We Are A Republic Not A Democracy

The story goes that Benjamin Franklin was standing outside Independence Hall in Philadelphia after the constitutional convention had ended. A lady walked up and asked the great man, "Well Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?" Ben Franklin thought about it briefly and responded, "a republic, if you can keep it."
And so began the greatest experiment in governance ever undertaken. The republic Ben Franklin feared for, has lasted 220 years and is still going strong. Yes, it is presently being sorely tested but it is still intact and I believe will remain that way far into the future. The sad thing, is that many people in this country, don't even know what a republic is, much less that they live in one. Many people will tell you that the United States is a Democracy. While there are elements of Democracy woven into the fabric of our country, it is absolutely not a Democracy in the strictest sense. James Madison wrote in the Federalist Paper No. 10, "Hence it is that democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and in general have been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. A republic, by which I mean a government in which a scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect and promises the cure for which we are seeking."
In other words a democracy allows for mob rule where the majority always gets their way. If the majority votes to take away your land, you lose your land. If the majority votes to outlaw your business, you lose your business. It's that simple and this is what Madison was referring to when he talked about a democracy being "incompatible with the rights of property." The founders were well aware that a democracy will eventually implode as the majority votes themselves largess from the treasury and special privileges. This is why they set the country up as a representative republic.
I stated before that there are elements of Democracy woven into the fabric of our country and this is true to the extent that our representatives are elected by majority vote (electoral college notwithstanding). The kicker is that these representatives, once voted in, represent everybody including those that did not vote for them. If you did not vote for your representative you can still approach him or her seeking redress of a grievance or simply to make your views known. With a republic, you avoid the problems inherent in a true democracy by making sure that everybody has representation and not simply the majority.

America Is Not Happy With The Country's Direction By Don Potter Diamond Quality Author

Nearly 70% of US citizens are dissatisfied with the federal government's size and the power it wields. And 7 out of 10 adults surveyed believe the moral and ethical climate of the country is wrong, which represents a seismic attitudinal shift in less than a decade.
The Gallup organization first asked questions about the following topics in early 2001. Over the past ten years, the pollster asked questions about several aspects of American life. These included quality of life, effectiveness of government and the system, moral and ethical climate, individual opportunities to succeed through hard work, attitudes toward big business and the influence of religion.
In 2001, the numbers for federal government and how it works were the direct opposite from the poll taken earlier this year. Then, only 30% were dissatisfied with the size, influence and workings of government. The highest positives were recorded in early 2002, just a few months after the 9/11 attacks, when 76% indicated their satisfaction.
By contrast, this year only 29% of respondents indicated satisfaction with the size and influence of big business in their lives. Dissatisfaction was 67% The best ranking for major corporations was 50% satisfaction in 2002.
Better than half, 55%, of those surveyed said they were satisfied with an individual's opportunity to pursue the American dream and get ahead through hard work. The dissatisfaction level was 44%. As recent a 2008 satisfaction was 68% and dissatisfaction was 31%. Satisfaction was at 76% a decade ago.
Overall, 8 in 10 Americans are generally satisfied with the quality of their life, although this is declined by 6% over the past 2 years. Satisfaction with the influence of organized religion started the decade at 61%, spiked at 69% the next year and is now at 58%.
The moral and ethical climate in the country experienced large swings with the highest decade-long positive level registered in 2002 when 47% were satisfied compared to just 30% today.
With the public unhappy with big government and big business, they seem more reliant on themselves and on their individual faith to accomplish positive goals in the months and years ahead. This may explain why, with negative feelings about the moral and ethical climate of the times, an overwhelming number of Americans are still satisfied with their quality of life.
Now, we must do the things needed to accomplish worthwhile goals. As we do this, let us take the time to share our good works with others. Hopefully, they will do the same. And before we know it, America will be back on the right track. This will take us beyond petty political squabbling or worrying about what others have and put us in the position working together while reaching for our personal dreams.

Don Potter is a Philadelphia native and 50 year veteran of the advertising agency business. Now living in Los Angeles, he has written two novels in retirement and frequently writes and speaks on marketing issues. Potter is the founder and editor-in-chief of NewSeniors.com, the first online magazine dedicated to those 65+.

Elections Have Consequences

The Democrats lost the recent election in Wisconsin and are complaining that the Republicans, now in power, are not being fair in dealing with the teacher's union. This brings to mind the situation in Washington a little over a year ago when the Democrats, the majority, refused to let the Republicans make changes in the proposed health care legislation. Both situations can be summarized succinctly, "We won, you lost."
The health care debate is being revisited in Congress because the power has shifted in the House. During the initial framing of the bill, neither of the parties walked out and hid from voting on the bill, even though the outcome was apparent to both sides of the aisle. There was plenty of verbalizing but no mass exodus. The decision to run away from their responsibilities by the 14 Wisconsin state senators is not only poor judgment, it is downright cowardly. Unfortunately, a similar walkout occurred in Indiana as well.
Imagine if one party, at the local, state or federal level, simply walked out whenever it did not get its way. The people's business would grind to a halt. We have a representative form of government in the United States. As Civics class taught us, our system operates as a republic not a direct democracy. This means we entrust those we elect to vote on our behalf while giving consideration to all their constituents. It works this way regardless of the balance of power between the political parties.
Therefore, our views do not translate directly in to votes. This is the job of our representatives. If we don't like the way they represent us, the politicians can be voted out when their term is up. Or, if the citizens are really upset, recall actions can be taken. However, it is important to remember that the next person elected to the office may not always vote the way you wish, either.
About half the electorate is going to be less than pleased with the outcome of any vote. Nonetheless, we rarely organize protest rallies and demonstrate on the streets. There are exceptions. Health care brought out the people across the country. Public opinion was against passing it. Today, public opinion is for repealing or drastically changing it. More than half the states are suing the government while a federal judge has declared the law unconstitutional. And the House has voted to repeal the bill. In spite of this opposition, implementation is moving ahead because the bill had enough votes to win.
The legislators in Wisconsin, Indiana and other battleground states must accept the fact that the results of elections determine who has the most votes. And, until someone changes the rules, the majority of the votes in a legislative body determines which bills become law and which ones do not. A loss does not mean the bill can't be revised and brought back. Or, a shift in power can easily resurrect once dead legislation.
It's time for the run-a-way legislators should go back to work. Those thinking this is a good way to delay things should consider the consequences. In the meantime, we can take the actions needed to get our representative to listen to us. It's the American way.

Don Potter is a Philadelphia native and 50 year veteran of the advertising agency business. Now living in Los Angeles, he has written two novels in retirement and frequently writes and speaks on marketing issues. Potter is the founder and editor-in-chief of NewSeniors.com, the first online magazine dedicated to those 65+.

