Note to my editor: They’re sure to read it now…

I have noticed in a few comments scattered here and there a distaste for certain “language” in the MS community – a hesitation, if you will, to accept the common vernacular for the causes and effects of this thing we live with. I’m writing today not to apologize for the use of these words, but rather to explore why it may be that we are sensitive to them or sensitized by them.

I can understand why words like cripple or crippled would cut to the core of someone living with MS. I also see, however, that some of us refer to those “mountain climbing” with MS as the “Super Crips.” I’ll admit I laughed kind of hard at that comment when it came through.

Some have even balked at living with the moniker, “disabled.” Not sure if that is a defense technique that people employ or just taking political correctness to the far edge. My editor even mentioned to me that some of you don’t particularly like your MS deemed a “disease” but rather call it a “condition.”

I’m sorry if it ruffles a few feathers, but I could really give a damn about that part of the conversation. On most days I’m a pragmatist, and I guess I don’t have time to think about it too much.

Now I know what you’re thinking…I’m the one who laid down the rule about being respectful. I would not use the most offensive of the debilitated lexicon, but I’m not going to tiptoe around on eggshells to make sure we offend no one, either. I live with MS too!

Someone even approached me over the weekend and said that she didn’t like the term, “live with MS.” It made her, “Feel like that’s all I do, live with this thing.” I assuredly never meant that phrase to mean anything but “getting on with a life with MS in it.”

Goes to show that no matter what your intention, someone is going to have another use for the semantics to make them feel better. I’m okay with that. Just don’t expect it from me.

How do you feel about the language of multiple sclerosis? What about the language around MS? I remember a comment where someone told of their MS and got the reaction, “Oh, how terrible!” Or the girl told by her mother that she was just being, “lazy.” Let’s head into the weekend with a thought or two from you about MS verbiage.

Wishing you and your family the best of health.

Multi-culturalism is a body that studies on all aspects of human behavior through focusing on cultural differences among the people from various parts of the world. Basically, multi-culturalism investigates on what is perceived as acceptable and un-acceptable behavioral characteristics among the people. Considering the various racial discriminations among nations experienced today, there have been wide disparities in behavioral terms among nations. Politics among nations have been different in which such differences has resulted into profiling of certain ethnic groups by various countries; exposing racism openly. In this case, countries need to uphold multiculturalism which would ultimately solve their various conflicts; as common behaviors would be established (Lugones, 2001).

Considering various historical phenomena and trend of events, racism started very long-time ago, where people and governments perceived certain ethnic groups as inferior, making them to profile them in a way. On top of considering on normal lives at social institutions and homes among other, multi-cultural psychology also focuses on what is usually considered as being ‘normal’ and ‘abnormal’. It is important to note that, each sub-group in the society has its specific behaviors and norms; in which in broad terms, various behaviors of these sub-groups are studied generally under multi-cultural psychology (Hall, 2010).

Significance of the Research

Following the currently experienced global interactions among nations and governments, the need to form a universal system of interactionism has been necessitated. Considering different historical events which resulted into deaths of various individuals as a result of racisms, it has come a very critical moment when governments should come together to form universal laws and policies. Following the apparent globalization which has enhanced intercalation of cultures and societal norms, it has become very important to social systems to encompass cultural integration; which would further foster peace and coherence among nations (Segall et al., 1999).

As revealed by Koertge (2000), various forms of racisms experienced in the past like UK and US as a result of behavioral alienations or perception of certain races as inferior has been found to impact a lot on international peace. Prevalently, certain conflicts among nations and states have been far much rooted in the racism, where certain races which have been previously mistreated by others have been found to react towards revenge for mistreatments they have had been receiving. In this respect therefore, the involvement of their revenge mission springs in the earlier racial profiling by other races. On this basis therefore, there arises the need for governments and nations to come together and resolve their initial conflicts through a universal system of cultural values and norms. By so doing, international peace would be upheld, as multiculturalism would act to alleviate racisms and make people more united.

Literature review

Considering the various political races among various nations in various times of history, the act of racial discrimination among nations has been found to impact a lot among various political aetiologies among nations. More often, many of political racisms were experienced through forced labors and labor captives.  More specifically, historic events in various countries have been found to reveal a lot of racism among the nations. This was a s a result of perceptions of certain races as inferior and others as superior (Koertge, 2000).

Basically, the Whites in various historical events have been found to be having a certain degree of superiority while the Blacks being inferior. More importantly, such Whites could not imagine having equal rights to the Blacks, resulting into their profiling of Blacks in various ways. It is important to note that, liberalism and functionalism was not regarded in cases where Whites and Blacks shared certain environment. More specifically, the whites accorded themselves with higher rank than the blacks resulting into them discriminating them in various ways. On this basis, the backlash of whites against Blacks in various parts of the world was more promoted by various race-related policies which resulted into unfair treatment of the Whites b Blacks (Guttmann, 1999).

Considering various colonization policies in various countries, the Blacks were terribly treated by the Whites. More advanced racisms including apartheid were observed in various colonial eras, in which the main races mistreated were the Blacks. For instance, the apartheid in South African can be described as one of the works kind of racisms in the world which resulted into dying of many people. More so, the Greenwich movement in Europe resulted into political assassination of various potential Blacks who seemed to threaten the White Governance. In this case structural organization of the governments and various public organizations have been found to greatly move along racial basis (Segall et al., 1999).

