What Does Bush Want To Do

Bush is running with the deficits-don’t-matter crowd. During a visit to a flag factory Thursday, Bush brandished White House calculations claiming that his plan “will create 2.1 million new jobs over the next three years. Unmentioned was the awkward reality that in August, the Congressional Budget Office forecast a $ 145 billion deficit for this fiscal year and a $ 1 billion shortfall for next year. And the CBO projections do not include either the revenue loss from the president’s tax plan or the impossible-to-predict costs of a war with Iraq.

These ideological inconsistencies are not limited to economic policy. In recent weeks, liberal Democratic Rep. Charles Rangel of New York has become a television regular with his proposal to bring back the military draft because the current volunteer Army puts a disproportionate number of blacks and Hispanics in the line of fire. As Rangel puts it, “For those who say the poor fight better, I say give the rich a chance.”

Rangel docs raise a valid point: The risks that would accompany war with Iraq -would be shared unequally. Many affluent Americans have no personal connection with the men and women who would be sent to oust Saddam Hussein. For those whose children and friends do not wear the uniform of their country, war becomes an abstraction, witnessed only through the emotionally safe prism of a television screen.

But maybe the era of sacrifice is over. For most of us, the notion of really giving up something for the greater good is as foreign to our experience as saving tin foil and kitchen grease for the war effort. For those who lived through World War II or even the agonies of the Vietnam War, it is hard to accept the reality that we are now a nation that can seemingly afford guns, butter and tax cuts. Imagine Winston Churchill telling the British people during the darkest days of war with Germany, “We shall fight on the beaches with rate reductions, we shall fight them on the landing grounds with tax-free dividends, -we shall fight in the fields with business incentives, and in the streets with rebates. We shall never surrender, as long as there’s one tax left to cut. ”

In truth, we can now have it all without paying a major price in the short run. As Bush triumphantly declared Thursday, “We’re the strongest, most resilient economy in the entire world.” So what if the government has to borrow a few hundred billion dollars more to pay its bills? So what if our brave fighting forces include only a small segment of society? We’re Americans, privileged to live in a land that has transcended the need for sacrifice.

How Can Bush Win In The Presidential Election

On the 36th day after they had voted, Americans finally learned on Wednesday who would be their next president: Governor .George W. Bush of Texas. Vice President Al Gore, his last realistic avenue for legal challenge closed by a U. S. Supreme Court decision late Tuesday, planned to end the contest formally in a televised evening speech of perhaps 10 minutes, advisers said.

They said that Senator Joseph Lieberman, his vice presidential running mate, would first make brief comments. The men would speak from a ceremonial chamber of the Old Executive office Building, to the west of the White House. The dozens of political workers and lawyers who had helped lead Mr. Gore’s unprecedented fight today a come-from-behind electoral victory in the pivotal state of Florida were thanked Wednesday and asked to stand down.

The vice president has directed the recount committee to suspend activities, William Datey, the Gore campaign chairman, said in a written statement. Mr. Gore authorized that statement after meeting with his wife, Tipper, and with top advisers including Mr. Daley. He was expected to telephone Mr. Bush during the day. The Bush campaign kept a low profile and moved gingerly, as if to leave pace for Mr. Gore to contemplate his next steps.

Yet, at the end of a trying and tumultuous process that had focused world attention on sleepless vote-counters across Florida, and on courtrooms from Miami to Atlanta to Washington, the Texas governor was set to become the 43rd U.S. president.

The news of Mr. Gore’s plans followed the longest and most rancorous dispute over a U. S. presidential election in more than a century, one certain to leave scars in a badly ‘divided country.
It was a bitter ending for Mr. Gore, who had outpolled Mr. Bush nationwide by some 300,000 votes, but, without Florida, fell short in the Electoral College by 271 votes to 267 the narrowest Electoral College victory since the turbulent election of 1876.
Mr. Gore was said to be distressed by what he and many Democratic activists felt was a partisan decision from the nation’s highest court. The 5-to-4 decision of the Supreme Court held, in essence, that while a vote recount in Florida could be conducted in legal and constitutional fashion, as Mr. Gore had sought, this could not be done by the Dec. 12 deadline for states to select their presidential electors.

James Baker 3rd, the former secretary of state who represented Mr. Bush in the Florida dispute, issued a short statement after the U. S. high court ruling, saying that the governor was very pleased and gratified. Mr. Bush was planning a nationwide speech aimed at trying to begin to heal the country’s deep, aching and varied divisions. He then was expected to meet with congressional leaders, including Democrats. Dick Cheney, Mr. Bush’s running mate, was meeting with congressmen Wednesday in Washington.

When Mr. Bush, who is 54, is sworn into office on Jan. 20, he will be only the second son of a president to follow his father to the White House, after John Adams and John Quincy Adams in the early 19th century. Mr. Gore, in his speech, was expected to thank his supporters, defend his five-week battle as an effort to ensure, as a matter of principle, that every vote be counted, and call for the nation to join behind the new president. He was described by an aide as resolved and resigned.