President Obama Signs the Dodd Frank Reform Bill and a New Consumer Protection Agency Will Be Formed

The "Dodd-Frank" reform bill was recently signed by President Obama. The "Dodd-Frank" reform bill sets up a Federal Consumer Protection agency that oversees credit, credit/debit cards, consumer loans, payday loans and credit reporting agencies. It will regulate fees and lending practices.
American Financial Institutions will now be required to consider a borrowers income and job status in addition to their credit history.
This is exciting news because irresponsible lending and borrowing was one large contributor to the US financial crisis.
It is exciting because we have long advocated for financial reform and government should be playing a larger role to protect Americans but also to educate them.
You can have a good credit score but still be in financial crisis. Job loss, failed businesses and divorce are just a few things that can lead to financial crisis. When financial crisis erupts, your credit is one of many things that could be impacted.
The American government's move to require that banks consider an applicant's job status and income in addition to a credit score will result in loans not being made to consumers who really should not be borrowing money.
Naturally if you lose your job or are in a financial crunch, the first thing you will be tempted to turn to is your credit. This move will make doing so harder because if you are not working or don't have enough income, you have will have a more difficult time obtaining credit. This is a good thing, this protects you.
If you are in financial crisis, the last thing you should do it turn to credit and the first thing you should do is look for other options. This could force you to have to make tough decisions like downsizing or scaling back on your budget. This could also involve turning to family for help.

Why Unions Are Still Needed Today

As we are approaching the one hundredth anniversary of what many believe to be the true beginnings of labor unions, there are many people today that have come to blame unions in many cases for some of our economic woes. These people state that he unions have gotten too powerful, and far too greedy. However, a real evaluation of the situation indicates that unions are certainly still needed today, and that workers still need representation.
On Saturday afternoon, March 25, 1911, the largest single tragedy in the history of New York City (until the horrors of the 9-11 World Trade Center attack) occurred. At about 4:40 PM on that date, a fire broke out on the middle of the three upper floors of a building in the Washington Square section of New York, that housed the Triangle Shirt Waist Company. One hundred forty six people, predominantly Italian and Jewish immigrant women and girls, perished in this industrial disaster. The exposure, grief, and publicity, as well as the ensuing protests, garnered public support for mandatory safety measures to protect workers. The incredibly low pay, long work weeks (averaging six 14 hour days), and substandard conditions, as well as a lack of even minimal safety standards, were amongst the many findings discovered after this catastrophe. After that, unions such as the International Ladies Garment Workers Union (ILGWU) gained clout and credibility, defending and demanding the rights of workers to be paid a living wage and safety, as well as some security and basic rights.
One might say that these conditions no longer exist, so why are unions needed today. There are many political implications that one could discuss, but the basic moral and ethical reason is to prevent the "haves" from abusing and taking advantage of the "have nots," and that workers be given some sort of "safety net." In the past year, we have witnessed in parts of the world (and remember, in our multinational society, what occurs in one place impacts others) killed in fires in a fire in Malaysia, mine collapses, and extremely low salaries paid in "sweat shops" that supply manufacturers of products sold in the United States. Large retailers, such as Wal-Mart, Target, JCPenny, H&M, and others, continue to purchase products manufactured under these circumstances. Many large companies "outsource" much of their manufacturing outside the country, and thus the low quality of the conditions directly impacts us in this country. There is probably a considerable correlation between some of our unemployment rate and the increase in outsourcing.
Have some unions acted unreasonably at times? There is no doubt about that, but remember that companies negotiate with these unions, and better communication, and better "fair" treatment of workers would probably alleviate some of the "power" of these out of control situations. However, simply because there are some "bad apples," does not mean that workers do not need protections and representation. We are also experiencing situations where state governments are attempting to reconcile their state's economic woes on the backs of their municipal workers, and using them as scapegoats, and proposing eliminating even their right to collective bargaining. They are representing this as being fiscally necessary, but we must recognize that while states can and should evaluate how many workers they need, they should not be able to make the decision unilaterally. Even from a "numbers" point of view, what happens if states have massive layoffs? Wouldn't that end up with even higher unemployment figures?
What we need is a return to responsible unions that represent workers needs, negotiate in their best behalf, but work in a spirit of greater cooperation. Creating a polarization and blaming unions for everything is certainly unproductive!

California County Creates Building Incentives

Six years ago, the San Benito County, California Board of Supervisors approved an affordable housing ordinance that required new housing developments to include a certain percentage of affordable units. Unfortunately, the ordinance didn't produce the Board's desired affect. Developers weren't persuaded to include more affordable units in their projects, choosing instead to pay a fee for excluding the below-market-rate units. Now, the Board has approved a new ordinance that it hopes will be more effective.
The new ordinance offers incentives for builders to include affordable units, rather than simply requiring that they be built. Higher density allotments and additional development credits are just two of the benefits offered. In addition, developers will be allowed to build multi-unit complexes in areas currently zoned for single-family residences. Developments that include affordable housing will also be processed quicker, according to the new ordinance.
San Benito County Supervisor Margie Barrios said the new ordinance was needed because the previous, percentage-based, ordinance wasn't working. Developers need to receive some kind of benefit if they're going to include affordable units in their projects. Simply requiring the units to be built, with no incentive or benefit to the developer, is not effective, as proven by the previous housing policy.
Barrios believes the new ordinance contains the right balance of flexibility and structure, meeting the needs of both the community and developers. She hopes it will help the County meet an increased demand for low-income housing. She calls the balance a "new focus and different method for smart growth." More details are available via San Benito County's Housing & Economic Division.

Maliki in Action, Positive Effects of Protest

With protests heating up across Iraq, Prime Minister Maliki is giving his cabinet members 100 days to shape up or ship out. Iraqi citizens are protesting the lack of reliable electricity, dearth of jobs and unclean water. While many protests across the Middle East are demanding regime changes, Iraqi citizens are demanding reform. Maliki is responding to these protests and taking the steps to communicate to the citizens that he is listening and action will be taken. While the situation is tense, these protests for reform could be constructive for Iraq and possibly the Iraqi dinar
Iraq has come a long way. Iraq has democratically elected its leaders and now is staging protests for reform - not revolution. Iraqi citizens have seen what it means for their voices to be heard and are now uniting their voices to demand more out of their government. And it appears that Maliki is listening. While no major changes have been made, Maliki has shown that he is willing to take immediate action to push Iraq forward. Maliki cut his pay in half, provided free electricity and has allocated more money for food ration programs. In addition, he has set his 100 day rule to ensure that every cabinet member is pushing for improvement in Iraq. It remains to be seen how this rule plays out, but all parties involved must realize that major change will not occur overnight. Creating more jobs, reliable electricity and clean water all require infrastructure and investment that will take time to come to fruition.
The Iraqi protests could accelerate the major reforms Maliki has vowed to fulfill. Iraq has invested in infrastructure to bring about these major changes - money to build a better electric grid and facilitating foreign investment to create more jobs. However, pressure needs to be put on these projects to make sure they are fulfilled in a timely matter. This is what these protests could accomplish - that would a constructive protest. Maliki must continue to show that he is listening and take concrete steps to back his words with action. On the other side, Iraqi citizens must keep the government accountable by speaking up, but they also must realize that these reforms will take time and once they come to fruition, Iraq will be a better place.
While these protests make it a tenuous time in Iraq, in the future, they could have beneficial effects for the dinar. The process of change or reform is never easy or smooth. However, it is through that process countries move forward and are able to provide for its people. Iraqi citizens are using their voices to demand change. Iraq has an opportunity to show that they are capable of responding to their citizens and restoring order and confidence. This is exactly what the dinar needs. The dinar needs more confidence in order for it to rise in value. While amidst these uncertainties, some may be wary, but the result of these protests could go a long way in showing how far Iraq and the dinar have come.