Worse enough, various political parties have been found to greatly involve them selves in practicing racism, within the country. For instance, the Democrats have been found to distance themselves from the Republicans, since there have been interferences of the outcome equality. Considering the fact that, the democrats have been associating themselves with all the races within US, there have risen a certain form of conflict between the Republicans and Democrats in the past few years; whose main source of alienation was found to be entirely political. In this regard, multiculturalism which is the ultimate challenge facing public organizations and governments ought to be considered (Bahdi, 2010).

More so, there have been frequent conflicts between Muslims and Native Americans, resulting from racial basis. Considering the currently eminent terrorism attacks on US airports by the Muslim groups like the Taliban and the Al Qaeda, it has necessitated the strategizing on how to curb terrorism by first aiming on the Muslims. On this consideration, the US first realized the urge to deal with Muslims first, in order to cub the act of terrorism as alleged to be mainly carried out by Muslims. Various arguments have been put forward on whether the profiling of Muslims in US airports is justified or not. Generally, each side seems to have the same weight though when perceived on various dimensions, the issue still remains an eminent one (Faye 2010).

As it has been revealed, very few Muslims out the Millions of World wide Muslims have been associated with terrorism. As Faye (2010) argues, not all Muslims have been associated with terrorism as there are thousands of Muslims have never thought of engaging themselves in terrorism acts. More specifically, the focus on Muslims alone should not be the only solution towards achievement of sustainable security in using United States’ planes. Further, all passengers (not Muslims alone) who travel in or out of United States should be screened thoroughly against any weapon possession. More specifically, all passengers by US planes should be critically interviewed and inspected regardless of being a Muslim or not. By so doing, there would be much security among the US planes and the respective airports (Sasson, 2002).

As a result of high vulnerability of US airports to terrorism, public calls have been made to eliminate Muslims from the US territory by restricting their movement in or out of the country. This profiling of Muslims in US airports has been perceived as mere racial discrimination of the Muslims by the Whites. Basically, the act of having, Muslims alone be profiled in US airports arouses the intervention of United Nations, since the US has been observed to sideline all Muslims, while only very few Muslims ere involved in terrorism. This strategy of Americans sidelining Muslims has been analyzed to arouse a lot of conflict among the nations (Lugones, 2001).

Public opinion polling has evolved through time and has adopted different methods from data collections to the presentation of results. They have evolved so fast to level that the politicians are threatened that the traditional rule of judgment and decision making have been shifted from the government and is at the discretion of pollsters and public.  Results from the pollsters are keenly followed by the members of the public especially the presidential opinion polls that have a remarkable impact on the elections besides gauging the public opinion.  In no surprise that pollster opinion polls have had a significant impact on politics in Washington. In these question and answer essay, an analysis is presented from different pollster polls and how they portray the public view of different issues.

Why is a random representative sample (called a probability sample) important for getting accurate poll results?

A probability sampling method utilizes random selection which means all members in the population have an equal enhance of being selected.

 This reduces the researcher bias in sampling.  In carrying out a probability sampling, the researchers are therefore in position to make inference on the whole population because each member has an equal probability of being chosen. Random selection eliminates the probability of disproportionate number of respondents from a given group. The sampling variance in this case is more or less like that of the whole population which enhances the accuracy of the outcomes.  This sample gives the opportunity for an impersonal choice to take place rather than the researcher.

The accuracy the sample is further enhanced by its size.

 A high sample size enhances the accuracy of the sample statistic which will be as good as the parameter.  The accuracy of a random representative sample is not greatly influenced by the population size (William, 2006)
PART 2
Q1. Does the question posed by the pollster meet the standards for a good question? Why or why not?

The question posed by the pollster meets the standard of good question because they are objective rather than subjective.  They don’t have the subjective forms like ‘you’ but are stated in the objective forms of for instance, ‘should’.  There this eliminates the researcher bias in influencing the outcome of the questions (Gallup, 2007) (Holt, 2009)

Q2. What are the facts collected and presented by the poll?

The facts collected and presented by the poll range from the country’s direction, the anticipated bill to bail out the economy with its expected impact includes the Federal government support for ailing homeowners, economy’s condition, public perception of the government and political parties including Bush’s approval rating and trust in the government (Holt, 2009)

Q3. Which response was given by the largest number of the respondents to the poll?

Nine in every ten American believe that the country is headed in the wrong direction. A whooping 93% believe that the congress is on the wrong path while a paltry 7% think the Congress is on the right track. On the economy, 89% of US citizens believe that the country is headed in the wrong direction.  On the Bailout bill, only 28% approve against 53% who disapprove with 34 % believing the bailout will change the economy and 38% believing it will not (Holt, 2009)

Q4. “There are few people who never trust the government in Washington.” According to the poll’s results, is this a valid generalization? Explain your answer

Yes, it’s a valid generalization going by the figure that only 9% don’t trust the government in Washington against 1%, 16% and 74% who trust the government Always, Most of the time and Some of the time respectively. The reason being that most of the house occupants especially republicans are pre-occupied with their own agenda apart from that of enhancing the lives of Americans. An example is the diversion of national resources to wars in the Middles East other than revamping the economy (Holt, 2009)  

PART 3
Q1. How many sampled adults say they would vote for a woman for president?

