This has caused a great deal of conflict in my life and a massive amount of debt. About a month ago, I stumbled upon a writing sight called triond. I began to write not realizing what it was doing to me.

It has helped me deal with the stress of being thirty-one and not having a clue about what I want to do.

For a long time I had written poetry regretfully which has been lost in the shuffle. Now I admit I am a writer and this is my destiny. I may not be the best at it but I love it. The most difficult thing for me is my grammar. When I firsts started submitting stuff a lot of it was being rejected. In addition, I was not really writing with my heart. Eventually I would like to be able to quit my job and write fulltime. Granted that will take a while. I would like to start a writing group for novice writers like me who want exposure but are new to the scene. My goal is to bring everyone together to promote a sense of unity and a better way to express one’s self than say violence. If you are extremely upset with someone, why not write about it rather than take it out on someone. Imagine the difference we can make if we truly start to express how we feel in a positive way. One of our basic rights that I feel great pride in is my freedom of speech.

We live in a democracy even thou some people would like to take those rights away from us. I voted for John McCain what right do you have to make threats against me or anyone else because of that right.

Anyways we need to band together as writers who will look after each other and take care of each other no matter what are differences are we have one common goal that is to make the world a better place.

America has gone away from its original foundation. Whatever happened the Christian based country that we have strayed so far from? America needs to change. When our founding fathers decided to break away from England, they wanted a religious based country. As Americans today, we have gone so far away from this, we can't even see it in our daily lives anymore. Our government is corrupt.

Our lives are filled with sin. Our people are blind to this matter. The Constitution and the Declaration of Independence are not just some old documents that we have turned away from. They and God are the building blocks of our country. They shouldn't be ingnored and pushed out of our daily lives. They should be what America stands for and our pride and joy. The government is turning away from all of the foundations that our fore fathers fought and gave their lives for to preserve.

We shouldn't waste their lives by ignoring their great efforts for our freedom. Our freedom is a gift from God and should be used for his glory. It shouldn't be used as an excuse to sin and turn away from reality. Immigrants are coming to our country because they respect us. We should give them something to respect! We are a world power. We can be an even greater power if we re-ally ourselves with God. The great country was built on Christianity and it should stay built on Christianity.

Wake Up America!

The historic nuclear deal which affected the relations between the two democracies badly has been overshadowed by the global economic crisis which will enable the two estranged democracies to work together on a lot of scientific, environmental, energy and other issues. And as the new administration prepares to take the charge of the white house amidst the worst economic crisis faced by the world in the past eighty years, America and India will find themselves increasingly working in tandem to try and evolve a new global order beyond both socialism and capitalism.

Let's hope for the best and pray to bring the two greatest democracies of the world who gained independence from the same colonial power on a friendly platform thus making the world a better place to live in.

If Republicans ran the world:

if you are not the best at what you do you should starve

Capitalism = competition
Socialism = cooperation

The difference between Democrats and Republicans:

Democrats hate the rich, Republicans hate the poor.

Democrats: the rich are paid too much

Republicans: the poor are lazy

D: there should be more opportunities for everybody

R: however you get your money, as long as no laws are broken, it's okay

Socialism: jobs should be made available

S: there should be a guaranteed minimum allowance

S: Socialism = positive view of humanity

Socialism is equality, cooperation.

Socialism is money going back into the system, ie: the inheritance tax in 1950 was

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0612/p17s01-cogn.html

"The increase in the concentration of wealth at the top in the US is "stunning," says Edward Wolff, a New York University expert on wealth. The number of households with wealth of $10 million or more in constant 2004 dollars has risen 5.19 times from 66,500 families in 1983 to 344,800 households in 2004.

Despite rising home prices, 90 percent of the increase in wealth between 1983 and 2004 has gone to the top 20 percent of households. The bottom 40 percent have seen a decline in their net worth, says Professor Wolff.

Since the wealthy have obtained, on average, between one-half and two-thirds of their assets by inheritance, the weakening of the estate tax would tend to expand the gap between rich and poor.