While some constitutional experts had said they believed states could present electors as late as Dec. 18, the U.8.high court made clear that it saw no such leeway. The U. S. high court sent back for revision to the Florida court its order allowing recounts but made clear that for all practical purposes the election was over. In its unsigned main opinion, the court declared, the recount process, in its features here described, is inconsistent with the rninimum procedures necessary to protect the ftmdamental right of each voter.

That decision, by a court fractured along philosophical lines, left one liberal justice charging that the high court’s proceedings bore a political taint. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in an angry dissent: Although we may never know with complete certainly the identity of the winner of this year’s presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the nation’s confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the law.

But at the end of five seemingly endless weeks, during which the physical, legal and constitutional machines of the U. S. election were pressed and sorely tested in ways unseen in more than a century, the system finally produced a result, and one most Americans appeared to be willing at least provisionally to support.

The Bush team welcomed the news with an outward show of restraint and aplomb. The governor’s hopes had risen and fallen so many times since Election night, and the legal warriors of each side suffered through so many dramatic reversals, that there was little energy left for celebration.

The Obama Administration 2010 Vs. George Orwell “1984”

I cannot help feeling that the Obama administration, and the entire American political class, has some frightening similarities to the dysfunctional and totalitarian government that George Orwell foresaw in his classic novel, “1984.” The loss of freedom, the frightening rise in power by the ruling political class, the declining quality of life for ordinary citizens, the manipulation and spin doctoring of reality, etc. are very similar to the storyline in “1984.”

Consider some George Orwell quotes, most of which come from the novel, and recent news accounts and events:

* Orwell Quote: “The propagandist’s purpose is to make one set of people forget that certain other sets of people are human.”
* Obama Administration: During the lead up to and after the passage of Obama’s health care reform legislation, the President allowed members of his party to dehumanize those that had honest problems and issues with the legislation. Consider the slander:

– Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi called those citizens opposed to Obama Care “un-American.”

– Florida Congressman Alan Grayson called those citizens opposed to Obama Care “knuckle dragging Neanderthals.”

– New York Congressman Charles Rangel likened those that opposed Obama Care to the real racists that opposed the early civil rights movement.

– Texas Congresswoman Shelia Jackson Lee also likened those opposed to Obama Care to the racists of the 1950s and 1960s.

– Alan Grayson stated that all Tea Party members were wearing white sheets 25 years ago, an obvious referral to the racist Ku Klux Klan movement.

Rather than celebrating diversity of opinion and debating the issues, the President allowed his henchman and women to bad mouth and slander those Americans for having a different opinion. Rather than acting Presidential and bringing people together by ending the name calling, the President became nothing more than the propagandist that Orwell talks about.

* Orwell Quote: “War is a way of shattering to pieces or pouring into the stratosphere or sinking in the depths of the seas, materials which might otherwise be used to make the masses too comfortable, and hence, in the long run, too intelligent.”
* Obama Administration: Although this problem existed long before the President came into office, he has done nothing to counter what Eisenhower called the military-industrial complex. The United States, by far, is the biggest investor into military resources, by any measure you chose, in the entire world. We have troops stationed all over the world, defending interests and property that no longer need to be defended. Why do we have tens of thousands of troops in Europe? The Iron Curtain is down, communism has been defeated but still, we waste taxpayer money stationing troops there. Why do we have almost 30,000 troops in South Korea? They have one of the strongest economies in the world, let South Korea defend itself. Why do we have tens of thousands of troops in Japan? They are unlikely to attack Pearl Harbor again and these troops would be useless against any aggressive move by the massive Chinese army. Why do we not reorient these resources from defense to tax reductions and helping ordinary American citizens? According to Orwell, that would make the masses more comfortable and intelligent, two aspects that the political class would see as a threat to their own power.

* Orwell Quote: “War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.”
* Obama Administration: Shortly after coming into power, the Obama administration decided to change the language when describing Islamic terrorism. His administration went on a journey to purge Bush era terms like “war on terrorism,” “radical Islam,” “jihadist,” and Islamic terrorism” from all government publications, speeches, testimonies, etc. For example, rather than talk about “Islamic terrorism,” the administration wants everyone to talk about “violent extremism.”

Thus, it appears that Obama is trying to do the same word games that the government did in “1984.” By controling language, you can control the situation. The problem with such an approach is while it may give those in power more control over the debate of a specific issue, it obscures the true reality of the situation. If you do not understand the reality of an issue, the chances of successfully solving that issue are minimized. How can you argue against war if it has the same meaning as peace? How can you solve the problem of Islamic terrorism if you deny that it exists? Obama’s attempt to control the language will put us further away from understanding the root cause of the Islamic fanaticism and how to defend against it.