In the CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll of September 8-11, 2005, 86% of the sampled adults said they would vote for a woman president.  The number of respondents was 86% of 533= 458.38 which is approximately 459 respondents (Polling Report, 2009)

Q2. How many respondents think vote-counting needs to be made more accurate?

According to the CBS News Poll of December 9-10, 2000, the numbers of respondents who think vote counting needs to be made more accurate were 80% of 1,114= 891.2 i.e approximately 891 respondents (Polling Report, 2009)

Q3.What percentage of respondents either strongly or moderately favor new federal laws limiting the amount of money that an individual or group can contribute to national political parties?

According to the CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll of March 9th-11th , 2001, the number of respondents that either strongly or moderately favor new federal laws are 76%(=51%+25%) of 1, 015 were 771 respondents (Polling Report, 2009)

PART 4

The public opinion was measured by conducting a random survey of 1, 112 adults in the whole nation among them 281, 416 and 415 were Republicans, Democrats and Independents respectively.  The poll was carried out by CBS News/ New York Times poll held between Januarys 11thand 15th 2009. The results of the poll showed that 22% of Americans approved the overall performance of George W. Bush with a whopping 73% disapproving his presidency.  Dialing of phone lines was done from RDD samples which included the cell numbers as well the land lines.  The findings were based on the interviews carried out by way of telephone where 1,112 adults either 18 years or older were quizzed. The poll had a 95% confidence level with a margin error (sampling error) of + 3%but the error among the subgroups was much higher (CBS News/New York Times Poll, 2009)

The respondents were asked whether they approve or disapprove George Bush’s in the he handled his presidential job. Below are the historical results from January 2008 to January 2009 based on the poll conducted by Gallup Poll between these times (Saad, 2009)

Bush went home with a net approval rating of -27 percentage points only managing to beat Richard Nixon who had -42 in the poll conducted by Gallup in August 1974 shortly before he resigned because of the Watergate scandal. Bush received a bump of 9% between the Election Day and President Obama inauguration from the 25% recorded in November last year.  Bush has had a distinction of having received the highest approval rating of 88% after the success of the initial Gulf War and at the same time he goes down in history as the president with the highest disapproval rating of 13%.

In our world today, students are more and more interested in political issues, thus, it’s not uncommon to find some of youths avtively participate in politics. Many students even have expressed loyalty to or enrol themselves in their interested political parties. So how these participations of students can effect the political future and other social issues in the short term and long term perspectives.

A primary distinction must be made here between politics as active participation in political movements and the study of political science. The latter is an academic subject and involves the study of the administrative systems of different countries, the formation of political parties, different judiciary systems, etc. Political science, therefore, is a theoretical study of political systems. Politics means the formation of political parties and their active participation in the administration of a country.

This involves organizing political meetings, canvassing for elections and the manipulation of people for political gains.

The participation of students in politics has certain drawbacks. The main occupation of students should be the pursuit of their respective courses of study. All their time and energy should be used in this activity. It is only in this way that they can secure their own individual futures and thereby safeguard the future of the nation. Participation in politics means a huge waste of this precious time and energy.

Although politics may be beneficial in some ways students would be well-advised to stay well away from politics. Their main business is to concern themselves with studies.

By doing so they can do the most good for themselves with studies. By doing so they can do the most good for themselves as well as for the nation.

Corporate selection and support of political leadership means the ability to independently manage society and its needs becomes flawed, because political purpose is dramatically narrowed by corporate dictate. If the quality of political leadership is in any way compromised by sponsorship commitments, then society treads a dangerous path and so does the corporate sector.

This can be demonstrated by the American political attitude of denial about global warming, announced by George W Bush when first elected. This stance flew in the face of perceived wisdom by the international scientific community, and international acknowledgment of the problem through the Kyoto Protocol, currently supported by 169 countries.

There has been a sea change in this negative stance in the ensuing years but during this period, when power has flown in the face of public and personal reason, credibility in the character and corporately influenced political stance of President Bush has collapsed.

Political leaders, by their very nature are robust individuals with a sense of direction and purpose, of which our own Winston Churchill was a perfect example in his role as “The British Bulldog”.
Whilst he was by no means naive in the political process, I find it difficult to accept that he might compromise his beliefs or endanger his country, to accommodate the overly stringent needs of those who helped him into office.

What is of greater significance to me however is that this great man demonstrated a love of his country and its people.

He was proud of them and it showed in his speeches and actions. I struggle to find any politician today who exudes these fundamental sentiments, other than as platitudes.

A love of our fellow man (and woman) is an essential requirement for meaningful entry into politics I would suggest, and its current lack in many senior politicians around the world must contribute to a growing public cynicism.

We have an inbuilt sense of when care is at work and when it is not, and we automatically react accordingly with a level of trust commensurate with the amount of care exuded.

And here you have universal balance at work. Anyone entering politics with a love of their fellow inhabitants cannot be influenced by interest groups of whatever persuasion, to compromise that care. Whilst, as in the case of George W Bush there is a honeymoon period before reaction occurs, the end result is a balancing of power.

