plate. The utensil positions depend on the number of courses ordered. Remember, the sharp edge of the knife must face towards the plate, and the glasses are placed about an inch from the knives. Glasses are also arranged in order of use; white wine, red wine, dessert wine, and water goblet.

Decadent dinners are served from the kitchen. There is a roll, a napkin, and knives to the right of the plate or bowl, and forks to the left. Coffee is served in a small cup, and the coffee spoon is placed on the saucer, on the right of the cup handle. The dessert spoon on the right and the dessert fork on the left, are placed on the dessert plates when they are served. Note, utensils for formal dinners must be sterling silver.

Bear in mind, table settings may be different according to the country you are dining in. Certain countries practice arranging the dinnerware from left to right. Some countries have different ways of using utensils. Informal settings are less complicated than formal settings, and in certain informal settings, napkin rings are used to hold the napkins and utensils together. Tired yet? Confused? Chin up, after all, we have not even touched on table etiquette yet!

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.

The Political Philosophy of the City of God

Justice being taken away, then, what are kingdoms but great robberies?...Indeed, that was an apt and true reply which was given to Alexander the Great by a pirate who had been seized. For when that king had asked the man what he meant by keeping hostile possession of the sea, he answered with bold pride, "What thou meanest by seizing the whole earth; but because I do it with a petty ship, I am called a robber, whilst thou who dost it with a great fleet art styled emperor."St Augustine

The City of God is one of the most interesting films recently released- not merely for its searing portrayel of the Brazilian slums- but also for its profound political philosophy. The title and the way it refers not merely a region of Rio de Janeirio but also back to one of the most important texts ever written within religious philosophy and as the quotation above shows, about political power. Augustine understood, as very few have understood since his remarkable treatise, the elemental importance of violence within political society. He argued that there was a difference between just and unjust authority and that the second was merely the power that a thief or a robber held. The City of God in the film contains merely power- whether it be the power of the police that reinforces the elite in the main part of Rio de Janeirio or the power of the hoods who end up dominating the slum, power here proceeds from the barrel of the gun and as Augustine said that power is the equivalent of the power of a thief or a pirate.

However ironic the use of Augustine is, it is another political philosopher that can take us deeper into the world of the City of God. Thomas Hobbes the English philosopher of authority, argued that without government human kind degenerated into a state of lawless chaos, a war of all against all, with the only conclusion being bloodletting on a massive scale. In the City of God, where conversely there is no justice, no God, Hobbes's insight into the rationality of tyranny, into justifying the rule of the thief makes much sense. The film proceeds in three stages- the first being the establishment of the leading characters in a city hwere the police seem to be able to control the gangs, the second stage involves the rise to power of Little Ze over all the other drug lords- a rise which involves killings and violence and the third sees the war between Little Ze and Knockout Ned (there is a fourth largely unseen stage when the Runts a new gang seize power at the end of the film).

Hobbes therefore can be used to understand the situation. The slum under either the police or Little Ze is a reasonably peaceful place, violence is limited to those that actually take on authority. Little Ze turns to his friend Benni and tells him at one point that you know the law, anyone who kills anyone in my slum gets themselves killed. But during Civil War- violence errupts with a ferocity that makes the previous periods seem like idylls of peace- small kids are shot with impunity, the streets of the City of God run with blood. Hobbes's theory seems to work- authority no matter how much it tends to tyranny is better in the slum than even a good guy and a bad guy at war. In the second instance there is a race to the bottom- in the first the peace may be unjust and may develop through violence but its peace.

Look deeper at this slum polity though and you begin to see the problems in Hobbes's theory. Hobbes may tell us what we ought to do prudentially under tyranny, but he doesn't tell us what we will do. Furthermore he doesn't show us one last condition- by an act of injustice an authority may destroy its own power- Little Ze does this precisely to Knockout Ned- he creates his own opposition. The condition of his rule, its injustice, ultimately creates civil war. In the end we return back to Augustine that rule without justice, rule without legitimacy of some sort, ends in instability and violence- ends in the nightmare Hobbes diagnosed.

This film is like all good films about more than just this narrative of political structures- there are some wonderful characters here and some just analysis of the relationships between human beings- but it is an intriguing subplot to it- in many ways this film about the Brazilian slums brings to light much of the hypothetical thoughts of European philosophy- it highlights how similar tyrants and hoods are, how their rule can lead to temporary stability but how in the end illegitimate rule can undermine the very peace which as Hobbes was clear is its main offer to society.

Freedom And Liberty In A Democracy Require A Truthful Political News Media

Last week I had the opportunity to attend Grandparents Day for one of my grand children. The kids closed the event in the gymnasium by singing, with gusto, "My Country 'Tis of Thee".

Samuel Francis Smith wrote the lyrics to "My Country, 'Tis of Thee" in 1831, and the song served as a de facto national anthem of the United States before the adoption of The Star Spangled Banner as the official anthem.

The words go like this...

"My country, 'tis of thee,
Sweet land of liberty,
Of thee I sing;
Land where my fathers died,
Land of the pilgrims' pride,
From every mountainside
Let freedom ring!"

The song ended with the kids beaming with patriotism with the words "Let freedom ring". With the words still ringing off the gymnasium walls I thought about what those words actually meant..."let freedom ring".

I was struck by how few countries in the history of our world have actually accomplished a true freedom and liberty for its people. For a moment I was deeply humbled and grateful for the opportunity to live in a country where our freedoms and our liberties are actually protected by law.

As I went about the rest of my day I couldn't get those words out of my mind..."let freedom ring".

