Compare Car

Payday Loans

http://www.powerpaydayloan.com/

Democrats and Republicans Driving Delaware Senate Race

There are so many opinions and politic positions about Delaware Senate Race, not only one. The elections in November 2012 for all the country will renew 33 Senate seats which are held today by 21 Democrats, 10 Republicans and 2 Independents. Will this change the Senate composition? What may happen after Delaware Senate Race?
Here we made a little review about the most important candidates:
Thomas Richard Carper (Democrat - Senator last election)
In 2006 he was re-elected, getting 70 percent of the vote, taking his second term as a US Senator. He was at Delaware's government since 1993 to 2001. As this county has a small political community, he has held very popular seats in the US House of Representatives, been elected 12 times in Delaware. He has worked on environmental protection legislation, balancing the budget, energy policies, and gaining additional funding for education. If we take a look on his high approval rating, he will run once again in Delaware Senate Race 2012 as a candidate. He will be 65 years old in 2012.
Chris Coons (Democrat)
Democrat Joe Biden was re-elected in 2008 with 65% of the vote. First he resigned to be Barack Obama's vice president and then in 2009 he resigned the senate, being replaced by Senator Ted Kaufman on January 15, 2009. In the 2010 special election, Chris Coons won the seat with 56.6% of the votes, defeating Tea-party activist and Christine O'Donnell, who was three time senatorial candidate Republican. This Delaware Senate Race candidate will be 51 years old in 2014.
Christine O'Donnell (Republican)
She is a businesswoman and 2010 Republican US Congress primary nominee Michele Rollins. It's not certain if she will run in Delaware Senate Race. She was exonerated of bad appropriation campaign funds. Her possibilities to win may be dampened due to the former Delaware GOP chairman, thanks to a complaint with the FEC for illegally coordinating with the Tea Party Express. Charles Krauthammer and Karl Rove publicly criticized hers bid for the latest 2010 elections, perhaps costing her the candidacy.
These are other candidates of Delaware Senate Race 2012:
Mike Castle (Republican) - Congressman, Ex-Lt. Governor, Ex-Governor, Ex-State Senator, Ex-State Representative and Attorney
Jim Rash (Libertarian) - State Party Chair, Realtor & Navy Veteran
Michele Rollins (Republican) - Businesswoman, lost Delaware Senate Race in 2010
Kevin Wade (Republican) - Businessman
Although Tea Party conservative movement could due to grassroots campaigning or via debate, remember that Tom Carper has with a 70% of support in 2006. That is not something easy to revert. As in any kind of election, Delaware Senate Race of 2012 provides the interesting opportunity if hearing the candidates proposals, and think about what is better for Delaware. After all, "not always the past was better" but "best known evil than an unknown good". Let's see what happens during Delaware Senate Race with the political parties, and which tools use each candidate to convince potential voters. There are a wide variety of votes not yet conquered, so they must make a good campaign.

The Paradox of Conservative Political Philosophy in Contemporary America

Conservatism as a political philosophy is difficult to define and locate within a philosophical spectrum. From a traditional standpoint it's more a disposition and attitude than a fully fledged philosophy or doctrine. At an obvious first glance the disposition is about the conservation of values and ideals. This is in terms of abstract conceptions which then have ontological consequences in the political realm. This is because these values often become applied to the preservation of constitutions, political institutions, statutory rights and social values.

Instead of teleological goals, Meta universal theories and eternal truths, the doctrine of political Conservatism is best captured by the description of pragmatism. Piecemeal change where required simultaneously accompanies the philosophical mantra of "if it isn't broke don't fix it". In this respect, Conservatism is the most flexible political philosophy. As where classical Liberalism will not retreat from what it sees as inalienable natural rights, Marxism on the distribution of social wealth, for conservatism, at least in theory, there is nothing in the disposition to restrict it permanently to any ideals. Change and response to social and political phenomena comes about by a concoction of necessity and adaptability. This unique perspective allows one to both look to the future and the past with regards to decision making.

Current Conservatism in America takes a somewhat different tone to that espoused on the European continent. There are of course aspects of Conservatism that overlap. For instance fiscal Conservatism is an idiom applicable to both European and American parties. It is often accompanied by a monetarist economic policy with low business and tax regulation as well as minimal welfare expenditure. Outside the economic sphere the resemblances become much more difficult to detect. America, founded on the doctrine of Liberal Government emphasises the separation of the branches of Government, the separation of Church and State and open free and fair elections, is none the less a republic. A Republic in political philosophy is another ubiquitous term. This is due to the different historical and cultural terms applied to the governmental concept over its long past. Thus the American Republic should not be thought of in the same vein as Plato's or Cicero's Republic.