That bothers Wolff. "People with wealth can disproportionately influence the political process" with campaign donations and support for lobbies, he says. "It makes the nation much less democratic.""

The inheritance tax benefits society by expanding the wealth available to better society as a whole. This would include better roads, transportation in general, better schools, cheaper and better energy solutions, and much more. Socialism is not a bad word. Socialism means a better society for everybody and not just a chosen few.

Kevin Rudd, who become leader of the Labor Party just a year or so ago lead the Labor Party to government under the banner of ‘time for a change’ The Howard Government had been doing a fine job.  The PM was strong in foreign policy, he was respected by his peers overseas, and the economy was strong.  His cabinet had introduced the first Home Owners grant scheme that was very successful.  Why then did he lose the 2007 election?  The only thing that I can put it down to is that Australians were seduced by a clever campaign of the need for “change”.  The catch cry in the streets was “Oh look Johnny’s too old, and he’s been there for 11 years, it’s time for a change.” But this catch cry was fueled by clever campaign advertising by the Labor Party camp. 

In America there is another push for ‘change’ and it is being propagated by, surprise! It is the Democratic Party, which has the same philosophical base as the Labor Party in Australia, why, they even removed the U from labour no less.  There is a major difference though between Obama and Rudd.  That is, that while Obama is a good orator and speaks well and sound great, there is not much substance to what he says.  I’m not American so I won’t have a vote but I did have a vote in Australia and I didn’t vote for Rudd.  The same thing is happening here in America as happened in Australia.  Even though voting is compulsory down under there are still many who don’t vote.  How can they fine you for not voting if they don’t know you exist because you aren’t registered to vote?  However, in USA voting is voluntary and many people just don’t bother.  I hate to say this but there are many people who have been encouraged to vote for the first time this time around who have no business voting at all, basically because they don’t know anything about the election process or the candidates. This was the case also in Australia last year.

Those of you who have read my other article called Bottom Up and Top down Economics will have an idea of what I am on about.  Voting for a liberal political party is very attractive to the middle class voter because they can see the immediate benefits of higher taxes to the upper classes.  They do not see the long term effects of these taxes in higher production costs and loss of jobs, and in the long run higher prices and lower real wages. No matter how good the argument of the conservatives may sound, the promise of more cash in the pay packet is extremely attractive.  So how does this relate to America’s Obama and Australia’s Rudd? Obama has had a huge campaign of early voting and he has pushed a campaign of registering for people who’d never voted before.  A poll which was taken outside the polling stations revealed that many of the voters barely knew their presidential candidates and certainly weren’t very clued up on the respective running mates or policies.  The same thing basically happened in Australia with the challenging party running a campaign to register and vote to have a say, meaning implicitly, as long as you vote for us.

Perhaps it is more beneficial to learn about how the system works and what values are at stake in the election process before voting.  Maybe the electoral commission could institute a rudimentary test to qualify to vote.  On this test they could ask who the candidates are, which party they represent and which policies they champion.  Perhaps then the person who is elected to lead a country will be deserving of the confidence of their electorate. As a teacher I know that the citizenry are supposed to learn about politics at school in a subject called Social Education or Geography and Society in Australia and social Studies in America. Something is not happening in our schools and many students graduate from high school without a clue about politics or how their country functions politically and socially, nor do they care.  This is evident for Australia as well as for America.  The old adage that a nation gets the leadership that it deserves seems to be well said, because if we go to the polls in ignorance then we waste the gift that Democracy is supposed to give us.