A country that is truly grounded in freedom and the protection of liberty for its people does not allow black-and-white extremism and the radical ideologies of political extremists to enter its main stream political system.

There will always be extremists in a democratic country that allows freedom of speech, but when those extremists are allowed to become part of the political governing body of a country, it almost always results in the Hitlers and Mussolini's of the world removing the freedoms and liberties of the people who voted them into office.

History is full of examples of how easily a totalitarian government can come into power and mute the ring of freedom for its people.

The Nazi movement did not suddenly spring into power in German politics overnight...it was an extremist totalitarian movement that relied on the growing support of the German citizens.

A democratic government protects the freedom of speech but it holds a very high standard of truth and accuracy in its news media so its people can make informed political and economic decisions.

Totalitarian governments rely on the ability to lie and distort the truth so they can inflame the emotions of the people and blind them to the truth.

I have had a growing concern that our country is encouraging and allowing dangerous political extremists to enter our mainline political system. When our news media is allowed to knowingly report lies and intentional distortions as "truth", when political extremists are allowed to publicly malign the character of those who disagree with them in the news media, our country is headed in a very dangerous direction.

An intentional distortion of the facts is called a lie in my home.

Allowing anyone to publicly maligning the character and integrity of someone simply because they disagree with you is a dangerous violation of that person's right to free speech and their personal liberties. In my home I call such behavior abusive.

Unfortunately, I see this kind of behavior growing. It is virtually impossible to know any more what is truth and what is an intentional distortion or an intentional lie in our news media coverage.

A morally credible news media reports facts to the best of their ability. They hold themselves to a very high ethical standard. Especially when reporting political news when our country is entering an important election.

I would like the next generation of children to sing the words "let freedom ring" knowing that they are living in a country that honors that concept.

Our political process is in a shambles, extreme political ideologies are rampant in Washington, and our news media is leading the ideological charge that threatens to silence the "ring of freedom".

Allowing extremism in a country's mainline political system, and allowing a country's new media to lower their ethical standards in what they report as "truth", is a very dangerous path for any nation that wants "freedom to ring".

Dick is retired from 25 years in private practice as a pastoral psychotherapist, a certified Fellow in the American Association of Pastoral Counselors, an ordained Elder in the United Methodist Church, a New York State licensed Mental Health Counselor, Nationally Endorsed for Counseling by the United Methodist Division of Chaplains and the Board of Higher Education, a writer and publisher of the Stonyhill Spiritual Growth Newsletter, and the author of many other articles published on Stonyhill.com , Stonyhill-nuggets.com and other internet websites on the subjects of authentic spiritual growth, The Primitive Ego Theory of Human Development, and the intentional evolution of human consciousness.

Stonyhill is dedicated to the exploration and integration of subjects such as authentic spiritual growth, spiritual awakening, intentional growth in self-awareness, the development of a middlepath evolutionary spirituality, and teaching the skills and spiritual practices required to build a compassionate global world.

The Destruction of Our Educational System

The teachers union with all its far flung branches seems to have become a speaking platform for the democratic party and they have their own agenda for promoting the far left of their party. It appears to some that the teachers union is only interested in one thing and that is to promote more money for themselves so they can hire more teachers to expand the unions reach and control over the educational system . They apparently have input about promoting controversial issues like gay and lesbian rights into school books for grade school age students.No one should teach any small children about any kind of sexual preferences.

In today's system it is almost impossible to fire a bad teacher for any cause. Even the one's who write song's and have the children sing about the president as if he were a god in ordinary form. Can you imagine the uproar that would have ensued if any teacher had done the same thing for George Bush? The outrage would have been heard around the world. The teacher would have been fired and hounded by the press and their would have been hundreds of stories printed denouncing her. This union must be broken up into state unions under the control of local school boards by parents. This has gone to far with socialist leaning people all around the President in educational positions picked out by people around the union.

The children of this country are falling behind in every major area of education like math, chemistry, physics, medicine, and all other branches of higher learning. The only thing we have to many of is LAWYERS. Why don't we have anti trust laws for unions. They are too big now and powerful and with the money we supply them with to educate the children, they apparently use for political purposes. They must not be allowed to contribute ANY money to any political party or candidate or to use the money to influence any legislation that comes before the house or senate. They have very little controls placed on them from any agency within government to rein them in when they go astray of educational duties.

Sometimes it seems as if they are a political party organization and do what their political party bosses tell them to. I have yet to see any real advances in teaching programs or of rising scores from students in any school districts anywhere in the country. The only forward looking programs come from charter schools and private schools that are not under the thumbs of the unions. The unions continue to exert their power over the people of our nation to the detriment of our entire educational system. They also spend vast amounts of money to elect people who are good (Friends) to the unions and do their bidding.

If we do not get them back to what they are chartered to be doing then we must demand they be dismantled and our schools must turn to parents to run things from local boards and state unions that can be established in place of the one enormous unwieldy conglomeration. I believe we must work towards those ends if we want to survive in the world and have our own children receive the advantages we want for them. California for example has the largest classroom size with twelve percent of students being illegal. They place 47th out of 50th in money spent per student for education. and the results are not as promised.

It is just beginning to be understood by parents that they have the power to change things as shown by so called tea party groups and town hall meetings and by concerned parents around the country where people are fed up with the direction our country is heading. The great many promises made by politicians over the years to advance public school scores. From President Johnson's great society beginnings, up until today, Special educational advancement promises that have never amounted to more than campaign rhetoric. Empty promises that appear every year around election time. Over and over, people are given promise after promise that once the elections are over never materialize.