History shows that corporate interests have operated throughout time with wars being declared in the interests of trade. However we can no longer afford the luxury of allowing natural balance to play its part in remedying matters. The planet has never before been in such poor shape ecologically, primarily through our collective trading activities, and new ground rules are necessary.

To do this we have to challenge and change our beliefs. Traditional values that got us into our present precarious position are, by their very nature incapable of getting us out of it.

At the nub of this need to change lies a paradox. It is not in the long term interests for anyone to continue contributing to the problems of global warming and yet how can multinational corporations hold back with such increasingly intense levels of competition in the new global marketplace and economy. It’s a “Catch 22″ situation of elephantine proportions and desperately needs unbiased attention applied before we find ourselves living, or trying to live, on a global Jacuzzi!

Maybe it’s time to call a truce in the global competition for profits and growth whilst we repair the damage we have already done, and see where we go from there. Naïve? – I don’t think so. The might and power of even the biggest multinational corporation pales into insignificance when lined up against the power of nature, as evidenced by the Indonesian Tsunami and Hurricane Katrina – and these disasters are getting worse not better!

If the medium of politics is the means by which we collectively resolve the problem then it has to get its own house in order first, by better regulating itself and the corporate sector – which serious thinking businessmen know is running out of control.

The electorate also have their part to play which, along with leadership that is able to show a caring commitment in recognising the common good, can dramatically improve our ability to carry the day. Certainly we need mature leadership now as we have never needed it before – and leadership that is able to recognise the need to review and change outdated beliefs for our future survival.

Copyright 2008 – John Coombes

Politics and rare coins might not seem to go together, but they are linked throughout the history of the United States. From the first coins of the 1650s to the change you carry in your pocket today, political influence has been a significant part of United States coinage.

The first coins struck in what is now the United States were minted in 1652, more than a century before the “United States” existed. The Massachusetts Bay Colony struck silver coins from 1652 through about 1682, yet all but one of the denominations always carried the date 1652 regardless of the actual year of issue. Why? Politics. Since the coins were minted openly, there was real intent to fool the British Crown into believing that all of coinage in circulation was actually minted in 1652, when there was no monarchy. Instead, it was probably a courtesy. The colonists were saying: “We’re going to continue to mint our own coins while not appearing to flagrantly ignore your edicts.”

In 1665, after receiving a book of laws from the colonists, the King’s Commissioners requested that a number of laws be changed or repealed.

Among them was the following: “. . .title money, the law about a mint house, etc., be repealed, for coining is a royal prerogative, for the usurping of which yet act of indemnity is only a salvo.”

Salvo? More like a salvation, as the coins were desperately needed in the colonies. It was time when wampum, musket bullets, and counterfeit foreign coins were used as money alongside the few legitimate coins that were available. The colonists ignored the request of the Crown, evidently without penalty.

The Civil War of 1861-65 presented tremendous problems for circulating coinage.

The silver half dime was one of the many denominations that wasn’t circulating, and the five-cent fractional currency was considered to be a poor substitute. A solution to the problem was a coin of a new metal, and coins struck in nickel were introduced.

Nickel is impractical for coin production, as its hardness is conducive to laminations, die breaks, poor strikes, and many other problems. When James Pollock, director of the Mint in 1865, proposed a new nickel alloy for coinage, he was under the influence of political pressure. His personal preference was for coins made of French bronze, but nickel magnate Joseph Wharton had many friends in Congress, and the new nickel alloy won out. Nickel had been used in the copper-nickel cents of 1856-64, but the demand or nickel became unprecedented with the introduction of the three cent nickel (1865) and the five cent nickel (1866).

Nickel coins are still struck today, of course, and many of the problems are just as prevalent. Try putting together a set of problem-free Jefferson nickels, let alone such series as Buffalo nickels or Shield nickels.

The political clout of the followers of the late Anthony Comstock led to a significant change in our coinage in 1917. Hermon MacNeil’s magnificent Standing Liberty quarter design, first introduced in 1916, was beautiful and popular. It was also scandalous, at least to the highly vocal Society for the Suppression of Vice. Treasury Secretary William McAdoo was bombarded with complaints about Miss Liberty’s partial nudity, and in mid-1917 the design was modified to cover the lady. It is often argued that there were other reasons for the change, such as 1) the type one coins wouldn’t stack, or 2) the chain mail placed on Miss Liberty was a symbol of war, or 3) it was done so the coin would strike up better. Argument #3 is totally invalid, as the type one Standing Liberty quarter is consistently far superior in strike to the type two. The other two arguments have a degree of credibility based on surviving documents, but the most important reason for the change was almost assuredly a case of “comstockery” as the prudery was labeled by prominent writers of the era.

While the incidents of coins mixing with politics mentioned above are famous ones, perhaps no other case can quite compare to the Morgan dollar. The Mint Act of 1873 abolished this denomination, along with the other issues such as the three-cent silver and the half dime. By 1878 the silver dollar was back as the result of extreme political pressure from the silver interests, such as the owners of the gigantic Comstock Lode, a monumental silver mine in Nevada. Overriding a presidential veto, the Bland-Allison Act of February 28, 1878 provided that the government would purchase million to million in domestic silver for coinage into silver dollars. It took less than two weeks for the new design to be approved, the dies made, and the first proofs struck.