Nonetheless what we see now in America is an aggressive conservative tone propagated by certain leaders in the Republican Party. Instead of being flexible in current situations and being adaptable to the demands of a current economic and cultural context, this Conservative movement only looks to the past. Thus it is Conservative in one sense but lacks the adaptability and malleability administered by European Conservative action.

Now of course these political proposals are shaped by the current political climate. In the face of aggressive Liberal proposals advocated by the current Democratic Party, the Republicans have to play the part of a polar opposite alternative, which means going to the extremes of Conservatism. Ironically, here these Republican policies are shaped by current contexts but not in adapting to them only reacting to them - going back down the conservational path.

The paradox of current American conservative political philosophy is twofold. Firstly the Republicans value both Conservatism and Republicanism often tied to the principles of the founding fathers, the Federalist Papers and the Declaration of Independence. Here the appeal to antiquity is most apparent but its utility is somewhat erroneous. Take two controversial issues in America over the last few years: stem cell research and homosexual marriage. Instead of being flexible and adapting to change, one might think that exploring stem cell research is a practical modern day necessity that may one day produce better medical results in fighting fatal diseases, the Republicans oppose this. The paradox occurs here because the Republican's are not just being inflexible but its authority for such a position is the recourse to the sanctity of "life".

It would be very hard to argue that an embryo is a "life" in a conventional, social manner but technically it is! But more specifically it is a collection of cells and thus a biological organism only classed as a "life" in the same context as say a plant. But the authority of this is based on the Bible in which all "life" is sacred and no entity has dominion over genetic production and its reproduction over than God. This Biblical notion then supersedes the practical approach that a collection of cells is not a conscious being with emotions and a nervous system and perhaps not a full human life. This aspect of Republican ideology is neither malleable, pragmatic or looking to the future. Instead it is stuck in the past using traditional dogma for justification. This makes it paradoxical because the Conservative disposition should be pragmatic and adaptive when looking to the future. However pragmatism is devoid in the argument as the past reigns superior. Thus, paradoxically, it is not conservatism in its full disposition. Instead "if it ain't broke don't fix it" is replaced by "even if it is broken don't fix it because tradition says so".

However this is not the most serious violation of the Conservative political disposition. The deftest paradox occurs in the most illogical and startling way when applied to same sex relationships and marriage. The Republican Party strongly adheres to the Federalist Papers and its emphasis on individual liberty as well as freedom from the intrusion of others in one's own life domain and the choices this entails - and rightly so for the political works of James Madison and co are philosophical precepts that should be upheld by anyone seeking to facilitate protected Liberty in a political community. The Republicans oppose same sex marriage; and here the paradoxes and logical inconsistencies run wild.

Politics Are the Ultimate Distraction - Turn That Crap Off

They say that politics in any society is nothing more than sound and fury, and chaos and controversy promoted to extreme by the mass media. Indeed, I believe if you would think about this for second, you would certainly agree with what I am saying, as well as those famous political philosophers that have come before me. Perhaps one of the biggest and most important questions right now, as we head into the 2012 presidential election season is; do we really need to listen to all this political rhetoric?

Shouldn't we be keeping our eye on the ball? Why all the Distraction, what is everyone hiding, and why can't we look at the performance of various individuals seeking reelection, and look at the issues, without the political rhetoric and bantering back and forth to no avail. After all, it doesn't really matter if we are playing the game of "he said, she said" or looking for the best "gotcha" points on Facebook or Twitter - we have a country to run, along with our state and local governments, all of this other nonsense is really a waste of time.

Yes I know, it is human nature to want to bitch and moan, complain, and carry-on and commiserate with those you feel a bonding with, and to take all this nonsense and controversy and use it to build your team against the so-called enemy, which is actually your neighbor next door, across the street, or of a different political party. Not long ago, there was a combat veteran running for Mayor in San Diego, and he made an interesting statement he said.