If we want our centers for higher learning to become what they once were, then we have to demand changes that benefit the students and not the union. I am just a grandfather of five that has seen the decline in education all around me. Everything today has to be politically correct and that especially goes for homosexual or gay rights. The gay group leaders are, and have been pushing for what they consider their rights. If it were only just for their rights that they march, I don't see how people would refuse them. I can see no harm in allowing gay couples the rights legal partners have but that's not what they are after.

They do everything in their power to force their beliefs onto others by sponsoring school books about why Mary has two mommies or daddies. We do not want these things taught in grade school to children unable to comprehend the complex ramifications of the lifestyle and certainly not the way they want it taught. They do not want acceptance but approval for their lifestyle. They want the rest of the country to accept their sex lives as if it were normal. It is not. Our bodies were created for a man and a woman to come together and produce children. To raise them and teach them the ways of each particular religion as decent God fearing adults and as far as I can find, no religion accepts homosexuality as normal.

I personally do not want sex education taught in school to small children.. It should be left to parents of middle school level students and not taught in grade school. Biology was once a very important part of school curriculum. The human body was once taught in the normal course of every child's education. Now it is force fed and twisted around to promote gay positions from Mary has two mommies or daddies to how to place a condom onto a cucumber. They are all designed to indoctrinate children to the homosexual lifestyle. It must stop! I do not believe any thinking person wants to keep people from achieving equality under the law.

These things have no place in our educational system. It has become subverted and manipulated into an arm of the FAR left of the democratic party to satisfy the way out leanings of very definitely anti Christian people. If they will not be accepted as normal then they denounce that part of it and say it does not apply to their version of Christianity.

I would like to know where they receive the money to bring so many lawsuits against Christian's up to the Supreme court every year? Who are the people that back them? Why are they so vociferous and angry and full of venom towards Christian's? That is a question I have asked over and over and never received an answer that made a lot of sense. If they do not believe, why do they feel so much animosity towards those that do. No answer!

They always seem to forget that the vast majority of Americans are Christian's and we will allow some restrictions as long as they conform to the constitution, but when it comes to restricting our right to observe our faith we will fight back to the last man standing. I personally will never accept the new money they want to create with " IN GOD WE TRUST " removed. It seems they will never be satisfied until they remove every vestige of religion from our schools and courts and all government buildings and our money. This nation was founded by Christian's and our constitution was written by God fearing people under His commandments and principals.

If the minority of atheists do not wish to live under Gods principals, from where we designed our constitution. then they have a right to go anywhere they wish. They do not have to live here and if they can find a better place, let them go there. No one is forced to worship any God in this country but do not tell us we cannot follow our own beliefs. This country was founded by religious men who believed in God and wrote a constitution that specifically allowed freedom of religion to every person and did not force anyone to follow any religion. They also declared that no one in or out of government could make any law to prohibit the free exercise of any religion or stop anyone from observing their religion or practicing it in the manner they choose.

The unions in America were founded by people who wanted a fair shake for their members with decent working conditions and health coverage. These were worthy goals and badly needed at the time when big business treated its people like equipment that wears out and is discarded. Those days are far behind us to a great extent but now the unions have become so big and flushed with money that they resemble the big businesses with little regard for its members as long as management receives their just rewards.

Every union should be under the control of some authorities to regulate. They should never be allowed to grow so huge that they can paralyze a country nationwide or have such power that they can force issues before congress that benefit themselves alone. They pass rules and regulations that make it almost impossible to fire a teacher for incompetence or sexual misconduct with students. Their should be very strict background checks for people to become a teacher to small children under the age of fifteen.

We very definitely do need the unions and I was a member of another union and they did a great deal of good. They must be strong enough to protect their members from unfair practices by employers but they also have to be well regulated by an independent arm of government with enforceable rights over the unions.

Their are so many outcomes possible from an educational system on the wrong track. Socialists seem to be planning the dissolution of our government by financial means first and then by control of its institutions one by one. The people the President has placed around himself and throughout his government positions are those from his past, drawn from Chicago's so called Daley political machine. The most allegedly corrupt city in America besides Las Vegas. So far He has appointed 30 czars to fill posts all through his administration.

These are people from his background in Chicago politics. They mostly came from socialist backgrounds in politics and Marxist teachings that lean towards communist goals. It would be a wonderful world where everyone was equal in every aspect of life, in short the way Christ envisioned heaven on earth. Everyone respected and cared for each other and life was equal in every respect. That can never happen because of mans inherent evil and greed that permeates our society.

Our jails are filled to bursting with criminals that prey on our population in every way imaginable from petty criminals to mass murderers. Why do we have the largest prison population as a percentage of any country in the world? The list goes on and on from students that drop out and turn to crime and drugs and every crime that they can imagine. It all starts from a school system that does not work as it once did. Drop outs have increased to a frightening level in big city schools. We have to do something and we have to do it now.

The American Political Extreme

When speaking in terms of the political extreme we must first define what is meant by "extreme." Most scholars will agree that political extremism can be defined as a political philosophy or ideology of a character and kind that is farthest removed from the ordinary or average. It is the farthest from the center, outermost or endmost. It is going or doing the utmost to very great lengths to the political left or right in action, habit, or opinion.

With this in mind it is fair to say that the body politic of the Untied States has largely shifted to two extremes - liberal and conservative, as defined by the plat forms of both the democratic and republican parties. The dilemma is that neither party views themselves as being "extreme." Yet, both parties categorically define each other by these extreme terms. They are fully capable of seeing the awful nature of the extremist positions of their opposition but not in themselves. That is more then troubling, it is dangerous. Let's take a good look at both extremes.