The Sherman Silver Purchase Act set the amount of silver to be purchased monthly at an exact figure-187 tons per month. When the act was repealed in 1893, the mine owners were rich and the Treasury vaults were overflowing with unneeded silver dollars. It wasn’t until 1898 that legislation provided for the disposal of the remaining silver through continued silver dollar mintage. In 1904, the silver finally ran out in 1893, the mine owners were rich and the Treasury vaults were overflowing with unneeded silver dollars. It wasn’t until 1898 that legislation provided for the disposal of the remaining silver through continued silver dollar mintage. In 1904, the silver finally ran out, and Morgan dollar production ended for 17 years.

The story of the Morgan dollar was nearly finished-but not quite. In 1918 the Pittman Act was instituted, which required the melting of up to 350,000,000 silver dollars. A little over a quarter of a billion-that’s right, billion-were actually melted, but political pressure caused another weird scenario. The silver lobby persuaded Congress to include a clause that domestic silver be purchased to replace the silver dollars lost in the melting. What was this silver used for? Starting in 1921, it was used to mint silver dollars!

Coins and politics. Politics and coins. After nearly 350 years, they are still inextricably entwined, an integral part of our past and an inevitable part of our future.

The three-cent nickel: the alloy won out over silver

1) In reference to why political parties have lost the confidence of the public: “Their machinery of intrigue, their shuffling evasions, the dodges. the chicanery, and the deception of their leaders have excited universal disgust, and have created a general readiness in the public mind for any new organization that shall promise to shun their vices.”

2) Also in reference to why political parties have lost the confidence of the public: people “saw parties without any…difference contending for power, for the sake of power. They saw politics made a profession, and public plunder an employment. They beheld our public works the plaything of a rotten dynasty, enriching gamblers, and purchasing power at our expense.”

3) “It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly native American criminal class except for Congress.”

4) “The government, which was designed for the people, has got into the hands of the bosses and their employees, the special interests. An invisible empire has been set up above the forms of democracy.”

5)”Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedies.”

6) “An election cannot give the country a firm sense of direction if it has two or more national parties which merely have different names but are as alike in their principles and aims as two peas in a pod.”

Great quotes, all of them. Unfortunately, it seems as if we are living everyone one of them today. The interesting thing is that these quotes are quite historical, not contemporary:

1) According to the Real Politics website, this quote was from the book, “The Origins of the Republican Party” by William E. Gienapp and the quote is dated from 1855. The New York Times called it “dodges”, today we call it “spin doctoring.” The Times called it “universal disgust,” we call it having Congressional approval ratings around only 20%. The Times called it “chicanery”, we call it a variety of names including earmarks and outright corruption. It is remarkable how closely a quote from 155 years ago captures the nightmare we are living through today with our political class.

2) This quote is also from the Gienapp, also from 1855, and it appeared in the New York Evening Post. This also captures our current state of political affairs. We also see most of our politicians vying only for power, not for the opportunity to make the country better. With their high salaries, great benefits, many, many perks, our current day politicians fit the Post’s description that politicians “saw politics made a profession, and public plunder an employment.” Without term limits, our politicians see being elected not as a service to the nation but as a life time job. And their gerrymandering Congressional districts, rigging campaign finance laws, and handing out taxpayer dollars as earmarks allows them to ensure perpetual re-election, regardless of the quality of their work.

3) This third quote is from Mark Twain and is obviously well over a hundred years old. However, even back then he realized that the power allocated to politicians many times results in outright criminal behavior. Congressmen Traficant, Jefferson, Cunningham and other Congressional politicians have served time due to their corrupt and unlawful behavior while in office. How many former Illinois governors have either served prison time, are currently serving time, or are aggressively trying not to serve prison time? Charles Rangel and Maxine Walters, two current members of Congress, are likely to face a House Of Representatives trial within the next few months on ethics and corruption charges. The House ethics office has investigated or is currently investigating potential crimes by other members of Congress. The more you list out what has happened to our contemporary politicians, you marvel at how right Mark Twain may have been way back when.

4) This quote is from Woodrow Wiilson who said it early in the last century. At that time, he realized the influence that non-voting entities can and do have on government functions and corruption. Wilson called them “special interests,” we call them lobbyists.

5) My source attributed this quote to Groucho Marx and is likely more than fifty years old also. Back then, even comedians like Groucho recognized that politicians were not any good at identifying the root causes of problems, if a problem even existed, and then putting together a coherent, efficient and cost effective plan to solve that problem. Our politicians are no different:

Nixon declared War On Drugs in the 1960s and we are no closer today to having a coherent national drug strategy and policy than the day he declared war.
Carter muddled through the oil crises in the 1970s and we are no closer to having a coherent, national energy strategy and policy than we were when we waited in long lines at gas stations.
Reagan identified the problems with public education with a Presidential Commission in 1983 and 27 years later, U.S. public schools badly trail many, many other nations in the education of their children.
Clinton presided through numerous terrorist attacks including the first World Trade Center bombing and the African embassy bombings and never came up with a coherent terror defense policy and strategy, resulting in the death of almost 3,000 Americans on 9-11.
Over the years over 10 million illegal aliens have come across our borders with no politician able to come up with a coherent immigration strategy and plan.
Unfortunately, Groucho was right back then and he would be right today if he saw the incompetence of today’s politicians.