Net Neutrality Is Lost In Europe

The world has just heard of Net Neutrality and, unfortunately, it may die before it is born. At least that's what will happen if the world's major Internet service providers, mobile carriers and telcos have their way. What is it, why is it so important, and what does it have to do with what happened in Europe?
The European National Union Situation
Europe has traditionally been a far more liberal and consumer-centric environment than the U.S., and as the Net Neutrality debate has heated up in the U.S., Europe is beginning to take the stance that the market is doing fine without the regulatory authority represented by Net Neutrality. Net Neutrality is an effort in the U.S. to establish a regulatory authority over Internet service providers through the FCC to ensure that the government can offer and regulate fairness and equal access to all users; enter Europe to the battle...
European Providers Say "No Thanks"
European Service providers have begun to take the stance that Internet access regulation would only cripple growth, and this may be true. One example is a recent statement by Neelie Kroes, the commissioner for the digital agenda. She said, "This clearly creates a problem if consumers are not duly informed and do not have the possibility to easily switch to alternative providers..." She also states that, "I say to those people who are currently cut off from Skype: vote with your feet and leave your mobile provider." This represents a major policy shift, and essentially ends the Net Neutrality debate in Europe. As to the U.S., the recent passage of the Net Neutrality regulations have been stymied by a suit filed by Verizon claiming that the regulations are illegal-and the company did so after teaming with Google to determine what the regulations would be.
Why Is This Important?
On one end of the spectrum, you have the position that providers should be free to control their own networks without government control, period. At the other end of the spectrum, the position is that the government should regulate the service providers to ensure that all traffic is treated equally and that carriers are not allowed to restrict one type over another, at least not without making it clear upfront. In the middle ground, is the providers' opinions that they should have some control over network traffic, offering higher priority services for higher pricing, for example. The U.S. law allows for this, and exempts mobile carriers initially to allow them time to build out their wireless networks.
The importance of this issue can be illustrated by some statistics; the International Telecommunications Union estimates that a mobile network covers at least 90 percent of the human population so far. Further, by 2015, the ITU sees over 50 percent of the human population having some form of broadband Internet access, and smartphones and tablets alone may drive that growth even faster.
Google, which originally championed Net Neutrality, later allied with Verizon to modify the regulation allowing mobile carriers exemption from parts of the regulation. As soon as the regulation was passed, Verizon filed suit to kill the law. In just a few years, Internet access will be as important as food and education as a part of modern society. Should the companies that provide that access be allowed to rein free or should there be at least some form of regulation? Europe seems to think not.

Art Paralleling Life

Theater has often paralleled or based on real life. In the years that AIDS and HIV were in the forefront of news discussions, the Broadway show that later became a movie, "Rent," theatrically examined the many grim issues and consequences regarding this often deadly illness. In 1998, the multi talented Paul Simon wrote the musical, "The Capeman," based on the deadly gang fight that occurred in the El Barrio session of New York City, in 1959. This show, although containing some of the most amazing music and performances by an incredibly talented predominantly Hispanic cast, led by Reuben Blades and Marc Anthony, was a financial and critical disaster, much of which occurred because it touched upon a too sensitive and "raw nerve."
More recently, the show "Lombardi" has graced Broadway, and theatrically addressed and taught the many issues about the significance of winning, effort, attitude and effective leadership. The show indicates how amazing the man was, and how he impacted the lives of so many players, fans, and disciples.
The current example on Broadway that brings real life to the musical stage is based on the 2004 ground breaking musical album by Green Day, "American Idiot." Adapted to the Broadway stage as an amazingly impactful musical, "American Idiot" follows the "twenty something" generation of the first decade of this millennium. As a parent of two young men in that age group, it is a somewhat haunting commentary on a generation that appears to have limited motivation, parties aimlessly, is often narcissistic, and, in generally avoids either making a decision or decisive action. While it would be difficult to find a show with better music, better musical performances, more energy, a finer young cast, as amazing staging and production, etc., the lack of clear cut financial success and audience generation of this production makes it appear that this show may be suffering from the same basic problems that Mr. Simon's show of more than a decade before. In both cases, I believe that a significant number of people find the subject matter somewhat "queasy'" and are attempting to stay away from a show with the obvious anti- war sentiment that both this album and the show have.
The same way that the American public avoid inundating itself in learning more about important but controversial information such as war, disease, policy, etc., some potential audiences stay away from shows that are "too close to reality" for their comfort. One would hope that at one point people would expand their horizon and open themselves up to further understanding and learning about controversial issues, basing their eventual decisions and judgments on facts, not just "gut" feelings. When we can begin to look at both life and art in a more open-minded and open manner, perhaps then, we will be willing to actually confronted those issues that we have often avoided for far too long.

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.

'Card-Check' Is The Latest Commerce Clause Battleground

For nearly half a century, federal lawyers have argued that it is both illegal and unconstitutional for states to infringe their citizens' right to vote. The curious politics of our era may now prompt the feds to argue that it is unconstitutional for states to insist on their citizens' right to vote.
Welcome to the latest front in the struggle over the U.S. Constitution's Commerce Clause.
The federal power to "regulate Commerce [...] among the several States" is at the heart of the legal challenges to last year's health care overhaul, and particularly its mandate that individual consumers purchase health insurance or face a penalty. But, more broadly, the Commerce Clause has been at the center of legislation that has vastly expanded federal powers ever since the New Deal. More recently, it has often been the focus of conservatives' efforts to roll back Washington's authority.
Citizens of Utah, South Carolina, South Dakota and Arizona amended their state constitutions last year to provide that workers must be given a secret-ballot election to determine whether they will be represented by a union. This is a hot-button issue for the labor movement, which has tried unsuccessfully since President Obama took office to win the right to automatically represent workers once a majority of the potential bargaining unit has signed "card check" forms indicating a desire to be represented.
Businesses argue that card checks would subject workers to pressure from union organizers while denying management a chance to make a case, if it wishes, against unionization. Federal law already authorizes card-check organization, but with a big caveat: The employer has the final say over whether to recognize a union selected this way.
The National Labor Relations Board, which now has a labor-friendly majority due to Obama appointments, is threatening to challenge the four states' measures on grounds that they are unconstitutional.(1) The exact part of the Constitution violated has not been spelled out, but it is safe to assume that congressional powers under the Commerce Clause are high on the list of possibilities.
But a constitutional challenge can cut in two directions. The states can argue that constitutionally-protected due process, for workers and employers alike, calls for secret ballots in union elections. Not long ago, this argument would have been quickly rejected, but the Supreme Court's increasingly conservative (proponents would say "historically correct") view of the Constitution makes this no longer a sure thing.
As a matter of fact, in correspondence with the NLRB's chief lawyer, the states have already raised the due process argument, as well as the First Amendment's guarantees of freedom of association, in defense of their new provisions.(2)
Congress can clearly override the states' new secret-ballot provisions if it enacts a federal law enforcing card-check union organizing drives. But this is exactly what the last Congress declined to do. The chances of such legislation passing the current House of Representatives, under Republican control, are close to nil. I don't see a violation of the U.S. Constitution when the state takes away an employee option that current federal law does not grant anyway.
Moreover, 22 states already have right-to-work laws. These laws prohibit unions and employers from making union membership mandatory for everyone who works at a unionized employer. If states have the power to prevent workers from being forced to join unions in the first place, they would seem to have the power to ensure that workers who are deciding whether to unionize are given the chance to make that decision in a private ballot, rather than in front of their peers and their bosses.
It strikes me that the NLRB stands to lose a lot more than it might gain by suing the four states for insisting on private union-organizing ballots. Not only might the courts side with the states, but we would all witness the spectacle of federal lawyers arguing that states cannot insist on their citizens' right to vote.