Liberalism was once philosophically favorable to progress and reform in political or religious affairs, but without defying the basic tenets and principals of the constitution or Holy Scripture. Liberalism was favorable to and in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom in a society and government that was free from prejudice and bigotry. Liberalism advocated tolerance and generosity. Liberals were patriots and champions of freedom. Now compare this to modern day liberalism.

Modern day liberalism can best be defined as "secular progressivism" in a true Bill O'Reilly sense. No doubt about it, this is extreme. Modern day liberalism will redistribute wealth by targeting the affluent for most of the government's revenue. They fully embrace the "rob Peter to pay Paul" mentality. This form of secular progressive liberalism wholly embraces the "welfare state" and is a champion of illegality with respect to illicit drug use and illegal immigration. Hard work and ingenuity will be taxed and penalized while laziness and illegal immigration will be rewarded through income redistribution.

Modern day liberalism embraces lax school discipline on American children to promote the so-called "liberties of minors." It will even go so far as to deprive parents of their right to shape and discipline their own off spring through tried and tested (and biblically supported) cross-generational and universally accepted standards. This includes the occasional spanking (not to be confused with abusive beating). Instead secular progressive liberalism would replace this with a new social order that claims to know what is better for children then their parents. They would assume/replace responsibility for children from their parents. It is Orwellian in scope.

Modern day liberalism has a "one-world" approach to US foreign policy. It will happily abdicate American sovereignty to the Untied Nations and a new world order. Modern day liberalism wholly embraces all manner of moral perversities from pornography in literature, film, art and music to all manner of sexual promiscuity. All of this is done in the name of "self-expression" and a disturbing interpretation of the first amendments right to the "freedom of expression." It doesn't matter how much societal harm this does either. The focus on "individual rights" trumps the rights of an entire society under this new and modern secular progressive form of liberalism.

Modern day liberals call themselves "patriots" yet will do and say practically anything that will disgrace or do harm to their own country. With few exceptions, modern day liberals seldom serve their country but think nothing of attacking those who do. Modern day liberalism, unlike the liberalism of yesteryear, largely defines the meaning of "coward." Modern day liberalism has lost its generosity, sense of fairness and fair play, and its patriotism.

Most modern day liberals are lazy. They believe they are owed everything yet deserve practically nothing. Few among them earn all that they have. They are much more "takers" then they are "givers." They are perpetual spoiled brats, even in to middle age and beyond. Modern day liberals are extremely stingy with their own money but they will happily give away everyone else's. They advocate gay rights but work diligently to deny "Christian rights." Modern day liberalism bears naked hostility to religious values and their expression in public. They even flaunt obscene perversities in the face of Christians in the name of progressive free expression. They care nothing about those they offend.

Modern day liberalism embraces freedom only for its own ideals while denying the ideals, philosophies, and thoughts of any opposing view. Liberalism that was once the champion of "tolerance" has now become the most intolerant political ideology imaginable. Modern day secular progressive liberalism personifies the evil of hatred toward those who fail to share their views and these liberals would outright do harm if they could. This secular progressive liberalism is mean-spirited, scary, and very dangerous.

Conservatism was once viewed as the inclination in politics to maintain the existing traditional order. Political conservatives urged caution or moderation, as a behavior outlook. They were strict constitutional constructionists and were strong on national defense issues and staunch supporters of the military and military veterans. They were devout American patriots, almost to a spiritual level. Conservatives clearly embraced the free market ideal and the entrepreneurial spirit. They believed in fiscal responsibility in government to include limiting spending and taxation. They were strong on faith issues and supporters of religious freedom and expression. They deemed themselves to be the "champions of family." Conservatism was a political philosophy and attitude that emphasized respect for traditional institutions, and distrust of government and governmental activism. Conservatism was in strong opposition to sudden change in the established order. Conservatism had a heart. Now let's take a look at modern day conservatism.

Modern day conservatism could be better defined as "progressive fascism." Not in terms of a governmental system led by a single dictator but rather by a "powerful elite" that I call the "fascist elite." One person may appear to be in charge but he or she is responsive to the facist elite. One must go through a "rights of passage" to gain membership in this highly select "fascist elite" inner circle. The "fascist elite' is comprised of select and influential lobbyists, corporate elitists, and the conservative governmental inner circle. The trilateral commission members clearly fit in to this inner "fascist elitist" inner circle.

Modern day conservatives buck the traditional order as much as they embrace it. They abhor secular progressive Supreme Court decisions that overturn traditional values pertaining to marriage and life, which is a reasonable and defendable argument. However, they would happily out law individual freedom if it would advance their fascist conservative cause and further empower them. They are much more "pro-war" then they are "pro- military" and they wrongly think of them as being one in the same. They prefer a "military offense" to "military defense" and I'm not speaking in terms of military tactical or strategic maneuvering. I am speaking to a philosophical and ideological ideal.

They are quick to send Americas soldiers in to harms way provided they themselves, or their family members, never have to lead the charge. Modern day conservatives are quick to raise the flag but slow to serve it. Certainly there are exceptions but this is mostly a normal and usual dynamic of the modern day conservative movement. Most modern day conservatives are merely "military cheer leaders" that would fight only to stay our of a soldier's uniform. Most of them define the word "coward."

These modern day conservatives think nothing of turning their backs on America's military veterans once they have been spent and are no longer useful. They point to passed veterans' appropriations but neglect to mention that they themselves fought most of those appropriations tooth-and-nail through the legislative process. Had they had their way, our nations veterans would be penniless and without adequate healthcare.