6) This last quote is from Franklin Delano Roosevelt and is at least 65 years old. When you really come down to it, are the Republican politicians much different from the Democrats? Sure they pick their friends and identify their enemies, e.g. Republicans are generally pro-life and pro-guns while Democrats are generally pro-choice and anti-guns. But when you look at their records, neither party has accomplished much of anything positive over the past fifty years. Just look at what we listed above under Groucho’s quote: no solutions to the drug, immigration, terrorist, public school and energy problems. The only reason they pick their friends is to get money to finance their constant re-election, not to solve any meaningful problems.

While Obama the candidate promised change you can believe in, Obama the President is hardly any different than Bush. Obama drew down U.S. forces in Iraq but it was on the timetable Bush established. Bush set up the terrorist prison in Guantanamo and so far, Obama has kept it open. Our border still leaks illegal immigrants and we still have no new policy or plan for energy or public schooling. Bush enacted the Patriot Act and Obama basically rubber stamped its renewal. Gay rights are no further along under Obama than under Bush and the amount of earmarks in our national budget is as high under Obama as under Bush. The only significant difference between Bush and Obama is that the Obama administration has run up spending deficits orders of magnitude higher than Bush.

This is why the whole area of U.S. politics can get so depressing. The incompetence and corruption we face today appears to have been going on for a long, long time. The only difference may be is that government is so much larger, wasteful, and intrusive then it was in 1855 or when Twain, Roosevelt, Marx, and Wilson spoke their quotes above. That is why we need to find a way to start shrinking the size of government immediately in order to start cutting back on the corruption and waste that apparently is inherent in the genes of all politicians:

Step 1 – start the government shrinkage process by reducing all government functions and budgets by 10% a year for the next five years.

Step 2 – aggressively step up fraud and corruption activities in all government areas, hopefully including the investigation of fraud and corruption from our elected officials.

Step 3 – implement term limits for all politicians in order to avoid the problem discussed in the Post quote above, i.e. politics should not be a profession, it should be a temporary calling and service calling.

Steps 4 – set up intelligent problem solving processes to systematically attack and solve the problems that politicians have been unable to solve with their own capabilities and intelligence including drugs, energy, schooling, and immigration.

Hopefully by implementing these steps we will eventually end up with contemporary solutions to our problems and finally put to rest the historically pessimistic view of our political class.

A little quiz on quotes relating to politics in America, try to figure out who said it and when they said it:

1) In reference to why political parties have lost the confidence of the public: “Their machinery of intrigue, their shuffling evasions, the dodges. the chicanery, and the deception of their leaders have excited universal disgust, and have created a general readiness in the public mind for any new organization that shall promise to shun their vices.”

2) Also in reference to why political parties have lost the confidence of the public: people “saw parties without any…difference contending for power, for the sake of power. They saw politics made a profession, and public plunder an employment. They beheld our public works the plaything of a rotten dynasty, enriching gamblers, and purchasing power at our expense.”

3) “It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly native American criminal class except for Congress.”

4) “The government, which was designed for the people, has got into the hands of the bosses and their employees, the special interests.

An invisible empire has been set up above the forms of democracy.”

5)”Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedies.”

6) “An election cannot give the country a firm sense of direction if it has two or more national parties which merely have different names but are as alike in their principles and aims as two peas in a pod.”

Great quotes, all of them. Unfortunately, it seems as if we are living everyone one of them today. The interesting thing is that these quotes are quite historical, not contemporary:

1) According to the Real Politics website, this quote was from the book, “The Origins of the Republican Party” by William E. Gienapp and the quote is dated from 1855. The New York Times called it “dodges”, today we call it “spin doctoring.” The Times called it “universal disgust,” we call it having Congressional approval ratings around only 20%. The Times called it “chicanery”, we call it a variety of names including earmarks and outright corruption. It is remarkable how closely a quote from 155 years ago captures the nightmare we are living through today with our political class.

2) This quote is also from the Gienapp, also from 1855, and it appeared in the New York Evening Post. This also captures our current state of political affairs. We also see most of our politicians vying only for power, not for the opportunity to make the country better. With their high salaries, great benefits, many, many perks, our current day politicians fit the Post’s description that politicians “saw politics made a profession, and public plunder an employment.” Without term limits, our politicians see being elected not as a service to the nation but as a life time job. And their gerrymandering Congressional districts, rigging campaign finance laws, and handing out taxpayer dollars as earmarks allows them to ensure perpetual re-election, regardless of the quality of their work.

3) This third quote is from Mark Twain and is obviously well over a hundred years old. However, even back then he realized that the power allocated to politicians many times results in outright criminal behavior. Congressmen Traficant, Jefferson, Cunningham and other Congressional politicians have served time due to their corrupt and unlawful behavior while in office. How many former Illinois governors have either served prison time, are currently serving time, or are aggressively trying not to serve prison time? Charles Rangel and Maxine Walters, two current members of Congress, are likely to face a House Of Representatives trial within the next few months on ethics and corruption charges. The House ethics office has investigated or is currently investigating potential crimes by other members of Congress. The more you list out what has happened to our contemporary politicians, you marvel at how right Mark Twain may have been way back when.