Donald Trump's Presidential Media Blitz

Donald Trump has been busy staying front and center in the public eye discussing his potential run for President. In the last few weeks, a day hasn't gone by where I haven't seen him on one channel or another doing an interview. Trump has made appearances on Gretta Van Susteren, Neil Cavuto, and C-Span among others. To be fair, his potential Republican contenders have been doing the rounds too, especially Newt Gingrich and Tim Pawlenty. Out of all of the interviews that Donald Trump has done lately, one in particular is enough to raise some eyebrows. That would be an interview he did on the show "Extra" with Mario Lopez. At first glance it really doesn't seem like that much, but I beg to differ. Extra isn't normally the forum a potential Presidential Candidate would choose to get out his message. What this interview does, however, is highlight one of the main advantages Trump has over his rivals, his celebrity.
Barack Obama was able to bring in not only loyal Democrat voters during his 2008 Presidential Campaign, but also casual observers and young people, many of whom don't normally vote. In this age of mass media, his campaign handlers knew that being a celebrity was every bit as important as catering to his base supporters. They were able to utilize the internet and text messaging to mobilize people in a way never seen before. John McCain simply couldn't compete because he wasn't interesting to the younger generation.
Donald Trump, unlike his Republican rivals, would be able to compete with Obama's celebrity in a head to head race. Younger voters and casual observers might be willing to switch to something new and refreshing, and everyone knows who Donald Trump is. Through his popularity with the general public and his new hit show, "Celebrity Apprentice", he may be able to take away some of the pop culture vote from Barack Obama. I've maintained that in the end of the Republican primary, Donald Trump's two main rivals will be Tim Pawlenty and Mitch Daniels. Out of those three, who is the most exciting candidate? It's not even close.
More and more people are jumping on the Donald Trump band wagon. He has been, thus far, successful in getting out his message to the public. It is refreshing to watch a candidate answer questions in a thoughtful, yet candid way. Most of the time, the interviewee avoids answering the questions and instead spouts off talking points in a half-assed attempt to cater to a specific voting block. Donald Trump is a straight shooter that isn't beholden to special interest groups. He realizes that America has lost the respect of other countries and his intent is to bring that respect back.

The Political Genius of President Obama Is Seen In The Codification Of The Healthcare Reform Law

Today President Obama told state governors that repealing the healthcare reform bill was not negotiable. He said he does understand that different states may have better options specific for their states and as long as these states come up with a healthcare plan that provides at least the coverage of the Federal Law without raising the deficit, states will be able to opt out of the healthcare reform bill in prior to 2017 where this option was codified in the law.
This is an excellent maneuver on the part of the president. Firstly by rightfully tying healthcare reform to the budget and then giving the states options, he neutralizes to major tenets of the Tea Party, fiscal responsibility and states' rights. Interesting enough these were written into the law without much news coverage. It must be noted that this was the only President successful in laying a national framework for healthcare after being tried by both Democratic and Republican presidents.
Many of the Red States opposing this law are likely the ones that will benefit the most from it. That said, the Federal Government that they hate has set a baseline with healthcare reform. They claim they can do better though to date they are much worse off than the rest of the country. In effect the President is calling their bluff.
Texas has one of the highest rates of uninsured. Texas has a budget deficit in excess of 23 billion dollars. The budget proposals thus far will balance the budget partially by denying even more care to the neediest yet our state refused healthcare reform monies. The President with this one speech has done more for healthcare reform than all of last year as it finally brings to the state their responsibility sans Federal Healthcare Reform.
When residents see that the states are unable to do better or that any changes that cost their citizens more relative to the Federal Government's program, they will be unmasked for their demagoguery. This bill should have been much better. It should however best be viewed as a framework that will be revisited several time over several years to build upon.
Unfortunately with the misinformation campaign we will transfer many more trillions in wealth from the middle class to the upper classes before we converge on what will be a must for our aging country, Medicare for All, a Single Payer System. While many are disappointed it did not occur in this cycle they must understand that ultimately sanity will prevail.

GMP Guidelines And The Issue Of Legalising Recreational Drugs

For many years the argument over the legalisation of recreational drugs has raged. Supporters of the move argue that it will free up much of the police's time, enabling them to tackle crime in other areas. Those that argue against suggest that by removing the boundaries of law we are encouraging society and especially the youth to abuse their bodies. However, one area that is often overlooked is that of GMP guidelines and the influence they could have if recreational drugs are ever legalised.
Explaining the legalities
GMP guidelines are laws that are put in place to ensure the quality of manufacture and testing of pharmaceuticals and medical devices. The purpose of these guidelines is to protect the safety of the general public by making sure that the products being manufactured are fit for purpose, and in the case of pharmaceuticals, contain the ingredients claimed.
Risk to users
The biggest danger that recreational drug users face often comes not in the shape of the drug they are taking, or believe they are taking, but what that drug has been cut with. Producers of illegal drugs often care little for the people that will end up buying their drugs and will cut them with other ingredients that are much less expensive in order maximise their profit.
Some of the most common agents that drugs such as MDMA and cocaine are cut with are caffeine, corn starch, creatine, talcum powder, lactose and vitamin B. None of these are harmful to the user, however more damaging substances are sometimes used. However, there are many cases where the producer of the drug will add an agent that is dangerous.
Making things safer
If recreational drugs were to be legalised then the regulation of such products would fall under the protection of GMP guidelines. This would of course mean that the purity of the drug would be guaranteed, which would remove the chance of users ingesting rogue ingredients. So to some extent the world of recreational drugs would be safer and there is an argument that more lives would be saved. However, the argument against says that the legalisation of recreational drugs would see a huge increase in the numbers partaking in their usage. This in theory could have a serious impact on society; with lives lost due to addiction and many unable to work. The issue of legalising recreational drugs is complex and a completely different discussion.

GMP guidelines are set in place to protect the general public from defective products. If you need to ensure that your staff are properly trained to meet all GMP guidelines then visit NSF-DBA for expert advice and assistance.

US Federal Government - It's Not Perfect, But Should We Expect More?