Modern day conservatives abhor social welfare for the poor but embrace corporate welfare with frenzy. They are not just supporters of the entrepreneurial spirit and the capitalistic ideal, which is good, but they'll also surrender the nation and its people to that a gross aberration of that ideal in the interest of corporate greed, which is bad. They are not just against taxation in general, they devise laws and methods to ensure corporations and the wealthiest among them can completely avoid taxation, especially in off shore accounts and through creative accounting.

Most of our nation's wealthiest people are in these modern day conservative ranks and they have gotten greedier then the human psychic can comprehend. They have wholly forsaken the "middle class" and, believe it or not, with their secular progressive "give away everything "liberal cohorts, they are on the verge of turning America in to a two class "rich and poor" society. The American middle class is truly at risk of collapse.

Modern day conservatives speak a good line about being against "illegal immigration" but when they owned the presidency and both houses of congress they did absolutely nothing to prevent it. Instead they opened the avenues to illegal immigration and unlawful entry in to our country more then doubled. Cheap exploited labor for the modern day conservative ranks of the rich and greedy has become a mainstay for them, and America's immigration laws, and the American worker, are damned because of it.

Modern day conservatives are content in transferring once secure and good paying jobs to distant foreign shores. There desperate, exploited, and often abused workers who are willing to work for a pittance await these once lucrative American jobs. The modern day conservatives thought nothing of leaving their loyal and hard working American employees stranded, destitute, unemployed and having to fed for themselves and their families in an increasingly competitive market that offers only little more then minimum wage to even college graduates. So, they gather to the unemployment lines and the welfare system, without health and dental insurance, both of which modern day conservatives are reluctant to fund. Then they call their once proud American workers "lazy freeloaders." Modern day conservatives lost its compassion in an abyss of economic quicksand where it can't be retrieved.

Modern day conservatives have turned fiscal responsibility in to a tax-and-spend extravaganza that makes the most ardent liberals proud. They are still strong on family and faith issues as long as they get to decide the dogma and doctrine of what is acceptable. I'm not talking about defending bible scripture, which is good, but living outside the dictates of what they preach, which is bad. For example they are against premarital sex, sexual promiscuity, adultery and "lusting in the mind," but many among them are known to have done some or all above with a fever. Yet, they hypocritically attack an immoral Hollywood, which really is immoral. They rile about sodomy and gay marriage, which is their right if faith and scripture based. Yet they would imprison a gay couple, consenting adults, who engage in gay sex in the privacy of their own home. To be against sodomy is defendable religious belief but to want to discriminate and bring harm to those who don't conform to your belief system is in no manner a Christian principle. That's judgmental, playing God, and I think God would object. It's an "extreme" conservative position that falls outside traditional mainstream conservatism.

The modern day American politic has evolved in to a mean-spirited bastion of political extremes. The political center that was once the mainstream of American political society was slightly right of center. Some had liberal tendencies but nothing extreme. Some had more conservative tendencies but again nothing extreme. They were both patriots and they liked each other even when they disagreed. They worked together for the good of the nation and each other. Their was seldom any polarization. That is now a distant memory of our better days.

Both parties have been hijacked by the political extremes, the democrats on the left and republicans on the right. They offer only candidates that embrace one extreme or the other. Candidates that must "sell out" to extremist ideologies before the American people get the chance to decide. America desperately needs a third party. A party of moderation and atonement. A party of patriotism. A party that supports fee enterprise, capitalism and the entrepreneurial spirit without embracing the evil of greed. A party that cares more about the powerless then the powerful. A party of Judea-Christian values. A party of tolerance but not so tolerate as to embrace the extreme. A party that is slightly right of center and embraces traditional American values and morals but is not afraid of change. A party that will not lose its direction and sense of compassion. A party that will never stop caring about its people and one which reward hard work instead of good market guesses.

A Socialized Health Care System Requires Population Control and Impeccable Registries

In a nationalized health care system, you need to know who is who - otherwise the system could never be able determine who is entitled. The structure depends on how the system is created and designed, but with a nationalized health care system you will be tracked by the state where you reside and how you move in a manner that is unseen in America. The nationalized health care system becomes a vehicle for population control.

If you leave the United States and are no longer a resident of the state, even if you are a citizen and might maintain a driving license, you will have to report immediately if you want to avoid the 13% health care tax. I use the number 13% as it is in Sweden to exemplify the actual tax pressure that is laid upon you for the nationalized health care.

Let's say you moved and you do not want to pay the 13% tax for services you do not receive, can receive, or want to taken out from the tax roll. The mammoth entity has no interest to let you go so easy. You will end up having to reveal your private life - partner, dwellings, travel, money, and job to prove your case that you have the right to leave the public health care system and do not need to pay the tax. If you have to seek an appeal, your information could be a part of administrative court documents that are open and public documents. As soon as you return to the United States, you will be automatically enrolled again and the taxes start to pile up.

Public universal health care has no interest in protecting your privacy. They want their tax money and, to fight for your rights, you will have to prove that you meet the requirements to not be taxable. In that process, your private life is up for display.

The national ID-card and national population registry that includes your medical information is a foundation of the nationalized health care system. You can see where this is going - population control and ability to use the law and health care access to map your whole private life in public searchable databases owned and operated by the government.

By operating an impeccable population registry that tracks where you live, who you live with, when you move and your citizen status including residency the Swedes can separate who can receive universal health care from those not entitled. The Swedish authorities will know if you have a Swedish social security number, with the tap of the keyboard, more information about yourself than you can remember. The Swedish government has taken sharing of information between agencies to a new level. The reason is very simple - to collect health care tax and suppress any tax evasion.