1. Replace the Electoral College with direct election of the president and vice-president.
2. Set up a nonpartisan institution in each state to draw up Congressional districts and to redraw them every ten years based on the census, population distribution and geography.
3. Set up a nonpartisan Presidential Debate Commission which will set the ground rules for all debates and include every candidate that is on the ballot in all 50 states.
4. Outlaw the use of commercial advertising spots for political purposes. These lead inevitably to the distortion of the truth and the demeaning of the political process.
5. Limit campaign and other political contributions to donations from individuals. Totally outlaw contributions to campaigns for office (and for or against propositions and ballot measures) from corporations, unions, committees, nonprofit organizations and other groups.
6. Place a cap on the amount of money any individual can donate to a candidate, party or political cause in a year. This would be set by law and could be changed in the future if required by inflation. I suggest starting at $100.  This would assure that wealthy people have no more influence on their representatives or on ballot measures than other individuals.
7. Reduce the tremendous costs of campaigns by providing for free and equal air time on television and radio for all candidates for office, allowing for various formats including interview programs, speeches, town hall meetings, documentaries and debates. Simultaneous prime-time broadcasts on commercial and public stations would be scheduled for this purpose. Public television and radio stations across the country would be provided with the responsibility and means to produce these programs. It is outrageous that commercial stations, which are licensed to use the public airwaves, charge candidates for public office to use the public’s own airwaves.
8. Limit these campaign radio and television programs to broadcast within eight weeks prior to the election, thereby encouraging shortened campaign periods. This would be greatly appreciated by the candidates themselves as well as by the public. And candidates already holding public office will be able to do the work they were elected to do rather than campaigning all year long.
9. Give each U.S. Senator one vote for every million or less legal residents of his or her state. That way states with higher populations would have more votes in the Senate, just as they do in the House of Representatives, while maintaining the traditional two senators per state and the benefits of a bicameral legislative system.
10. Abolish the president’s dictatorial right to veto legislation passed by Congress. The Supreme Court would continue to have the authority to override a law it deemed to be unconstitutional.
11. Require that each piece of legislation considered and acted on by Congress address a single issue. This would eliminate the “earmarks” as well as measures sneaking through that are hidden in large omnibus bills. 
12. Outlaw the use of paid signature gatherers to qualify candidates, political parties, propositions or measures for the ballot. This would greatly reduce the number of such measures to those which are sincerely desired by significant numbers of individuals, as well as eliminating the influence of corporations and interest groups in promoting such propositions.

Constitutional amendments with these provisions seem to me to be the best way of assuring Abraham Lincoln’s hope for the United States: “that government of the people, by the people and for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

Observations:

• Independents do not write or comment
• Republicans are adamant in their position
• Democrats are adamant in their position
• Comments boarder on name calling
• Comments are sometimes deleted
• The uninvolved are on everyone s - - -  list
• Speak out at your peril (what happened to free speech?)
• It has become clear to both sides that the other 50% of the country are idiots (50 + 50 = 100  Hummmm?).
• Any question is met as a challenge.
• Obama is too black
• McCain is too white
• Obama is too young
• McCain is too old
• Biden says too much
• Palin is just a Hockey Mom
• Obama will spend your money
• McCain will spend someone else’s money
• The world will end if Obama is elected
• The world will end if McCain is elected

Conclusions:

• The Independents will decide this election
• Debate falls on deaf ears
• Fifty five to sixty is the only acceptable age for the president
• The candidates should have been Mexican
• Vice presidents should be seen and not heard and never wear a dress
• Someone will spend our money
• The world will, in fact, end but this is not it

 

Recommendation:

Vote; Accept the result (this is a democracy is it not): And get on with

your life. The kids will still need braces next Wednesday no mater who wins! 

I should be ashamed of myself for blaming the outsiders for creating troubles in my motherland. Yes, I mean when I say that because some leaders of India have even changed the meaning of an outsider. Tell me, who is an outsider? India is a single nation comprised of twenty eight states which combine their diversities and make India the richest culture of the world. But, here the scene seems to be completely different. A person of one state becomes an outsider in the other state. Oh Indians, where have you buried the feeling of unity in diversity? Can't you see our mother weeping and deeply hurt by such divisions? How can I blame anyone else for dividing my nation if dividers are the citizens themselves? They should be ashamed who follow such tactics to raise their political stature and divide the people in order to rule over them. If a person is a leader in true sense, his aim should be to fight for the rights of the whole nation and not only a particular state.