The further problem with this language gambit is that it has not worked. According to an October, 14, 2010 Yahoo News article, several studies are now showing that changing the language is not solving any problems. A study by the Brookings Institution in Washington found that between May, 2009 and May, 2010, the number of Middle Eastern Arabs expressing optimism in Obama’s approach toward their region dropped from 51% to 16% with those becoming discouraged with the President rising from 15% to 63%. A Pew Reserach Center study shows that in August, 2010, fewer Americans held a favorable view of Islam, 30%, than during the Bush administration (41%). The Pew study also found that more Americans (35%) say Islam encourages violence more than other religions, up from 25% in 2002.

Thus, not only is this process of muddying the waters of language a bad way to solve problems, these two studies show that Obama’s purging of our government’s vocabulary is not working, either domestically or abroad from an attitude perspective.

* Orwell Quote: “And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed – if all records told the same tale – then the lie passed into history and became truth. ‘Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present, controls the past'”
* Obama Administration: three examples here where the administration has tried to control and suppress information and perpetuate the lie in order to advance its own agenda. If you can suppress contrary views, you can control the past, the present and the future that the political class wants.

The first example was from early in the Obama administration. EPA engineer, Alan Carlin, researched and then wrote a 98 page report that challenged some of the assumptions and predicted outcomes regarding global warming that were at odds with what the Obama administration wanted to hear. Mr. Carlin has an undergraduate degree in physics from Cal Tech and a PhD in economics from MIT so that he is not an uneducated scientist. However, he was told to suppress his findings and not communicate them to anyone outside of the agency. Rather than discuss his findings publicly and have a scientific debate over his conclusions, the political class, in this case the Obama administration, decided to suppress the analysis and possibly perpetuate the potential lie of global warming. In all of the news reports I saw in this matter, no one was questioning Mr. Carlin’s methodology, analysis, etc., it was purely a political suppression of information, something that Orwell would have been proud of. By suppressing information like this, the political class can control the debate and any kind of control is not good in a democratic society since it usually does not help arrive at the right solution for a problem. Is the administration tyring to pass the lie into history and make global warming the truth, contrary to a scientific conclusion that it was not the truth?

The EPA report suppression is not the only instance where the Obama administration tried to suppress information. A soldier at Fort Hood who videotaped the killing spree by Major Nidal Hasan was told by his commanding officer to delete the video. The soldier testified that a non-commissioned officer, acting on orders from an officer, was told to delete the video the same day of the shooting. Now why would anyone want to delete a videotaping of a live crime, wouldn’t it be a great piece of evidence at the trial of the shooter? Is the Obama administration trying to control the situation by controlling the information? No reason for that video to have been destroyed unless someone, somewhere high up the chain of command did not want to lose control of the situation, even if justice was not served in the process.

Finally, consider an Associated Press report that appeared on October 6, 2010. According to the article and a finding by the commission appointed by the President to investigate the Gulf oil spill disaster, the Obama White House deliberately blocked efforts by government scientists to tell the public just how bad the oil spill could become. The article also reported that other missteps and incompetence were also suppressed by the Administration.

According to the article, the commission’s documents “show that the White House was directly involved in controlling the message as it struggled to convey that it, not BP, was in charge of responding…” There is that pesky word again, controlling. Control the information and you can control the lie, control the lie and history will turn that lie into the truth. If the Obama administration focused more on the oil spill and the root cause of the Fort Hood shooting and the reality that global warming might be a piece of fiction, and less on controlling the lie, the country might be better off, even if the political class was worse off.

* Orwell Quote: “The most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history.”
* Obama Administration: Consider an October 20, 2010 article from the Heritage Foundation that covered a speech that the President recently gave in Rockville, Maryland. In that speech he quoted from the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that each of us are endowed with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Sounds harmless enough, right? Celebrating our heritage. But look closely, he did not “exactly” quote the Declaration of Independence. The accurate quote reads as follows: We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

According to the article, the President omitted the exact same phrase from two other recent speeches, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute’s 33rd Annual Awards Gala and at a New York City fundraiser. Once is an oversight, three times inside of a month is a trend. Sounds very Orwellian to me, “to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history.” Denying the words “By Their Creator” may run contrary to the President’s beliefs but it is our history. It all gets back to the examples above, the political class is constantly trying to control history, the lie, the information flow, and the decision process, all of which are detrimental to freedom.

* Orwell Quote: “There was no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork. It was even conceivable that they watched everybody all the time. But at any rate they could plug in your wire whenever they wanted to. You had to live – did live, from habit that became instinct – in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and, except in darkness, every movement scrutinized.”
* Obama Administration: Very simple analogy here, ” the Patriot Act.” Passed during the Bush Administrating and rubber stamped renewed under the Obama administration we are rapidly approaching this Orwellian world of surveillance. The scary thing is that Orwell probably did not imagine how many ways this quote could come true today. From getting access to our library records, tapping our phones, tracking our movements via our cell phone signal, monitoring our emails, observing our social network activity, watching us via thousands and thousands of public video cameras to easy to get warrants and wire taps, the pervasive intrusion into our lives by the political class is the Orwellian nightmare we face today, a reality not conducive to freedom at all.