Money In Politics Is Talking Louder Than You

Do any of you remember the movie All The President's Men? That was the dramatization of the Watergate scandal. Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman portraying Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein.
Do you remember the advice given to them by Deep Throat... "Follow The Money."
The truth for almost any situation always tends to be at the end of the money trail.
If you're wondering why politicians take certain positions, change their positions, speak one way and vote another... follow the money.
A lot of people use the saying "Money is the Root of all Evil". However, in the Bible, it's actually "The LOVE of Money is the Root of all Evil."
When you ask yourself, why we don't have single payer health care in the USA and couldn't even get the much weaker "public option", what answer do you come up with? Was it the mean ole Republicans?
Was the public insufficiently excited about single payer and/or the public option? Was it that the Administration wasn't skilled enough in their messaging to convince a Democratic Congress at the time to do its bidding?
Or does it all ultimately come back to Money? Campaign contributions are protected under law as free speech. But what happens when my wallet is bigger than your wallet? Is my free speech accorded more weight than yours? Do I possess more influence than you? Do policies get shaped to additionally benefit me, further enhancing my position?
Let's say that you have a friend, and that friend is in need of cash. And you generously provide that friend with the needed sum. And at a later date, you make some request of that friend.
Do you expect that friend with which you were so very generous to ignore or dismiss your request?
Or do you expect that friend to be very compliant with your wishes in light of your previous generosity?
Now you may say that politics is very different from what I just described, but is it really?
In particular, when the very generous friend is able to form a Political Action Committee and bundle millions of dollars in contributions and make them available for the cause of the friend's election. Is the recipient of this generosity really going to be uninfluenced by it?
Or is it more likely that the recipient finds themselves more willing to consider positions favorable to the source of the contributions? Convincing themselves that once they are elected they will be able to serve some greater good, after of course providing the appropriate considerations to those generous friends who made their election possible.
It seems that the only way to eliminate this dynamic is to have all campaigns publicly financed. I don't know what the details of this would be, but I do believe that money completely corrupts the process and shuts out the voices of those without means to participate.
It's been demonstrated that it's very easy to ignore the individual donor who perhaps contributed $5 to a campaign. I submit that it's probably equally easy to ignore the individual donor who made the max contribution of $2,500 (although that might get you an autographed picture or something).

A Politician That Uses Regulations for Political Agendas Would Also Use it to Attack Adversaries

One thing that seems so obvious to me and yet no one seems to be catching it, and no one has made any comments in the media about, is that we have politicians usurping the Constitution at the highest leadership levels through the advancement of the regulatory bureaucracy to promote their agendas.
Okay so, yes, there are some who have caught that obvious power play in Health Care, Energy, Employment, Budgeting, Military, Aviation, and Education, etc - going on right now, but no one seems to have made the connection that; any politician who would use the regulatory bureaucracy to promote their political agendas, would certainly use any and all of the bureaucracy to go after their political adversaries.
Now then, I ask; is that happening right now? Yes, yes, it is. I would submit to you that there are things going on behind the scenes where the justice department for instance is or soon will be beginning investigations into the affairs of regular citizens, businessmen, media, and political supporters of the opposing party.
We know this happens in other countries. In fact, it is so obvious in places such as Venezuela, Russia, and our third world that it is considered the norm. Those who oppose are thrown in prison under trumped up charges, it's such a common occurrence, we just say; "of course" no real revelation there.
Why is it so hard for Americans to see this happening in the here and now, in milder forms? One doesn't really have to read between the lines much to see it, and yet, it seems as if the "enemies list" of any given executive branch never seems to come out until well after the fact, in subsequent years to come.
Many in our society that are on the side of the current leadership, see no problem with this, after all, it is politics, a dirty game, after all - and if their side wasn't doing it, then the other side would be doing it to them instead. Yes, perhaps, but that doesn't make the two-wrongs a right. Nor does it give validity to any argument that politically usurping the Constitution to attack the political opposition is okay, it's not, and it is an abuse of power.

John Locke's Second Treatise of Government and the Limits of Our Implicit Consent to Government

In John Locke's Second Treatise of Government, his entire political philosophy hinges upon the fact that humans are moral equals and thus unable to legitimately govern or impose rules upon another without that other person's consent. For Locke, the perfect answer to this is entitled express consent. According to Locke, "[n]o body doubts but an express consent, of any man entering into any society, makes him a perfect member of that society, a subject of that government" (Locke 64). Express consent is the perfect way to bind the original members together. This however, raises many difficulties for Locke once critics begin to question how someone can consent to a system of government for which they never expressly consented or gave their agreement; simply stated, they were not the founding members, and thus how can it be argued that they are legitimately ruled by the government? Locke's rebuttal is tacit consent, a method by which any man "that hath any possessions, or enjoyment, of any part of the dominions of any government, doth thereby give his tacit consent" to be ruled by that government (64). Though this seems to be a sound remedy, further holes can be exposed using a hypothetical, but very plausible, situation to demonstrate. The situation is as outlined below:

An adult citizen who was born in this country (and thus never had to take an oath of citizenship) was disgruntled about the lack of funding for education and began protesting on the steps of a government building. Shortly thereafter, a police officer confronts her and informs her that she has broken the law by protesting within 100 feet of the public building without a permit. He attempts to arrest her but she explains that, as a moral equal, she never consented to join the body politic and thus these laws do not apply to her.