There sure are a lot of people criticizing the United State's Federal Government. They say things such as; the Federal Government is wasteful, corrupt, incompetent, and inefficient. And whereas, one could say with such a huge blob of bureaucracy one is bound to find some inefficiencies, waste, corruption, and incompetence right? Sure that makes sense, nothing is perfect, not you, your family, not your company, and not your closest friends either.
Not long ago, I was debating this with an acquaintance who stated; "There are holes in the system." Well, indeed, there always will be, it is the nature of complex systems and Murphy will always exploit the weaknesses. My acquaintance also noted; "There are both right and wrong policies. Good and bad policies." Yes, and it would be hard to argue with that either. And when it comes to incompetence, yes, there are "Competent officials and incompetent officials."
Surely, I think we all accept that, or should at least be honest with ourselves on those points. Likewise there are corrupted and less-than-corrupt officials, at all levels of the bureaucracy. Now, my acquaintance asks a most dubious question, one not often asked; "The question is; are the scales tipped in the wrong direction?"
Okay so, that is one way consider it, however, I'd like to form a different question, as I am not so comfortable with where the answers to this question takes us. You see, since historically political decisions lead to unintended consequences, shouldn't government be smaller, making fewer decisions, therefore they'd have fewer messes to clean-up. Further, if government makes a mess, why would we put our faith in their ability to fix it?
Let's discuss one more inquiry in this thought of the day, shall we? "Is there more wrong, bad and incompetence than right, good and competence?"
Once again, I'd like to state that maybe that is the wrong question to ask as well, because, maybe the system is not working because it's gotten off track;
1.) Revolving Door of Politicians, Bureaucrats, regulators, government lawyers going to work for those who work to abuse the system, using those insider connections.
2.) Abuses of privileges of all three branches of government, over stepping their checks and balances. Legislating from the bench, obscure executive orders, DOJ witch hunts of other branches, legislators interfering in regulatory investigations, etc. etc.
3.) A pay-to-play government, for lobbyists, corporations, unions - without the ability for a citizen or small businesses to express their concerns.
If the system of checks-and-balances has been corrupted, then in reality it does not exist, without it, the natural human tendencies will rear their ugly heads early and often. Some might say that it's because "democracy is messy" as Obama said in his State of the Union Address. No, I'd say that Chicago Mafia style dirty politics is messy, and it's no way to run the greatest nation in the history of mankind.
"This is not a perfect world we live in!"
No, it's not, but that doesn't mean it can't be, or that we can't do better with our Federal Government than we have in past periods. Indeed, I hope you will please consider all this.

Ron Paul: Why So Many Conservatives Hate Him

On February 12, 2011, Ron Paul won the annual CPAC straw poll for a second time. The announcement was met with a mixture of cheers and boos. The veteran congressman from Texas has been in the national public debate for quite some time now. Known for his beliefs in small government, opposition to the Federal Reserve, and elimination of the federal income tax and the IRS, he stood out as different from the rest during the 2008 Republican primary. As the only anti-war candidate on stage at these debates, he was the only candidate that I can remember who actually elicited jeers from some of the crowd after speaking.
Even I have to admit that I find Ron Paul interesting and appealing. His supporters are passionate, vocal, and are willing to speak with their wallets. During the last Presidential election season, I found it interesting that even at some of the most liberal universities in the country, you could see students holding his signs and advertising his cause with the same fervor as their liberal counterparts would hold their "Obama" signs. The "Ron Paul Revolution" signs where everywhere! What makes Ron Paul so interesting? What makes him interesting is also what makes many mainstream conservatives hate him.
First, Ron Paul is strictly anti-war. He has an "isolationist" philosophy that believes that the United States should choose to not intervene in world issues that do not directly affect our country. He was an outspoken critic of the war in Iraq, as well as the war in Afghanistan. To this day, he is trying to end the war in Afghanistan, an idea that is much more popular now than it has ever been before.
His opposition to war appears at times to be more about the costs of war and less about the human toll or the rights of other nations, but this should not be a surprise to anyone. Ron Paul is if nothing else one of the most fiscally conservative modern politicians. All wars result in borrowing money from other nations for funding, and Congressman Paul has stood firm in his opposition to adding to the national debt to fight wars. Clearly, any neo-con who likes war and "spreading democracy" as part of their platform would abhor Mr. Paul.
Another reason why Ron Paul is so disliked by some conservatives is because of his stance on social issues. While he is strongly pro-life and in favor of overturning Roe v. Wade, he has repeatedly stated that he believes the federal government should be out of the abortion issue. "We don't need a federal abortion police," Paul once said. It is clear the Paul does not support a federal ban on abortion, which could anger many of the strongest supporters of the rights of the unborn.
Due to his anti-federalism philosophy, Congressman Paul believes that marriage is a religious institution and that the federal government should not dictate who marries who. He has repeatedly said he would not support a Constitutional amendment that would define marriage as between one man and one woman. This has angered many of the religious right, as well as other social conservatives, who believe the federal government should step in to "protect traditional marriage." This issue could be one of the major ones that will continue to prevent Paul from being a serious 2012 presidential candidate.
Ron Paul also wants to do away with the "War on Drugs." He claims that this has been a costly government bureaucracy that has only served to increase crime, and not prevent it. Part of this seems to be his libertarian streak, where people should be allowed to do what they wish with their bodies, so long as it is not hurting anyone else. But when you look a little deeper, it's easy to see Paul's fiscal conservatism shining through. He looks at the War on Drugs as another wasteful and massive government spending program. He sees that it puts some non-violent offenders into the jail and prison systems, where taxpayers have to fund their housing and basic needs. This issue has angered many conservatives that I know personally, who feel that we need even stricter penalties for those who use and sell illicit drugs.
While certainly not the last issue that offends many conservatives, Ron Paul has repeatedly defended the earmark process, saying that it leads to more transparency in fund allocation and ultimately less federal government intervention. Both Republicans and Democrats alike have been critical of earmarks in the news lately. Earmarks, at times, seemed to be the main issue of John McCain's failed 2008 Presidential run. Paul's insistence that earmark elimination would not save any money has aggravated those on the left and the right.