* Orwell Quote: “Political language… is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.”
Obama Administration: the best example of Obama Orwellian thinking under this quote is the failed economic stimulus plan that Obama and the Democrats passed. The original purpose of the stimulus plan was to create jobs. When the stimulus money started to get spent but very few jobs were created, the * Obama administration changed gears and stated the economic stimulus package was to both create AND save jobs. However, when not many jobs were created AND saved, the administration came up with the term like jobs “affected” or “touched” by the economic stimulus package. Thus, if the first definition does not work, try a second definition and a third definition, etc., anything to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. In this case, the pure wind is the utter failure of the stimulus package to create solid jobs.

* Orwell Quote: “Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.”
* Obama Administration: The best example here is the whole problem of illegal immigration and the immigration law passed this summer by Arizona, a law that was patterned after the existing Federal law regarding illegal immigration. The Obama administration has gone to court in an attempt to overturn a law that a state wants to use to return illegal immigrants to their respective countries, hopefully improving the living conditions of the state’s citizens. At the same time, the Obama administration has been returning record numbers of illegal immigrants to their respective countries and has beefed up security along the Mexico/U.S. border. Sounds like Doublethink to me: from the Obama administrationn perspective, we will vilify the Arizona law for doing the same thing we are doing at the Federal level, i.e. returning illegal immigrants to their countries. Doing the same think but holding one effort as bad but the other effort as good.

* Orwell Quote: “Never again will you be capable of ordinary human feeling. Everything will be dead inside you. Never again will you be capable of love, or friendship, or joy of living, or laughter, or curiosity, or courage, or integrity. You will be hollow. We shall squeeze you empty and then we shall fill you with ourselves.”
* Obama Administration: This quote response is not just via the Obama administration but by the whole American political class. Right now, the politicians in this country control a large part of our retirement financials via Social Security, they control our retirement health care via Medicare, they control our personal wealth and income via dozens and dozens of government taxes and fees, they control the education of our kids via public schooling, they control a larger portion of our pre-retirement medical care via Obama Care, they control who we eventually get to vote for (via gerrymandering of Congressional districts, controlling of campaign financing sources, using taxpayer money to fund earmarks which are just campaign finance tools, etc.), they control and criminalize what substances we put into our bodies, they belittle us for daring to have a difference of opinion, and they control who gets certain rights based on sexual orientation. They use these forms of control to drain us of our individuality in order to make us more controllable and reliant on their needs and desires. Orwell nailed this one right on the nose when describing life under our political class in American today.

Very scary stuff. As Orwell predicted, the United States and other democracies around the world are at risk of failing not because of some outside agency or foe but by the devious and dishonest manipulations of truth and the ever increasing control by our own political class. That is why every election now becomes so critical if we are to turn back our march towards “1984” and again become a free country, of the people by the people and for the people.

We no longer can allow the political class to control the debate, control the language and control our lives. That is why many changes need to be implemented as soon as possible:

– Reduce government’s size by 10% a year for the next five years.

– Review and amend the Patriot Act to make it more freedom and liberty friendly.

– Stop gerrymandering Congressional districts to level the playing field between incumbents and new political candidates.
Implement term limits to eliminate politics as a career opportunity.

– Bring home almost all of our foreign deployed troops and begin downsizing the military-industrial complex.

– Start reducing the deficit and the debt grip politicians will hold over us for decades to come.

– Repeal Obama Care and fix the health care crisis the right way, not the controlling political class way.

So much work to do and so little time to do it before Orwell proves himself right. We are living George Orwell’s “1984” and it is disguised as Obama’s 2010 agenda. Stop the madness, stop the doublespeak, stop the lies.

Is One-Person-One-Vote The Most Democratic We Can Get? Or Can Weighting The Vote Bring More Fairness