It is heavily centralized and only the central administration can change the registered information in the data. So if you want to change your name, even the slightest change, you have to file an application at a national agency that processes your paperwork. This centralized population registry makes it possible to determine who is who under all circumstances and it is necessary for the national health care system. Otherwise, any person could claim to be entitled.

To implement that in the United States requires a completely new doctrine for population registry and control. In an American context that would require that every existing driving license had to be voided and reapplied under stricter identification rules that would match not only data from Internal Revenue Service, state government, municipal government, Social Security Administration, and Department of Homeland Security but almost any agency that provides services to the general public. The reason why a new population registry would be needed in the United States is the fact that lax rules dating back to the 1940s up until the War on Terrorism, and stricter identification criteria following 9/11, has made a significant percentage of personal information about individuals questionable.

If America instead neglects maintaining secure records, determining eligibility for public health care would not be possible and the floodgates for fraud would open and rampant misuse of the system would prevail. This would eventually bring down the system.

It is financially impossible to create a universal health care system without clearly knowing who is entitled and not. The system needs to have limits of its entitlement. A social security number would not be enough as these numbers have been handed out through decades to temporary residents that might not even live in the United States or might today be out of status as illegal immigrants.

The Congress has investigated the cost of many of the "public options", but still we have no clear picture of the actual realm of the group that would be entitled and under which conditions. The risk is political. It is very easy for political reasons to extend the entitlement. Politicians would have a hard time being firm on illegal immigrants' entitlement, as that would put the politicians on a collision course with mainly the Hispanic community as they represent a significant part of the illegal immigrants. So the easy sell is then that everyone that is a legal resident alien or citizen can join according to one fee plan and then the illegal immigrants can join according to a different fee structure. That assumes that they actually pay the fee which is a wild guess as they are likely to be able to get access to service without having to state that they are illegal immigrants.

It would work politically - but again - without an impeccable population registry and control over who is who on a national level, this is unlikely to succeed. The system would be predestined to fail because of lack of funds. If you design a system to provide the health care needs for a population and then increase that population without any additional funds - then naturally it would lead to a lower level of service, declined quality, and waiting lists for complex procedures. In real terms, American health care goes from being a first world system to a third world system.

Thousands, if not a million, American residents live as any other American citizen but they are still not in good standing with their immigration even if they have been here for ten or fifteen years. A universal health care system will raise issues about who is entitled and who is not.

The alternative is for an American universal health care system to surrender to the fact that there is no order in the population registry and just provide health care for everyone who shows up. If that is done, costs will dramatically increase at some level depending on who will pick up the bill - the state government, the federal government, or the public health care system.

Illegal immigrants that have arrived within the last years and make up a significant population would create an enormous pressure on a universal health care, if implemented, in states like Texas and California. If they are given universal health care, it would be a pure loss for the system as they mostly work for cash. They will never be payees into the universal health care system as it is based on salary taxes, and they do not file taxes.

The difference is that Sweden has almost no illegal immigrants compared to the United States. The Swedes do not provide health care services for illegal immigrants and the illegal immigrants can be arrested and deported if they require public service without good legal standing.

This firm and uniform standpoint towards illegal immigration is necessary to avoid a universal health care system from crumbling down and to maintain a sustainable ratio between those who pay into the system and those who benefit from it.

The working middle class that would be the backbone to pay into the system would not only face that their existing health care is halved in its service value - but most likely face higher cost of health care as they will be the ones to pick up the bill.

The universal health care system would have maybe 60 million to 70 million "free riders" if based on wage taxes, and maybe half if based on fees, that will not pay anything into the system. We already know that approximately 60 million Americans pay no taxes as adults add to that the estimated 10-15 million illegal immigrants.

There is no way that a universal health care system can be viably implemented unless America creates a population registry that can identify the entitlements for each individual and that would have to be designed from scratch to a high degree as we can not rely on driver's license data as the quality would be too low - too many errors.

Many illegal immigrants have both social security numbers and driver's licenses as these were issued without rigorous control of status before 9/11. The alternative is that you had to show a US passport or a valid foreign passport with a green card to be able to register.

Another problematic task is the number of points of registration. If the registration is done by hospitals - and not a federal agency - then it is highly likely that registration fraud would be rampant. It would be very easy to trespass the control of eligibility if it is registered and determined by a hospital clerk. This supports that the eligibility has to be determined by a central administration that has a vast access to data and information about our lives, income, and medical history. If one single registration at a health care provider or hospital would guarantee you free health care for life and there is no rigorous and audited process - then it is a given that corruption, bribery, and fraud would be synonymous with the system.

This requires a significant level of political strength to confront and set the limits for who is entitled - and here comes the real problem - selling out health care to get the votes of the free riders. It is apparent that the political power of the "free" health care promise is extremely high.

A promise that can not alienate anyone as a tighter population registry would upset the Hispanic population, as many of the illegal immigrants are Hispanics - and many Hispanics might be citizens by birth but their elderly parents are not. Would the voting power of the younger Hispanics act to put pressure to extend health care to elderly that are not citizens? Yes, naturally, as every group tries to maximize its own self-interest.

The risk is, even with an enhanced population registry, that the group of entitled would expand and put additional burden on the system beyond what it was designed for. That could come though political wheeling and dealing, sheer inability from an administrative standpoint to identify groups, or systematic fraud within the system itself.

We can speculate about the outcome but the challenges are clear. This also represents a new threat to the privacy and respect for the private sphere of the citizenry as an increased population registration and control empowers the government with more accurate information about our lives and the way we live our lives. Historically, has any government when given the opportunity to get power taken that opportunity and given that power back to the people after the initial objective was reached? Governments like to stick to power.