Obama's Troubling Choices for Libya

President Barack Obama has a difficult problem when it comes to responding to a situation like Libya. This is true regardless of his political party. The President of the United States does not have the luxury of being able to just fly in the Marines to save Libyan civilians, without some sort of approval from the international community at large.
Sending in the Marines without international consensus would be an invitation to disgruntled populations throughout to world to seek to overthrow of their governments by demonstrating with an expectation that the United States will come to their rescue. In countries like Libya, the justification for unilateral intervention seems clear, but this may not be so clear in other countries.
Many international friends comment that America thinks it is "in charge" of the world, and is acting as the international policeman. It is clear to see that when a people gets in trouble, as the Libyans now are, they look to the United States for help.
The cheering crowds around Ben Wedeman clearly show that most people these days rely on the international media to get the story of their hardships out to the world, in the hope that someone will come to their rescue. Who can blame them? Wedeman is the CNN Reporter who managed to make his way to Benghazi, and reported that he was greeted like the first liberators of Paris in 1944.
It will be an education to see how President Obama handles this. He must be careful, because there are thousands of Americans in Libya, and his first obligation is to save them. Reports say that a ferry large enough to carry a small minority of them is in Tripoli, waiting for the weather to clear so it can carry its passengers to Malta. But there are many more. In his comment on February 23, 2011, he promised to send Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton to a meeting of the Human Rights Council in Geneva. It is clear that the international community will have to take some action or be condemned for the ages.
Europe does face a crisis of its own. If Moammar Gadhafi manages to hang on, Europe will receive many refugees crossing the Mediterranean Sea. This could begin to look like a more difficult humanitarian problem.
Adolph Hitler, Pol Pot, Joseph Stalin, and many other dictators of the past were able to commit genocide beyond the glare of international attention. Times have changed! Each of us must face and be appalled by wholesale murder today.
It is evident that new and more rapidly acting international mechanisms need to be put into place, which will be able to intervene when leaders and governments commit crimes against humanity. The days of conducting a war crimes trial long after the fact seem to be over. The courtroom is on Facebook, Twitter, Al Jazeera, and CNN, and the Judges are all of us!

Gas Price Hikes Another Middle Class Abuse By Crisis Oil, Banking, and Brokerage Killing America

Supply & demand is absolutely not the reason for the increase in oil prices. Unfettered corrupted capitalism is. Once again they have used a crisis to pilfer the middle class.
Back in 2008 as we were sliding into a depression prices of oil were skyrocketing as we were building up inventory. Today, the crisis in Libya is being used as an excuse to raise prices of oil inasmuch as inventories are high and Saudi Arabia has enough to back fill and stated it would make up the difference. Speculators claim the possibility of the instability spreading is the culprit. This is hogwash as the damage to economies caused by high prices will likely reduce demand much more than these instabilities would create shortages. Again, these price hikes are just another instance where the middle class teacher, engineer, secretary, and other average workers' wealth is transferred to the wealthy speculators and oil titans.
Many politicians and journalist call this increase in gasoline prices tantamount to a tax on the American citizen. That is a false analogy. A tax would be immediately re-circulated into the economy. Moreover in a progressive tax system it would likely not affect most in the middle class. Given the marginal propensity to consume of those that would benefit from increased taxes on the wealthy, increased economic activity would occur (as seen during the marginal tax increases during Bush 1/Clinton). High gasoline prices however benefit just a few as the increase profits are likely to be invested outside of America, this creating no economic activity even as wealth is extracted from America.
Oil company policies for years have been disastrous to America. We have a large military specifically to defend the lanes of transport of oil. We have an oil industry that continues to foment fallacies of the nonexistence of climate change caused by us burning fossil fuel. We also have oil companies that lobby congress to ensure laws and regulations that promote a robust alternative fuel Manhattan type project is slowed or stymied.
The banking crisis was used to pilfer middle class tax dollars as banking recovered from taxpayer money and free money from the Federal Reserve. Oil companies use crisis to extort higher prices from Americans.
Every time they do this I think this is the time they will overstep and permanently wake up the middle class into using alternatives or demanding alternatives. However, these companies change their modal generally just in time. If they are a bit late they just have the government cronies' help.
One can only hope that as Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, and now Wisconsin prove successful our entire middle class will demand overall changes in our entire economic structure, one that is biased to the individual with real support for Free Enterprise.

Massachusetts Residents Support Affordable Housing Provision

During the last election cycle, voters had more than just names and political parties to think about. Many also had to vote on proposals that would affect everything from paid family leave to child adoption requirements to affordable housing. Massachusetts voters, for example, had the rare opportunity to decide whether the state's affordable housing provision would be completely eliminated.
The debate over the provision, called 40B, began a year ago. It was sparked by both government officials and community leaders who doubted the provision's effectiveness. Many believe that a special provision isn't required in order for low-income housing to be built in the state. Others think something is needed, but that the current policy costs too much money and doesn't produce enough results.
Under Chapter 40B, communities that have affordable housing stock of less than ten percent can be targeted for development. Developers can build multi-family residential projects in these areas, if the projects include a certain percentage of low-income housing. The policy opens up areas were multi-family projects would otherwise not be allowed, either because an area is zoned only for single-family structures or because of density restrictions. The Massachusetts policy gives developers access to land that may be less expensive because of its location. Supporters of 40B also say that it prevents low-income housing from being concentrated in just one or two areas of a city.
The day after the November elections, with nearly 85 percent of precincts reporting, the measure to repeal what's known as Chapter 40B was rejected by a vote of 58 to 42 percent. Voters voiced overwhelming acceptance of the measure, and supporters called it a victory for both affordable housing and its residents. They have also said that this latest vote should be final word, and the housing policy should no longer be at risk of being repealed.
Opponents of the Chapter argue that it will not aided in creating affordable housing, but has simply led to over-development and put increased strain on public services. They say the very fact that there still isn't enough low-income housing in Massachusetts proves the law doesn't work.
Proponents, on the other hand, say that without Chapter 40B there would be even less available low-income housing in the state than there is now, and that the law is necessary to ensure that affordable housing is developed near viable employment opportunities. There is no indication that another attempt to repeal Chapter 40B will happen anytime soon.

When Malcolm X Met Fidel Castro It Created a Leadership Fiasco

In 1960 Malcolm X met Fidel Castro against the wishes of his leader Elijah Muhammad. This meeting created a fiasco between Elijah Muhammad and Malcolm X.
Fidel Castro came to New York to meet with the United Nations after his rebels took control of Cuba. His revolutionary attitude was loved by Black America because Cuba also had been held in America's segregated class systems too.
Malcolm X forever exploiting America's policies toward people of color thought that showing the connection between people of color in America and the people of color in Cuba he could establish a world view of American discrimination.
Fidel and Malcolm was a perfect match. Both men were revolutionaries unafraid of publicly confronting the powerful American social order of discrimination.
However, Elijah Muhammad was not pleased with the meeting of Malcolm X and Fidel Castro.
He had ordered the Nation of Islam to steer clear of Castro. Elijah was a spiritual leader that wanted to keep his organization spiritual minded first and civil rights minded second.
And since Castro had been leaning toward a relation with the Soviet Union which along with being Communist was also considered an Atheist nation too.
After Malcolm X met with Fidel Castro, Elijah Muhammad and Malcolm X had an argument over the phone that was tapped by the FBI.
This was the very first disagreement between Elijah Muhammad and Malcolm X concerning the direction of the Nation of Islam.
The FBI used this disagreement to divide the Nation of Islam.Over the next several years Malcolm X began getting television and public appearances that made him a national figure. His face and quotes were written in major articles and he became bigger and more famous than his leader Elijah Muhammad.
Finally, Malcolm X decided to strike out on his own and publicly disrespected his former leader Elijah Muhammad for having inexplicit affairs with his secretaries. But the plan by the FBI to divide and conquer the Nation of Islam was successful.
Finally Malcolm X was assassinated in 1965 and many believe that it was the Nation of Islam that killed him. However before he died he wrote an Autobiography by Alex Haley in which he states before he died that it was not the Nation of Islam that was trying to kill him.
Malcolm X realized too late that he had been used by the FBI but the damage had already been done. He and The Nation of Islam would be forever split and it all began way back in 1960 when Malcolm X met with Fidel Castro and created the leadership fiasco.