Steve Glickman, president and founder of the Democratic Empowerment Party, is a would-be reformer of democracy and defender of the underdog like you’ve never seen. Hegelian in approach, he wants to balance economic power and political power through a provocative approach he calls vote sizing. Simple in concept but profound in repercussion, the idea is to give larger votes to people at the lower end of the economic ladder. I interviewed this reluctant leader by phone from his apartment in Vancouver, BC.

~~~~~

PB: You’ve come up with a radical idea for reforming democracy by weighting votes. How long have you been working on this?

Steve: Over 20 years. I developed it as a philosophy student in university. I realized that there are two major forces in society — money and power. Most of us believe in the separation of church and state. Well, I believe just as strongly that wealth and power should be separate. Because when they overlap, we get corruption. So the way to separate wealth and power is to increase the power of the powerless by increasing the size of their vote.

PB: The principle of one-person-one-vote is sacred to most Americans. What moved you to tinker with it?

Steve: I really didn’t want to. I avoided it for years because there are a lot funner things to do than trying to root out corruption and change fundamental democratic principles. But I took a trip to Indonesia a few years ago, and I witnessed first hand the awful effects of powerless poverty. As I talked with so many desperate people who had no power to change their situation, I realized that they had a lot of wisdom but no way to realize their ideas. It broke my heart. So I decided I to summon up my courage and become a full time advocate for vote sizing.
PB: I don’t know when I’ve heard of such a radical idea for changing a fundamental principle. Why so drastic?

Steve: Is it drastic? I’m not an anarchist, corporatist, socialist, communist, fascist, or fundamentalist and I’m not for one world government. I just want to work within government to move it toward more democracy.

PB: More democracy? But isn’t vote sizing unfair?

Steve: Is it fair for some people to have all the money and all the power, while the rest of us have neither? Is it fair for children to be born into poverty with limited or no opportunity to ever get out of it? I know some people point to examples of poor people working themselves out of poverty. And yes, the system always allows a few to escape. But the current system will never allow the majority of poor and working class people to achieve a decent standard of living. It’s rigged to prevent that from happening. And the middle class is always teetering on the edge, just one major health emergency away from powerless poverty. Most of us are so preoccupied with making ends meet that we have no energy or time to focus on the corruption that oozes back and forth between government and industry. That’s what’s unfair!

PB: You are so passionate about this. Why?

Steve: I’m pretty much terrified of the path we are on. I don’t know why more people aren’t as scared as I am. A few counterfeit leaders and insulated puppet-masters cannot continue to dominate the rest of us and the environment this way much longer. There will be disastrous consequences – it’s already happening. There’s one man in Africa who is as scared as I am of this situation. And he’s even more courageous than I am. Julius found my website four years ago and is working to establish a branch of the party in Cameroon. He doesn’t have a degree or subscription to the Wall Street Journal, but he is very smart, brave and authentic. He assists local university students in writing their papers on subjects of history, philosophy, African and English literature.

I don’t think it’s fair that he has to save up his money to go to the internet café just to email me, that is, if the power is on. I have so much respect for this man. He literally risks his life when he gets on the radio or in the newspaper promoting democratic reform. Some of his friends and neighbors tell him he is wasting his time and that rich people will kill him if he continues, but he says he isn’t doing this for himself but for future generations. I’m passionate about increasing his power because I want him and billions of people like him to have a chance to live a decent life.

PB: But why do you want to punish the wealthy? It’s not their fault that others are poor, is it?

Steve: I don’t want to punish anyone. That’s like saying that giving the vote to women or freed slaves was done to punish men or plantation owners. I want the wealthy to keep their money and participate in a healthy capitalist economy. But to be fair, they shouldn’t also have the power. If they need power, they can choose that – but they’ll have to reduce their income to get a weighted vote. Personally, I’d be OK with a smaller vote because I’d prefer to have a large income. If that means giving up some political power to those who need it for the greater good, fine.

PB: A lot of poor people already don’t vote. Why should they get more of a vote?

Steve: Many are disillusioned because the current system doesn’t work. Did you know that a hundred years ago, people arguing against giving women the vote said that women didn’t want to vote, weren’t smart enough to vote, and that such a nasty business should be left to men? Critics of vote sizing say the same thing about people who are poorer and working class — that they aren’t as qualified to vote. That was also the argument against giving freed slaves the vote and the premise behind the poll tax.

But many women and blacks worked tirelessly and even died securing the right to vote. America has a history of having low expectations of women and people of color. We want to improve the situation of people who are struggling, but it always seems that some expert has the answer. I say poor, working and middle class people know better than anyone else what is going to improve their situation. Let’s give them a chance to prove it. So what if they don’t have a formal education? There is a lot of wisdom in poor communities. I believe if we raise expectations with a weighted vote, the result will be empowerment, responsibility and progress. But I don’t obsess about what they will vote for. I have enough faith in people that I think they deserve a chance to figure it out for themselves. That’s democracy at work.

PB: The last two presidential elections, some people believe, were stolen. How would vote sizing address that problem?

Steve: Vote sizing would use paper ballots with printed bar codes and offline scanners to insure autonomy, accuracy and a paper trail. But election fraud, like electronic voting, is only one tool that tyrants use to disenfranchise us; there’s also gerrymandering, payola, a dumb-downed debate, shadowy appointments, foreign meddling, and more.

Also, tyranny is only one of corruption’s four sides – the other three being brutality, patronage and greed – so there’s a lot we need to fix. Vote sizing is not a magic pill to make all our problems go away; it’s a democratic reform so we the people can elect sensible, honest leaders who care about all of our fates, and not just corporate and super-wealthy interests. That’s why I don’t trust so-called experts who say they have all the answers. It’s not them but we the people who know how to keep corruption at bay.

PB: Do you really think this could ever come to pass?

Steve: It’s a challenge because it’s outside the box of what people consider democratic. But think about this: before 1920, was the US a democracy? Most people would say yes, even though half the population couldn’t vote for the president or congress. So democracies can always be more democratic. We should remember that women’s suffrage came after a century of struggle. Before women’s suffrage, no one except the visionaries could see its inevitability. I see vote sizing as the next reform that brings even more fairness, so it’s inevitable. But it still will take time and encounter plenty of resistance. I would just challenge people to set aside the sanctity of one-person-one-vote for a day and see what is possible.

PB: Would you have to change the constitution to put this in place?

Steve: The US constitution would have to be changed for federal elections and charters for local elections. But you can use vote sizing anywhere people vote for anything. We have a business model that would give janitors and secretaries weighted votes to elect the CEO. We also propose weighting votes inversely to students’ grades in schools when it’s time to decide the curriculum. Like in politics or business, vote sized learning encourages cooperation rather than competition, which could really help our schools.

PB: How can people get involved?

Steve: I’m so glad you asked because vote sizing is really about the voices of the people, and not so much mine. There’s plenty of ways people can get involved at http://www.VoteSizing.org. They can brainstorm ideas and engage in dialogue online. They can become a member of the Democratic Empowerment Party. They can start their own local chapter. We need lots of courageous people who have faith in each other to step up and join the effort. Leadership positions are available.