And the biggest question arises when people of such interests are supported by others and even order to torture others to prove their spotless stature. With proud, I call my motherland the biggest democracy of the world but now a day the light of democracy seems to be taking the shape of dictatorship. Who is to be blamed? Yes, I knew that everyone's fingers would point towards the leaders. Why is this blame game, my friends? If a democracy is by the people, of the people and for the people then why such situations even arise. Where we were when such leaders were selected who try to cut into pieces their own motherland and try to raise the feeling of hatred between the people of the same nation. Today, you are fighting on the roads, burning vehicles and killing others for a person who won't even come for your cremation if you die. If you yourself are the supporters then who else can be blamed for your miserable condition.

Ministers in parliament purchase votes and millions of rupees fly in the air whereas people still beg for a single penny on the roads to fill their bellies. We all hear about these issues but before coming to the conclusion a bomb blast occurs and the media diverts our attention towards that and again before reaching to any judgments about the terrorists , our mind is forced to be engrossed with the breaking news of the warning given by a leader to a star for expressing her emotions. So, where is our role? Yes, good question. And I do understand this as I am also a sufferer of the same net. But if we think wisely, our role is actually spread everywhere but the above example is given to make us understand how we should be capable to give right importance to the right subject and stick to it until the right conclusion is drawn out. The solution is to stand up and raise our voice and if not capable to stand then at least support those who fight for the right cause. Make others aware of the realities and use your most important instrument VOTE to throw out such dictators and help in making your nation a true democracy for which Bapu and Bhagat Singh sacrificed their lives and Chacha Nehru dreamed of day and night.

This means that the Westminister system is not as democratic as it appears to be as the MPs cannot always do what they strongly believe in and due to this, individuals may not be interested in being under such high survaillance by their own party. Not to mention, the only significant difference that can be made by an MP would be as long as they are in the Government. The rest of the MPs who are not in the Government are categorised under the Opposition whereby they are most likely unable to successfully reject a referendum/bill proposed by the Government as the Government has the working majority. This could lead to apathy as an MP may not be able to influence policies or legitimation.

Civic engangement in political participation is becoming an issue in the United Kingdom. The figures of those who did not vote in general elections has increased by 18% since 1964. The main age group that was not active in forms of political participation was 18-24 year olds. This shows that political participation of respondents below the age of 25 is of a negative correlation which determines that the younger population in Britain have a very low interest in political issues. The ambigious concept of civil engangement can be refered to attitudinal or behavioural orientations to politics. These are important in understanding the likely prospects of political participation as the relationship between the individual and their power of influence is vital in this case. More fundamentally, the social relationship and trust between MPs and members of the public is becoming slim as it has been said that the society we live in now has become more cynical due to the influence and the reliability of the media. The ethnic population is also wary of the trust situation between individuals and their MPs due to the difference in moral values.

Parliament does not have many ethnic MPs whereby the ethnic population feel that they cannot relate politically with their MPs over behaviour and understanding of certain cultural expectations, or needs, along with difference in religion. On top of that, many individuals do not feel that they can personally influence political decisions by voting as direct democracy hardly takes place in the United Kingdom (e.g. referendums), and the inconvenience to communicate with their MP is of no intention to many as it is also in their state of mind that an MP is a busy person and would probably have no time to address a matter brought up by a single member of the public. Party dealignment has become a big issue in politics as well. Both the right wing and the left wing are trying to become more centralised as the living conditions today have changed dramatically in comparison to the 19th century. By being more centralised, parties will be able to deal with more issues that concern majority of the society thereby hopefully gaining publicity and supporters.

This therefore does not differentiate parties by drastic measures as they used to before, and on the surface, parties appear to be focusing on the same issues and coming up with more or less similar policies. Due to this, members of the public may be turned off to vote as parties are no longer clearly distinguished. It is also a point that individuals have become more independent and are less likely to participate in collective activities as they are more concern with local issues that will directly affect them. Last but not least, within the social structure, the consequence that certain groups are unlikely to benefit from the types of social connections, or to participate in the types of organised civil associations will interfere with facilitating political participation.

In conclusion, citizen engangement and party participation in politics has become a minority pursuit in Britain and this matter has become politically aware by Parliament. Parliament is now trying to overcome this issue by promoting political participation through the media, internet, referendums and many other sources.