Increase Gas Prices From Speculation - A Gasoline Tax Will Destroy Speculation

Governor Barbour is accusing President Obama of deliberately allowing gasoline prices to rise. He believes that more drilling in America would somehow have a substantial impact even as we know for a fact that oil is sold on the open markets and oil drilled in our waters would not necessarily be sold in America. Moreover, he refuses to acknowledge the role of blatant speculation on the price of oil. As usual he is attempting to use this current speculative increase in oil prices to force a policy that opens the door for corporations to drill more in the United States to make profits on inexpensive leases that will not have a material effect on our economy or our citizens.
Barbour knows all of this information as he is a very smart man. What is sad is that the interest of the country never seems to be tantamount to these politicians. They simply promote the policy desires of their corporate puppet masters irrespective of the potential damage to our economy or environment.
Barbour is doing exactly what Republicans do, bait and switch. He uses a statement by the President's Energy Secretary supporting a tax on gasoline to reduce consumption to subliminally imply that the administration is responsible for the price increase. He fails to note that it is the obscene speculation by those his party has refused to allow regulation on that are driving up the prices. In other words the increase prices are going into the coffers of the wealthy.
Firstly a very high gasoline tax is something America should review. It would solve a lot of problems. It would reduce our dependency on foreign, it would improve the environment in cities across the country, it would provide funds to rebuild our infrastructure, it will increase employment substantially, and it would help the auto industry as people start buying new efficient cars.
Secondly, a high gasoline tax will immediately destroy speculation in the long run given the drop in demand. We have allowed speculators to exacerbate our economic woes are be the genesis of many of our economic woes for much too long. It is time that we pass policies that are middle class centric. It begins by educating the masses by those who are honest and enlightened
The problem is in general Republican policy is neither forward looking or honest. Until the real Republicans who I am sure share the real values of country first and fairness though in a more conservative manner for my taste, make themselves heard, we will remain at an impasse.

Qaddafi's Libya: "The People Are the Master"

March 3, 2011. Muammar al Qaddafi, said recently, "The People are the master" To some degree this must be the truth as he has many supporters and still the support of the Army. In fact he seems to have more supporters then there are Rebels'. The Government forces moved east and word is that the oil fields in Garza are in Government hands again.
Either way, Qaddafi could last a long time if the UN does not send in forces to aid the rebellion, a prospect that is not likely to take place soon. Some NATO, countries are talking about setting up a no fly zone over Libya, This is a very fine idea. However, a no fly zone is not as easy as it looks, and would involve several difficult issues, not the least of which is, who will pay for it?
Russia, for one has asked the UN Security Council to do exactly that, the problem is that the UN will need Air forces in the area and a lot of them. Who? Therefore, will the UN send to supply the airpower needed to do the job? You know it, the United States. The United States does not have sufficient forces in the area to complete such a task. To make things more complex Libya still has all its anti aircraft elements still intact.
More than that, to set up a no fly zone would be an act of war against a Middle Eastern country. If such an attack is undertaken by the UN who will most likely send American forces to do the job, then the Arab world may see this from a different point of view. Why, because in order to set up a no fly zone somebody has to destroy the Libyan Air force, and still again we have Americans killing Arabs. The very idea of having one more place where Americans kill Arabs will not be a good for Obama's foreign affairs.
Besides: US. Forces are heavily engaged in Afghanistan, and still mopping up in Iraq. To make things really complex, we are still watching the unstable Persian Gulf area. Starting a new military salient in Libya will give rise to the possibility of a new Afghanistan kind of war in Libya. To stack that along side of existing military commitments in the area may be unthinkable.
Mr. Robert Michael Gates, who is the 22nd and current United States Secretary of Defense, told a congressional panel on Wednesday "A no-fly zone begins with an attack on Libya" to destroy its air defenses." Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton is the 67th United States Secretary of State; Clinton said, she feared the prospect of Libya becoming infested with al-Qaida or affiliated terrorist groups on the scale of Somalia. Clinton further stated, "We are taking no option off the table so long as the Libyan government continues to turn its guns on its own people,"
Earlier this week Mr. Gates ordered to us warships into the region namely: the amphibious assault ships USS Kearsarge and the USS Ponce. These hold about 45 Helicopters of various types each, and a cadre of marines. These ships are said to be in place to help with the evacuation of Americans from the fighting region.
The outcome of the conflict is unclear at this point. If the world really wants Qaddafi out of power then it could be some time before a military intervention will be possible and Qaddafi seems to have the support and the equipment needed to stay for some time.

Robert Tafolla, emotionalintelligencebooks.com

The Declension of Libya

Chief of Staff, on March 2, 2011, Libyan leader Muammar al-Qaddafi, said that he will fight to the last man as his forces battle the rebels for key facility installations. Qaddafi's forces attacked at Brega where the oil facilities are located.
1532: The Guardian's Julian Borger tweets: "Pro Qaddafi forces retake control of Tunisian border running up the Green flag and distributing juice to refugees, aid workers say."
Col Qaddafi made a public statement on state television yet again he blamed foreign media and al Qaeda for the rebellious activities going on in Libya. He said that there exists a plot to take over the regime and control the oil reserves. This is most likely the truth big money has always caused and financed war in the past, why should anyone believe this has changed today?
The International Criminal Court, the ICC, is a permanent tribunal set up by the UN to prosecute individuals for genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and or crimes of aggression. The ICC has been dispatched to investigate the Libyan government's use of force against protestors. The international Prosecutor: Luis Moreno Ocampo, an Argentine Lawyer, who has been the Prosecutor of the ICC since June 16, 2003, was sent to look into the matter. He said earlier: "I believe an investigation is warranted."
Tens of thousands of Libyans are fleeing to Tunisia to get away from the violence. The Tunisian government has in listed the help of England and France to help turn these unwanted refugees back into Libya. The extent of the help thus far has been the use of several aircraft. It is unclear how the planes will be used and if they in fact have arrived.
The fall of the Libyan government will facilitate the long standing desire of the United Nations to gain and maintain better control over the oil fields in the Brega region. Some have claimed the uprising to be entirely media produced and engineered by the UN, The One World Government, and even Barack Obama, sitting President of the United States.
Proponents of the one world Government are called "progressives" in the United States and they include Secretary of State Hillary Clinton; Barack Obama, Sitting President of the United States; and Rahm Israel Emanuel, an American politician and the mayor-elect of Chicago and former Chief of Staff of the United States. These have been calling for Qaddafi to step down.
One thing is certain, if Col. Qaddafi does not step down there will be a lot of bloodshed in the days to come. If the Colonel wanted to remain in power he should have set up a fully operating governmental system that was more congenial to the UN and the general population of Libya. Thank you for reading.