~~~~~

Don’t be surprised if a South American chapter of the Democratic Empowerment Party is announced soon. Glickman plans a trip to Cartagena, Colombia for the month of February 2008 to recruit people who will promote vote sizing in South America. He’ll be taping his adventure to document the early development of the DEP’s Colombian branch.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/1037930

Election Day – Get Out the Vote

There are two distinct sections to a get out the vote campaign: before Election Day and on Election Day itself. Before the election, campaigns are quickly calling but also using other direct voter contact methods to tell known and likely supporters about the upcoming election and that it’s important to show up to the polls to vote for your candidate.

On Election Day, these activities are ongoing but there are a number of other elements in play.

Volunteers outside the polls

This does not apply in all states. Some states have laws that prohibit politicking near polling places, but for the jurisdictions that do not, it can be valuable to have someone outside of the poll to greet people as they come to vote and to help anyone who has questions about the candidate or the voting process.

Volunteers inside the polls

Again, depending upon your state this may not apply, but having someone inside of the poll is useful to keep a watchful eye on the pollworkers who might ave affiliated with another party and to help cross off the names of identified supporters that you have accumulated over the course of the campaign. The volunteer inside the poll can then hand off this list to other volunteers to call through those who have yet to vote and remind them when the polls close and that their support is critical to win the campaign.

Flushers

Flushers are canvassers who knock on targeted doors on Election Day who are trying to literally coax supporters out of their homes and to get out to the polling place to vote for your candidate. If you have the manpower for a strong flushing operation, this is an effective tactic to increase turnout among your supporters.

Rides to the polls

In addition to all of the other volunteer needs on Election Day, it’s a good idea to have people who are able to give rides to the polls for people who are physically unable to get their on their own. If you have volunteers who are willing to give rides to the polls, be sure to include a questions such as “do you need help getting to your polling place?” to the Election Day phone script since most people do not volunteer their need for assistance to go vote.

Election protection

In case there are any concerns about election law violations on Election Day, recruit an attorney or two for volunteers and voters to call if there are problems.

Conclusion

While GOTV is volunteer intensive and/or costly, Election Day is doubly so. Even in a modest campaign, you will need dozens of volunteers on Election Day to execute effectively.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/6541833

How To Deliver A Vote Of Thanks

A vote of thanks is a short (2-3 minutes) expression of thanks to a speaker on behalf of the audience. Therefore it is not another speech, nor is it an evaluation, nor should it repeat the Chairman’s introduction of the speaker, nor may it be prepared in detail in advance. [all will become clear]

The initial statement (which can be mapped out!)could be of the following structure: “Mr Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen! On behalf of Norwich Orators, I am very happy to thank Fred for giving his speech on ‘Promotion in the Mexican Navy’ to us this evening… and the concluding sentence might be along the following lines: “So, Mr Chairman, I say, once again, that we are all most grateful to Fred and I now ask the audience to express appreciation in the usual way.’ [Please note that they will be applauding the speaker (Fred) and not the proposer of the Vote of Thanks.]

With experience, the opening and closing formula may be modified, always provided that the principles that they embody are not forsaken. The person prosing the vote of thanks must listen attentively to the speech. The proposer should pick out two or three points that s/he and/or the audience found particularly interesting and, in the vote of thanks, refer and respond to these. Try not to repeat parts of the speech or enter into any kind of debate as to whether you agree or disagree with the speaker.

With practice, how to select some useful or illuminating points, and how to incorporate references to them in the vote of thanks, becomes easier and, with time, the proposer will produce a presentation that resembles an excellent dessert following – and in happy harmony with – a fine main course.

For the moment, consider these extracts from a hypothetical vote of thanks to Fred and decide which (if any) you consider suitable in the light of the above discussion.

‘The sinking of the destroyer Napolean reminded me of an incident during the battle of Jutland. My uncle was on Dog Watch in the Straights of Malacca. It was a dark and stormy night…

I was impressed particularly by the story of able seaman Chavez who was twice passed over for promotion because of his dreadful bad breath.

Thomas often speaks so quickly that I cannot always absorb the complex point that he is making.

I have to say that I disagree with him fundamentally regarding the role of Mexico in the American Civil War.