To ensure the universal health care system is designed to function as intended it, would require procedures that would limit fraud, amass a significant amount of personal information, have access to all your medical data, and also determine who you are beyond any doubt. Just to be able to determine if you are entitled or not and, track the expenditures you generate.

The aggregation of these data could also open the floodgates for any data mining within these data under the pure excuse that it would help the universal health care system to better "serve you" and lower the costs.

To lower the costs also means to identify which procedures should not be done on which type of patients as it is not viable based on the government's interest to optimize your productivity under your life cycle. The collection of data has a tendency to look inviting and good when we start to collect it but aggregated data and personal information creates a deep intrusion in our privacy.

The Transformation Of Political Science And The Rise In Crime Rates

The current field of political sciences is dominated by a multitude of ideas that have never in its history featured so prominently in this discipline. The general belief that it has lost its focus once and for all is from time to time counteracted by different opinions. One of those is that the world has come full circle, that mankind has experimented out all possibilities in terms of ideological thinking and that the liberal democracy as we know it has come out of the process as the prize winner both politically and economically. Some define this as the end of history. It also goes by the name of ultra modernism. Globalisation fits in perfectly and all reflects the increasing complexity that we are finding our world to involve us in and which, in order to come to terms with the bigger magnitude of the whole, we are describing in essentially vague terms.

The idea that history might have died a death was first launched in the 1980s by Francis Fukayama who wrote a now famous essay entitled 'The End of History', in The National Interest on the subject. The idea has persisted during the subsequent historic reality-altering events leading to our understanding of the world in terms of security and globalization, even though the liberal ground is under siege from left and right wing ideologies, parts of which are finding their way into the democratic liberal discourse.

However inappropriate it essentially is to define the new 'winning ideology' -- the policical science discourse is rife with arguments in favor of departing from old fashioned foundationalism and swapping this for a-systemic ideas gathered from all other disciplines-- we are at this time almost as happy with any theory that offers a firm grip on reality as the third world would be with a cure for poverty. Much though the world is changing and much though this fast change is reflected in the sciences, the a-systemic ideas making up the political sciences might not necessarily reflect what's going on in society one hundred percent adequately.

Issues like crime and other 'anti social behavior' are significantly underexposed in areas of political scientific studies, say researchers. Our highly developed society and increased sophistication in all the disciplines that results in political sciences being a highly esteemed area for study, delivering no doubt high caliber students to society, does not necessarily guarantee a tangible decline in crime rates. We are missing out something big time. Is this the whiplash of a-systemic thinking we all intuitively fear?

If you may believe studies undertaken by political scientists, in future, we won't have a lot of room for corruption and evil wrongdoers in our society. Leaf through an average new book on political science and find hardly a line, let alone a chapter, dedicated to the evil side of human nature. What makes us all think that synchronising everything automatically leads to a better world and therefore a less violence prone society? In the same breath, you might ask, what is the new Left, the new Right, the Libertarian and the other political mainstream thinking on issues such as the Third World? For all our great knowledge and speedy technology-supported understanding of what is going on, we are still not much better at remedying the main problems the world is faced with.

Criminology is part of the exercise of deconstructing the past, deconstructing other disciplines and constructing new ideas from a mixture of all of them which keeps social scientists busy these days. Yet it's not enough apparently to translate into better thinking on the way safety and society can be organised.

Whether a certain approach to crime really is to blame for its rise is debatable. What is certain is that modern societies have become safer and more comfortable in many areas but that crime has risen in equal proportion. "When it comes to crime, or more broadly stated 'antisocial' behaviour, society has actually become less safe. Crime constitutes an insecurity risk which is difficult to control. Many citizens and organizations will at some stage fall victim - usually completely unexpected -to behaviour which can harm them, physically or financially", according to a recent research report by the Foresight Institute of the Netherlands, a semi official consultancy. It is one of the few studies in this field.

The increasingly Old World definition of the nation state was primarily driven by the desire to resist this sort of danger, the researchers say. They continue that the way we deal with crime has evolved too. It is at this point that state organization is likely to really begin to crumble. A prime, if not the prime raison d'etre for governments is keeping a population relatively safe and free from crime. The more governments are perceived to be failing in providing the desired high level of societal safety, the less justification there is for governments and their imposing taxes on a country's population.

Changes in the way crime is perceived include treatment of the issue in more scientific disciplines than ever. Yet some, including Fukayama, argue that the social sciences lack a distinct central view on human nature, which stems back from the post Kant era. The only reason that I feel you can raise the human nature argument again is that over the last 30 years in the life sciences there has been a lot of empirical work that has made the concept respectable to scientists. Yet social scientists and certainly people in cultural studies have yet to get that message, says Fukayama. They are very resistant to the notion of human nature.

The issue is grappled with mostly by people who try to integrate crime studies into a whole range of disciplines. "Crime has lost its exclusiveness, the approach to crime and crime prevention is no longer exclusively the responsibility of the police and the judicial authorities", say the Foresight institution researchers. This coincided with a tangible change in society too. In the early 1980s, there was a sea change in the approach to crime and crime prevention. Inspired by understandable self-interest, individual citizens, organizations in the community and local authorities started to feel that they bore a responsibility for crime prevention. Nevertheless, the results are not particularly overwhelming and the researchers at Foresight say that for the situation by the year 2010, some areas of research are still vastly underrepresented.