Using the above situation, it becomes simple to apply Locke's response, tacit consent. However, to fully understand this issue, a counter argument by the protestor must be offered and tacit consent must be adjusted to include her arguments such that she is still bound by the national law.

Assuming that the police officer is an educated man and familiar with his political philosophy, specializing in Lockean philosophy, his response would be a classic example of tacit consent applied to life. He would start with the beginning - at one point in time, a group of citizens joined together to form a body politic and institute a government on the land now called the United States of America. For the sake of simplifying the situation, one of her direct relatives was amongst these first founders.

The police officer, his name badge proudly displaying his name, Darryl Worley, looked the protestor in the eye. "Look here," he said, taking out his copy of Second Treatise he kept in his pocket, "this relative took an oath to bind his land to the authority of this government; ergo, he showed his express consent, for he both knew to what he was consenting and was voluntarily agreeing." He assumed that the woman knew her philosophy as well, but might not be as versed as he in Locke.

Politics, No More

Five years ago, during a deep meditation, I had a series of realizations that led me on a five-year hiatus from a brief period of piety in Zen. One of the things that I had realized during the meditation was that piety was for practice and it was time for me to walk the middle path. I never stopped studying nor did I cease meditating. Simply, I abandoned an illusion.

Since that day, five years ago, without pious practice, I have held steadfast to Zen principles while limiting my involvement with the illusions of this world. That is, until a few months ago when I started to pay attention to U.S. politics more intently.

Before I knew it, I was roped into the political confusion. I was angered, appalled, and as 'mad as hell' over the ignorance, lies, and greed. I would throw my hands up in the air out of rage as I listened to this congressperson or that senator make their statements on CSPAN. I would get angry when I heard of how 'this policy' might be changed on this date, which in return would affect 'these people.' I couldn't take it anymore--I went to work fighting, publishing articles, and championing for the middle and lower classes.

A few articles, arguments, and months later, I was preparing for my next battle. For inspiration, I sat down on the couch and turned on the television to MSNBC. It was the same old aggravations and, of course, I was following the same old routine--I got mad, threw my hands up out of disgust, and became red in the face.

Upon observing the pattern that I had found myself in, I saw that my participation in the battle against ignorance would never end. I knew that no matter how often I screamed "truth and justice," only half of my fellow citizens would understand the message. "There must be a better way," I thought.

It was after the realization of my futile actions when I remembered something that I had learned many years ago: We are not capable of understanding anything beyond the extent of our knowledge. Part of this is because our knowledge is based on what we choose to believe and what we choose to believe is based on our knowledge. Additionally, our knowledge is sculpted by our environment and this leads to another topic about the evolution of humanity and its illusions.

As Confucius said, "Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance." I realized that the fight would never end as long as those of whom I was trying to convince were unaware of their own obliviousness. Let's face it, most people think they are right and will do anything to justify and validate their egos--even after being presented with insurmountable evidence that they are wrong. Upon facing the sea of unawareness... I saw the error in my approach.

Back to the observations of my anger and frustrations--I questioned the sanity of my approach until I realized that I am more upset with the lack of wisdom in our government than I am with the policies and plans that they're arguing about. It seems that the basic principles of wisdom are absent in America and I blame most of this on the corporate greed that has spilled over into our government. Regardless of where I place the blame, I know better than to let the ignorance bring me down and to participate in the madness. I know that I need to be more accepting of humanity's ignorance. Yes, I am angry about the crimes against humanity, the rape of the world, and the injustices being done to the poor, the elderly, and the sick. Nevertheless, acting in anger towards our ignorance is not the way. Peace is the way.

Divisiveness, Politics, and a Philosophy for Change!

The political climate of the United States is a reflection of the political climate changes affecting the entire world. While others point in disgust and dismay at the evolutions of the Republican nomination, as well as the enormous gaps between Republican and Democrat, our issues are not so very unique.

As a planet, we appear to have evolved socially to the point where the main arguments revolve around our sense of responsibility for each other. Who owns the responsibility to make decisions for others and to what degree?

Should we have national health care? Should we involve ourselves in the affairs of others? Are we responsible for removing dictators from power when they abuse their populations? Do we, or do we not, impose our beliefs on those who are less trained? How are we using our sophisticated weapons and who has the right and the responsibility to do what? Who is responsible for the overuse of debt as a means to finance what we cannot afford, and who will pay the debt so we can get on with our lives?