I have to say that, along with everyone else present, I was completely enrapt by his consideration of the role of Mexico in the American Civil War.

Fred’s tale of Ensign Gonzales and the attempted mutiny on board MNS Arrogant reminded us all, I sense, of Shakespeare’s reference to ‘vaulting ambition which overleaps itself.’

Do You Vote?

A few days ago, I received the following email message (I’ve edited out the personal details):

“Subject: Do You Vote?”

“Hi Tony,”

“I apologize ahead of time if this is in any way beyond the boundaries of our communication…”

“I don’t usually get into discussions where people have such high emotions linked to their opinions on a topic.”

“But, I made the mistake last night when provoked about voting…”

“I believe I might have lost the goodwill of some people last night due to my refusal to accept the fact that I ‘SHOULD’ vote.”

“I had no facts, just a mere ‘feeling’ of it not being for me… so I sounded pretty silly and even said a few erroneous things concerning voting.”

“I sounded like an uneducated idiot because of such ‘feeling’ based decision making.”

“So, because I look up to you and see you as a very wise person, I just wanted to know if you voted or not. So far, nothing presented to me through my research has convinced me that I “should”.

Although, as a rule, I stay away from discussions even remotely related to politics (at least publicly), the importance and timeliness of this question make it deserving of an answer.

Here it goes…

One of the many benefits of living in a free society is that the very same freedom that grants you the right to do something, grants you the right *not* to do it if you so choose.

So…

I’m not going to address whether you should or shouldn’t vote, or why you should or shouldn’t vote, I’m going to merely answer the question of whether I vote or not and give you my reasoning behind it…

Feel free to take from it what you will. 🙂

Do I vote?

Sure do!

As a matter of fact, nowadays, Election Day is one of two days a year (the other being the Fourth of July/Independence Day) I use to “formally” discuss freedom, where it *really* comes from, and how it’s maintained with my son, who’s now ten years old, correcting the misinformation he’s taught in school.

Anyone who knows me well, knows that personal freedom (the freedom to do whatever I want to do, whenever I want to do it, without money being the deciding factor) is way up there on my list of what’s *truly* important to me, it’s one of the things I cherish most.

My ability to enjoy personal freedom and to continue to do so flourishes best in a society where the freedom to do so is granted by the people, by way of a higher “authority”, *not* government.

Unfortunately, and sadly I might add, because of the apathy of the populace as a whole and the desire of some for more power for themselves, our freedoms here in the United States have been very slowing eroding over the years (and I’m not talking here about just the “last eight years”, so to speak, I’m talking about over a period of many, many, *many* years).

All that stands between further erosion and eventual loss of these freedoms (and to have any chance whatsoever of their being restored to what they once were), is people taking the time to become informed and voting for those who will work to protect those freedoms, as they were intended by the “founding fathers”, even though sometimes the choice may be limited to who will do the least amount of damage at any given time.

I think Ronald Reagan, former President of the United States and Governor of the State of California, said it best when he said:

“Freedom is always just one generation away from extinction. We don’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream; we have to fight for it and protect it, and then hand it to them so that they shall do the same, or we’re going to find ourselves spending our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children about a time in America, back in the day, when men and women were free.”

I, for one, don’t want to spend my “sunset years” telling my son and my son’s children about a time in America, back in the day, when men and women were free…

Therefore…

On November 4th (Election Day here in the United States)…

With my son standing proudly by my side…

As I have for many years…

I will be voting.

How To Create 20 Leads Per Day Using Article Marketing Strategies

Why can some online marketers can use any type of online marketing and get results? It is not complicated. They know the principles of what generates search engine traffic and utilize the same fundementals consistently.

Know this before you pick up your pen

These four fundementals are vital to understand before you begin writing your first article:

1. Relevant.Make sure your article is written for your target market. Your article should address the mlm company that you wish to target with your marketing. If not, visitors will realize you are not real and lose attention and so will the search engines.
2. Popularity.If more websites link to online content it is viewed and rated as popular. Content that has many incoming links will be more visible and viewers will vote it as popular – so will the search engines
3. Ooriginal and beneficial content.You have value to give and you have unique talents. Let you article exhibit that with original and unique content. Begin by writing about what you know and learn. The suggestion is, the content must be true, it must be unique for you and it must be constructive (if you do reviews)
4. Consistency.You will only get results with article marketing strategies if you are committed to be consistent. You can’t differentiate yourself from the hordes of other internet marketers out there by writing one article. Write many. Commit to writing one a day.

Links will bring you traffic

You can write articles with the most important and useful content and you can do this very consistently everyday. Unless people can find your articles on the internet, you will be the only reader of your own articles and you will not be able to convert visitors to leads for your network marketing business. A good article not being read is a wonderful isolated tropical island in the middle of the ocean.

Bridges (links) to your content from as many places as possible will bring you visitors. More visitors mean more traffic.

Do the linking like this

* Link your account to social websites by using bookmarks
* Promote your content through video sharing networks like Youtube
* Promote your original article in a promotion article. Link the promotion article back to the original article on the blog Submit the promotion article to as many as possible article directories.