One real life example of high profile people sharing this concern is the situation on the Guernsey islands off the coast of the UK. You'd say this small island offers a perfect case to study the governability of a country with a limited population, to try and test the limits of a system to the full. Politicians might well be aware of this. At least, they appear to have a clear idea and are aware of the unique nature of their society and of the effects of the rules they invent. The measurability of crime renders the subject a good target for analysis, sophisticated ideas of governance and societal structures. The self consciousness leads to frequent interesting debates by politicians on this island. Recently, a senior politician attributed the perceived rise in crime and anti-social behavior the effect of "woolly liberal" thinking. He said the increased emphasis on human rights in particular is to blame for the rise in crime.

The politician said that his government's human rights act had led to offenders becoming "untouchable" by the authorities. Warning of the dangers of liberal thinking, he pointed out that there's no common sense in Guernsey's human rights laws which others believe ensure rights and responsibilities of citizens are balanced out rather evenly. He said the woolly thinking underlying the human rights ideas on the island led to alcoholism among the younger population for one.

This is one of the issues where the argument that improved technology in the hands of police and law enforcers is going to do the trick, won't do completely. Developments in modern technology and improved understanding of changes in social control are central to ideas about stamping out crime. The foresight researchers recommend that there should be a radical reorganisation of how financial resources are made available to this effect, if crime prevention is to bear any fruit.

Research efforts need to be stepped up dramatically if modern society is to develop adequate knowledge in any form or shape. They believe that the demand for scientific knowledge by the institutions, municipalities, government departments and private sector agencies might seem to be a professionalization of the area, but that in fact it does often not mean anything, especially not in the long run.

Fundamental scientific research into issues which are already playing a part at this time needs to be stepped up, the institute believes, in order to keep up with the criminal sector. They predict that by 2010, crime will have changed radically as a result of technological and economic developments and changes in social control and cohesion. There is a great need for fundamental research, for interdisciplinary knowledge and knowledge about long-term, ongoing issues such as criminal careers, say the researchers. In the next ten years there will also be a need for more theoretical research focusing on normative and empirical issues.

The wildly diverging ideas about human beings in the social sciences is exacerbated with a dramatically lowered emphasis on any blatant negative aspects of society in postmodern political science due to the death of positivist thinking. You could argue that this is at the heart of the problem of surging crime despite increased wealth of societies.

The political sciences appear most promising in their capacity for addressing the anomalies. It is the best discipline to do so, because it does not plan at neutrality. And, what's more, the political scientist´s loyalties and engagements will not necessarily be predictable and stable over time. If it doesn't yield immediate tangible results, it at least is a start. And it makes for less dry reading of the articles and books describing what's perceived as the state of play in these sciences. You'd imagine that anyone coming up with a theory involving the axiom that history has ended, would be prone to fantasy.

And that's somewhat true; academic attention for total fantastic ideas as a means to understand or create is on the rise. It's much under attack from critics who say this is a foolish activity, especially when keeping in mind the idea that when you walk the streets of your town you can be subjected to a criminal attack at any given moment. Sceptics will imply that much of the storytelling anyway misses out large parts of reality, especially the less attractive features. Which is, however, not to say that blind spots are not being reduced.

But somehow, the rationale itself is changing for the criticism of the ways modern science works. The criticism for instance on the way politicians work, who seem keener to know about the cultural trends, popular culture, the media and power than in the labyrinthine workings of party and parliamentary democracy is that they are not sticking to their own field. Yet the new approaches favored in the political sciences leave more leeway for alternative ways that allow for a greater number of methods to assess reality than many predecessors ever dreamt of.

In stead of a total abandonment of all serious work, modern political science presents us with a mixture of both regurgitated theories of old time philosophers and original, rather broad based ideas. And in new, often surprising, ways.

Sceptical post modernists will contend that as there is no correct method for political research and researching the political, that it might be wise to adopt an anti-rules method, while the affirmatives may adopt something that can be termed 'anything goes'. But perhaps several methodologies are best blended together to come to a robust approach to researching a problem. Much hinges too on one's perspective on history.

Political Science Programs

Political science programs range from associate's degrees to doctoral degrees; the type of degree program you choose should depend on what your career goals are. Students of other majors also typically take political science courses to fulfill their general education requirements. Some students in majors such as journalism may also minor in political science to supplement their education and make themselves more viable job candidates with an area of specialty. There are many things you can learn by studying political science and many career options that may be open to you with this type of education.

These courses teach more than just politics. On a basic level, you will gain an understanding of how our political system works and how other political systems throughout the world have worked. You will also learn the histories of all these systems to gain a broad understanding of how things came to be the way they are. You will learn about legal systems and judicial systems. During the completion of a this program, you will also gain valuable critical thinking skills, learn how to communicate effectively and learn how to conduct thorough research with a high level of accuracy.

Students of political science programs may go on to become politicians, political pundits, press secretaries, lawyers or judges. They may also become teachers, journalists or take completely different career paths that have little to do with the political world. Some of these jobs may also require additional education such as law school, but the political science degree forms a solid foundation to start from. Since this courses require a great deal of researching, writing, critical thinking and analysis, the skills gained in these programs could apply to numerous fields.

These programs are useful for anyone who wants a career in politics or in the legal field, but these degrees are useful for many other career goals as well. If you have an interest in how our world's societal structures work and a knack for doing research and thinking critically, this could be an ideal major for you. And if you're undecided, you could always take a political course to see how you like it.

Find the perfect Criminal Justice School or Political Science Degree today and start your path to a rewarding career. CriminalJusticeU.com offering complete information about top criminal justice university of USA that offers best online criminal justice degree programs in various disciplines.