4) This quote is from Woodrow Wiilson who said it early in the last century. At that time, he realized the influence that non-voting entities can and do have on government functions and corruption. Wilson called them “special  interests,” we call them lobbyists.

5) My source attributed this quote to Groucho Marx and is likely more than fifty years old also. Back then, even comedians like Groucho recognized that politicians were not any good at identifying the root causes of problems, if a problem even existed, and then putting together a coherent, efficient and cost effective plan to solve that problem. Our politicians are no different: 
Nixon declared War On Drugs in the 1960s and we are no closer today to having a coherent national drug strategy and policy than the day he declared war.
Carter muddled through the oil crises in the 1970s and we are no closer to having a coherent, national energy strategy and policy than we were when we waited in long lines at gas stations.
Reagan identified the problems with public education with a Presidential Commission in 1983 and 27 years later, U.S. public schools badly trail many, many other nations in the education of their children.
Clinton presided through numerous terrorist attacks including the first World Trade Center bombing and the African embassy bombings and never came up with a coherent terror defense policy and strategy, resulting in the death of almost 3,000 Americans on 9-11.
Over the years over 10 million illegal aliens have come across our borders with no politician able to come up with a coherent immigration strategy and plan.

Unfortunately, Groucho was right back then and he would be right today if he saw the incompetence of today’s politicians.

6) This last quote is from Franklin Delano Roosevelt and is at least 65 years old. When you really come down to it, are the Republican politicians much different from the Democrats? Sure they pick their friends and identify their enemies, e.g. Republicans are generally pro-life and pro-guns while Democrats are generally pro-choice and anti-guns. But when you look at their records, neither party has accomplished much of anything positive over the past fifty years. Just look at what we listed above under Groucho’s quote: no solutions to the drug, immigration, terrorist, public school and energy problems. The only reason they pick their friends is to get money to finance their constant re-election, not to solve any meaningful problems.

While Obama the candidate promised change you can believe in, Obama the President is hardly any different than Bush. Obama drew down U.S. forces in Iraq but it was on the timetable Bush established. Bush set up the terrorist prison in Guantanamo and so far, Obama has kept it open. Our border still leaks illegal immigrants and we still have no new policy or plan for energy or public schooling. Bush enacted the Patriot Act and Obama basically rubber stamped its renewal. Gay rights are no further along under Obama than under Bush and the amount of earmarks in our national budget is as high under Obama as under Bush. The only significant difference between Bush and Obama is that the Obama administration has run up spending deficits orders of magnitude higher than Bush.

This is why the whole area of U.S. politics can get so depressing. The incompetence and corruption we face today appears to have been going on for a long, long time. The only difference may be is that government is so much larger, wasteful, and intrusive then it was in 1855 or when Twain, Roosevelt, Marx, and Wilson spoke their quotes above. That is why we need to find a way to start shrinking the size of government immediately in order to start cutting back on the corruption and waste that apparently is inherent in the genes of all politicians:

Step 1 - start the government shrinkage process by reducing all government functions and budgets by 10% a year for the next five years.
Step 2 – aggressively step up fraud and corruption activities in all government areas, hopefully including the investigation of fraud and corruption from our elected officials.
Step 3 – implement term limits for all politicians in order to avoid the problem discussed in the Post quote above, i.e. politics should not be a profession, it should be a temporary calling and service calling.
Steps 4 – set up intelligent problem solving processes to systematically attack and solve the problems that politicians have been unable to solve with their own capabilities and intelligence including drugs, energy, schooling, and immigration.

Hopefully by implementing these steps we will eventually end up with contemporary solutions to our problems and finally put to rest the historically pessimistic view of our political class.

Nine days ago, John McCain (as well as the Bush administration), was proclaiming the soundness of the fundamentals of our economy. A few days later, after realizing his political blunder, John McCain, dropped his “sound economy” argument and started blaming the corporate heads of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Obama for the economic mess. Today, John McCain, has suspended his campaign and is headed to Washington to make sure the economy, which was supposedly “sound,” gets fixed.

During this time, Obama, has remained relaxed and consistent in his comments about the dire state of the economy. Obama, just today, took it on himself to contact McCain and suggest that they come to an agreement on this issue and draw up a joint statement of solidarity, which McCain agreed to. Just after his contact with Obama, McCain, suddenly announced that he was suspending his campaign and wanted to cancel the presidential debate on Friday night.

Then, just this afternoon, Bush, invited McCain and Obama, as well as other republican and democratic leaders, to meet with him to discuss the economy and his bailout plan. Why didn’t Bush invite McCain and Obama, as well as the others, to discuss this economic crisis a week or two weeks ago, when the Palin stupor was still in effect and favorable to McCain’s campaign? Could it be that the decline of McCain’s campaign numbers influenced Bush to call them in for discussions?

This whole McCain/Bush scenario sounds too convenient, politically. Senator, Chris Dodd, who has, along with others, been scrutinizing this bailout (for the last five days) told a reporter, just today, that McCain had no contact with anyone working on this issue until this morning.