How to convert the blog traffic into leads

Links to your article will ensure your article is read by your target market. You have created traffic! The purpose of the traffic is to generate leads.

Traffic converted equals leads. You can only convert visitors to your article content to leads if there is a means to capture their information and transfer them to your list. Your original article must always link back to your lead capture page.

A 5 step summary to explosion in traffic

1. Create an original article
2. Submit the article to social bookmarking sites
3. Promote the article through networks where videos are shared
4. Promote your content by submitting a promotion article to article directories
5. Do this consistent for 100 days

Follow these steps consistently and you will be stunned at the leads and traffic you can create within 8 weeks. Apply these article marketing tips to your article marketing campaign and you will find your blog will become a buzz and a lead generation tool for your mlm business.

Football World Cup: The Most Wanted Trophy

The World Cup is a small gold trophy representing the hopes and ambitions of every footballing nation on earth. Since the advent of the World Cup in 1930, there have been two trophies awarded to the winners.The
Jules Rimet Trophy was the original prize for winning the World Cup. Originally called simply the World Cup or Coupe du Monde, it was renamed in 1946 to honour the FIFA President Jules Rimet who in 1929 passed a vote to initiate the competition. Designed by Abel Lafleur and made of gold plated sterling silver on a blue base of lapis lazuli, it stood 35 cm high and weighed 3.8 kg. It was in the shape of an octagonal cup, supported by a winged figure representing Nike, the ancient Greek goddess of victory.

During World War II, the trophy was held by Italy. Ottorino Barassi, the Italian vice-president of FIFA, hid it from the Germans in a shoe-box under his bed.

Just before the 1966 World Cup Final in England the trophy was stolen during a public exhibition at Westminster Central Hall, but was found just seven days later, wrapped in newspaper at the bottom of a suburban garden hedge in Norwood, South London, by a dog named “Pickles”. As a security measure, FIFA secretly manufactured a replica of the trophy for use in the post-match celebrations. The replica was also used on subsequent occasions until 1970. The replica was sold at an auction in 1997 for $425,015.There were many replicas on eBay at that time.

The Brazilian team won the trophy for the third time in 1970, and were rewarded by being allowed to keep it in perpetuity. However, the cup was stolen again in 1983 in Rio de Janeiro and never recovered; it may have been melted down. The Brazilian Football Confederation commissioned a replica of their own.

The replacement trophy, officially known as the FIFA World Cup Trophy, was first presented at the 1974 World Cup. Designed by Silvio Gazzaniga, it stands 36 cm tall and is made of 5 kg of 18 carat (75%) solid gold with a base containing two layers of malachite, and depicts two human figures holding up the Earth. The name of the country whose national team wins the tournament is engraved, together with the year, in the bottom side of the trophy. It is not known whether FIFA will retire the trophy after all of the name plaques at the base are filled in; this will occur after the 2038 World Cup.

FIFA’s regulations now state that the trophy, unlike its predecessor, cannot be won outright: the winners of the tournament receive it on loan for four years and receive a replica to keep.

How To Run A Successful Letter Writing Protest

One of the most important parts of any good letter writing protest is the letter itself.
The letter should be at least 300 words but not more then 500 words. It should be well written, and the point of the letter should be made clear from the start.

Avoid any long diatribes about the government and do not use scare tactics like saying that the Nazis are in control or things of this nature.

The letter should mention that you are of voting age and that in the next election you will not vote for someone who did not do there all to get the online gambling ban reversed.

The next thing is to get as many people as possible to sign and send the letter this can be a problem, but I have some suggestions.

The first thing you should do is make a website, myspace is a good place to do this, its free and is easy to bring many people to your site.

Many people are already using myspace to protest the online gambling ban. An example of one such page is myspace.com/angryonlinegambler. He has decided to go with a petition rather then letter writing, but the general idea is the same.

Once you have your myspace page and the letter protesting the online gambling ban you want to have sent the next thing to do is start getting people to send it.

The best way to do this is with myspace.com, and yahoo groups. Just do a search for gambling related groups. Many of the people in a group like this would be willing to send a letter

Just go into every group related to gambling and post the letter and ask them to forward the letter to everyone they know and by this means alone I guarantee if you go to enough groups you can get at least a 1000 people willing to send out your letter.

Besides yahoo and myspace groups there are thousands of websites out there that are gambling related that may want to add your letter to their page so there visitors can send out your letter protesting the online gambling ban.

Besides sending your protest letters to government officials you can also send them to newspapers and if you are a good writer you can write up a press release and post it on one of the many free pr websites. This will offer you a good chance to get your cause written about in a newspaper or online publication which would bring many people to your website to see what you have to say and to get a copy of your letter so they can send them out.

These are just suggestions on how to run a successful letter writing protest against the online gambling ban but you are only limited to your own imagination. Remember the more people who hear about your cause the better your chances are of finding like minded people, who will be willing to join your fight to reverse the unjust internet gambling ban.