Top 6 Tips to Ensure Safety in Your Peace Event

Peace events are gaining ground in these turbulent times. They are the apt platform to gather and garner support for a cause or against a wrong judgment. Peace events are meant to be motivational, fun, educational, and safe. Safety, especially is an important consideration while planning out a peace event.
It is your duty as an event organizer to ensure the safety of the volunteers and supporters. Executing such an affair peacefully is a lot of work. Ensuring volunteer's safety builds confidence and can eliminate a lot of hazards. Top 6 tips discussed below would address your concern for safety:
First Aid
One of the critical things to carry during a peace event is a first aid kit. Knowing someone in your team of supporters who can give first aid, which would be bonus. Someone carrying a small first aid kit can come in handy to deal with minor injuries.
Pay Attention
Some people are designated as marshals who lead the peace march. They are experienced people who lead the march through the designated route. It is important for the other people to listen to their instructions carefully, and follow their lead.
Stick To the Route
It is better to stick to the sidewalk, if you did not manage to get a permit to march in the street. Also there is the risk of getting hit by passing vehicles, and moreover the march can lead to traffic congestion. Plan your route properly so as to avoid any inconvenience and police troubles.
Suitable Attire
Dressing appropriately is important for long distance marches for comfort and safety. Always wear comfortable footwear, as you are going to walk a fair distance. Wear something loose-fitting and cool while going for a peace march in summer. Do not be too concerned to make a statement; instead focus on comfort and safety.
Prepare For Sudden Weather Change
Always carry necessary gear to face sudden climatic changes. Bring an umbrella along, if it looks like there might be rain. Inexpensive rain ponchos are available at discount stores. Wear appropriate clothing, if you are planning to march in the winter.
Children
Raising a next generation of activists should be a prime goal, and a challenging affair. Parents should be encouraged to bring their children to such peace events. However, ensure that they are in proper adult supervision, and they should be kept in proper view for ease of mind.
Peace events and marches are best platform to garner support for your cause and raise advocacy. Promote your event through advanced Marketing and Promotional tools available online. Acteva is one such leading company dealing with Online Event Registration and Communication tools.

Four Reasons Why Politicians Are Not Making Impact in Nigeria By Clement Sadjere Platinum Quality Author

Democracy is the principle form of government presently practiced in Nigeria and the ruling political party in the country is the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP). The party has been in power for more than 10 years. There seems to be a weak opposition as far as other political parties are concerned with the Action Congress of Nigeria (CAN), The All Nigeria Peoples Party (ANPP), the Labor Party and the All progressive Grand Alliance forming the bulk of the opposition.
It is however sad to note that politicians in Nigeria have not been making impact in Nigeria despite the huge resource that has been deployed in making Democracy thrives in the country. Below are four main reasons why this trend has become a recurring decimal in the annals of the country.
Corruption/greed
The level of corruption in Nigeria been perpetrated by the present crop of politician cannot be quantified. It is so colossal, that both the Independent Corrupt Practices and other related offenses Commission and the Economic and Financial Crime Commission could not tame the beast called corruption. Several top-level politicians have been jailed for offenses ranging from stealing, embezzlement and money laundering. The general concession is that as long as corruption and greed remains a cardinal part of the nations fabric, there cannot be any meaningful development under the democratic dispensation.
Inconsistency
The level of inconsistency demonstrated by politicians in the country is quite amazing. A situation where a politician dumps one party for another in quick succession gives course for worry. It also speaks volume of their real intention and mindset. Policies are made and discarded based on those to be favored or not. It has even degenerated to the level where statements made by leaders are no longer taken seriously due to early promises that have remained unfulfilled.
Lack of commitment
This negative trait can be seen among members of the lower and upper chambers of the National Assembly. The luxury and impunity with which funds are appropriated cannot be seen anywhere in the world. The constituencies they represent are left to rot while they live in pleasant affluent. It is a pitiable to see a country blessed with mineral and material resources suffer because of mismanagement and lack of commitment on the part of the ruling class to effect change.
Lack of vision/foresight
The steady decay in the confidence of the populace on the leaders representing their interest in the three-tiers of Government is traceable to the vision-less form of Government been practiced by the microscopic few who have entrenched themselves at the helm of affair for several years. Basic amenities like water, electricity, shelter and health facilities are non-existent despite millions of dollars budgeted each year for such projects.
The funds are either stolen or diverted to personal use at the expense of the suffering majority. The vision 20:2020 still remains a vision on paper despite the publicity stunts and effort by political egg-heads to convince Nigerians that the economy can be among the top 20 by the year 2020.

Who Is Kidding Who?

Are you perplexed by the cry for budget cuts and reducing the amount of the national debt? I agree that as a country we spend far too much on military boondoggles. But did you also wonder what we pay our elected officials at the federal level. The average for rank and file members of congress is $174,000*. That is for both the House and Senate. In 2009 the personal wealth for these our employees went up to $911,510*. I thought that they were public servants. Where is it written that they can get wealthy on our tax dollars? This does not include the perks that they have lavished on themselves over the years, such as a health care program that could benefit every citizen of the United States. We the people need to call these bums on the carpet and demand that they take a pay cut before they reduce the services that we pay for with our taxes.
The congress needs to tighten their belts before they take money away from programs like Social Security, Education etc. Every one of them should take a pay cut to reduce the amount of money that is wasted by our great nation. I do not know about you, but I sure could live nicely on the average salary that congress pays itself. The money that these people get from lobbyists is downright obscene. The trips they take on our money is just plain ridiculous. I would love to have their work schedule. Wouldn't you enjoy having the time off that we give our employees!
They only way we have to make them sit up and take notice, is to throw them out of office. I do not care what political affiliation you have, the next time your senator and congress persons are up for re-election, vote them out, even if it means that you have to vote against your parties choice. It is time we make them earn the salary we pay them. Let them know you are sick and tired of paying them for doing nothing to improve our personal wealth and not their own.
The other message we need to impart to this group is that we are facing a global crisis within the next 50 years. If the nations of the world do not get their collective rear ends in gear, we could see the end of life as we know it. The scientific community should be fully integrated into government policy making. How much more proof do they need that bad things are happening to our planet some of which is caused by our current use of coal and oil. Where is the outrage about our dwindling clean water supplies? Do we not care that our grandchildren might not have enough food to eat? The boys and girls who work for us have to wake up to these eventualities unless they get off their duffs.
When I was in high school, the world was a different place. We were taught that government was for the people by the people. For the most part our elected officials were on the same page as their constituents. Over the ensuing decades the picture has changed. Now these people seem to believe their own press. They commit adultery, steal money and take bribes. Just recently, one of the senators in my home state admitted to sexually harassing several women while he was in office. What is going on with these people? I think that we need to be more aware of who we are hiring to represent us.
Thank you for reading this article. If you feel the same way about what I have talked about, please let your elected officials know how you feel. It is easy to do this today. Just go on the web and Google your senator and congressman's name. You will find a link to their email address. Their mailing address is also listed so if you prefer to send a letter you can. The important thing is to let them know that we are their employer, and if they want to keep the job they better pay attention to our needs and not their own interests.
Carl Lannquist
*from About.com US Government information

Carl F. Lannquist