Dodd, also told this reporter that Obama had been in touch with many officials, including the treasury secretary, Henry Paulson, over the past week, because he was concerned about the state of the economy. In other words, McCain, who now is supposedly concerned enough to suspend his campaign, had no contact with anyone working on this bailout until today, which just happens to be two days before the first presidential debate. Whereas, Obama has been concerned, over the past week or more, and has contacted those involved to learn as much as possible and be involved in the process.

McCain, has many reasons to be concerned about this crisis, but few of them have anything to do with fixing the economy. McCain’s brief bubble of popularity, which was primarily due to Sarah Palin, has all but deflated in the last two weeks. Recent polls show McCain’s political stock dropping, while Obama’s stock is on the rise. The outright lies, inaccessibility and flip-flopping of McCain and Palin have finally been noticed by voters, and this has sent the McCain campaign into survival mode, as well as panic. Thus, we have McCain, who, just nine days ago, thought the economy was sound, supposedly risking his candidacy to go to Washington and “rescue” (not “bailout”) the economy and people of the United States. If this isn’t a “grand stand” maneuver, then I’ve never seen one!

As I’ve said before, I am not an Obama or McCain supporter! I have to admit, however, that Obama, at least for the last month or so, has looked and responded like he could be an effective president, while John McCain has looked and responded like George Bush or even worse (if that’s possible?). We, perhaps, are on the brink of another world-wide depression, and it seems that John McCain, as is common to his party, is only capable of being manipulative and playing political games.

I hope that middle-class Americans can put aside their party loyalties long enough to sense the difference between political posturing/maneuvering and true political action. If not, then it might just take a depression to wake them up!

As a student of history, I have always been fascinated by the sociopolitical events which led to the Fascist take over of Germany, and how they were so successful, as many people seemed to be caught so unaware of the impending doom that loomed upon the horizon; how could they have been so blind, as not to have seen what was coming towards them, and what was happening to their country? I would often wonder, how a people who professed a belief in God, could condone things like sterilization, and euthanasia of the elderly, puzzled me deeply: this could certainly never happen again, and could certainly…never happen here in the United States, or could it? Read the purposed health care bill; in the vicinity of page 425, it speaks to having…end of life counseling, and states that only [certain doctors] will be able to write (end of life orders), well that’s comforting to know…that the decision whether or not your life is worth saving…will rest with only “Special Doctors,” now doesn’t it? Incidentally, this is very similar to the policies that the National Socialist Party had in effect (you know, the Nazi’s) after they came into power in Germany during the 1930′s.

Never happen again…right!

These political dictums seem to sneak-up on people, who are occupied with trying to make ends meet, as they were in the thirties; it, is after all…difficult to impose change upon a prosperous people, only when people lose their jobs, homes, and their stomachs start to growl, do the seek change, as anything they believe, will be an improvement over their current situation. World War II, and the economic boom that it created saved us from destruction then, and the unfortunate removal of many servicemen from the post-war work force was; although regretful to the powers to be, it did promote a rather healthy demand for workers, service men were met at the docks, and train stations, by factory recruiters who would need positions filled once occupied by women during the war.

Now that the war was over, and we had won it, it was time to start the recovery process, but the lessons learned from the destruction of the third Reich, were not completely one sided, many in America felt that the Socialist merely went about things in the wrong way. Some of their ideas, they felt…were not all bad, after all’ shouldn’t everyone have, an equal share [of] the collective wealth? And, as the poor had always outnumbered the rich, were not their votes needed, and…as such, could be easily bought?

The only real concern the liberal movement truly has for the poor, and the minorities, is their ability to stroll into the voting booth with zombie-like tenacity, to reelect those who have been so faithful to them over the years. After all, they were our friends, or were they? Are these the empty pontifications of someone who has no first-hand knowledge? No, as a teenager: I followed my uncle to the polls many times, as it was his job to hand-out the money for the party; the five dollar, or a cheap bottle of whiskey (your choice), thank you for showing up to the polls. If people only knew the contempt they were held in, they would never have been so faithful. Trouble is, at least back then the money was supplied by the rich party faithful; where now they just use diverted tax money! Look for a stimulus check in the mail just before the 2010 mid-term election, and again, just before the 2012 presidential election, as it would be bad timing to send them too soon, as there would be a chance that you might forget their generosity before the polls open. You know for many years this type of behavior went on, and although we were affected by it; we still had a strong enough economy to absorb the shock, and anyway, we had a political system that sort of passed the ball every few years to the other team, and thereby kept the country, and economy, somewhat stabilized.

You may have found diverse economic philosophies on opposite sides of the isle, but the democrats would have been politically crucified just a few years ago, if for example: they would have embraced several radical factions; which today represent major planks in their platforms. For a politician to state that, “The United States [is] not a Christian Nation,” in 1970, would have been their political finish! Or, if they wanted to coddle, or grant large gifts, to individuals who were in the United States illegally, they would have been politically stoned! These people have now reached a political impasse: they can only make a political army, by using the soldiers (as it were) from many nations, ask the ancient Romans; this does not work for long. The vast majority of politicians in 1965, could have gone to church together on Sunday, and disagreed with each other on an issue on Monday; today, they are afraid to be caught in church. When the President of the United States can’t pick a church in Washington D.C. to attend…we’ve have gone too far!