We Are All Responsible

Our issues are not about who we should blame for our potentially catastrophic choices. These choices and their consequences are natural results of how the human being reacts to stimuli. We need to make the next leap in our evolution, own the entire mess as a jointly created consequence of being imperfect, and figure out what to do about it in a much more holistic way.

Certainly we can round up and punish everyone at the top responsible for creating financial tools that were self-serving and destructive. We can identify the extremists and attempt to take them out one at a time. We can bomb others for their gall in thinking that they have the right to create weapons like our own. At the end of the day, we will have solved NOTHING and we will have created the reasons for the next big divide.

We are all a part of this shift and we are all responsible for its pain. Do you not also react in fear when you are not making your numbers, pleasing your boss, having trouble paying your bills? Do we not all hope for someone to step in and save us from the precipice? Think of the choices you make every day, that in essence, are not so different from the choices that our politicians, whom we elect, are making for us.

Politics of Coalition and Contradictions!

The ruling coalition of India led by the Congress has been moving from crisis to crisis for more than two years now. Blackmailed and stalemated at every step of its operations by the allies and the opposition parties. After Congress did poorly in three of five states where Assembly elections took place February-March, 2012 the worst was expected. Now, with the start of the Budget session of the Indian Parliament from 12th March the worst fears seemed to have been confirmed.

Political parties join a coalition for grabbing the dictating power and a few ministerial berths. Being responsible ministers of the government they do not still bother to work for it, but rather think of ways to destroy it from within. The opposition parties as ever look for opportunities to ally with the 'allies' to corner the government, stall its functions and even to dethrone it so that they have a chance to come to power in mid-term polls. For a weak coalition withdrawal of even a single ally with only a few seats can reduce the coalition government to minority. If an 'ally' minister indulges in horrid corruption the ruling coalition has to take the blame hounded by the opposition parties and if it punishes the errant minister the concerned 'ally' would blame it again and threaten to quit supported again by the same opposition that shouted against corruption.

The Assembly elections results thus emboldened the allies more than the opposition parties who kept on lurking round the corner for opportunities. The prospect of a mid-term poll or General Election became a distinct reality.

The Railway Budget was presented in Parliament on March 14, 2012 by Dinesh Trivedi who belonged to an ally, Trinamool (grass-root) Congress (TMC) having 18 seats. The Budget was considered to a good and bold one. For nearly a decade trains fares were never increased. So, due to the resulting resource crunch and a stagnation in improving services Trivedi proposed an across the board hike in all classes of passenger fares. Before the aam-admi or the common man could react their representatives were up in arms. What happened was unprecedented.

Mamata Bannerjee, the Chief of TMC, attacked her own party's minister Trivedi for the fare-hike. She reportedly said she was not aware of this proposal and that she could never support any proposal adverse to the interests of common people. Like an 'understanding' ally she shot off letters to the Prime Minister asking him to sack Trivedi and for a rollback of the fare hike. TMC even came up immediately with an alternative railway minister. Trivedi defended his Budget making a historic statement 'Nation first, family second and party only after' and now his inevitable sack had been the hugely debated issue till the last reports came in.

Parity in Politics - Why Women Don't Want It

Marking the 20-year anniversary of the Year of the Woman, Karen Tumulty's front-page Washington Post article details the never-ending challenges of gender parity in American politics. While an informative piece about the United States' 78th world ranking in woman's representation in national legislatures, tied with Turkmenistan for those keeping track, it reflects a flawed conventional wisdom about why more women don't run for and win elected office.

In discussing why more women are not politically engaged, many well-know facts were listed:

• Women often wait until later in their careers and lives to run for office making it a challenge to rise through the ranks to high office

• Many women wait to be asked to run, instead of initiating a political campaign, often questioning their credentials and qualifications more so than their male-counterparts

• Often women feel that the electorate is biased against women candidates, with high-profile examples of Clinton, Palin, Pelosi and Bachman as media and partisan targets fresh in their minds

The answer to these challenges as espoused by numerous women's groups is to train more women to run for office. From political "boot camps" like Rutgers Center for American Women in Politics Ready to Run program to the newly minted 50-50 in 2020 women's groups throughout the country believe that if more women are trained to run for office they will.

The problem with this strategy is that it doesn't work-just look at the last 20 years the article details as proof.

In 1992, I was a young political consultant determined to bring parity to politics having grounded my early political life working for a rising star of women leaders, Debbie Stabenow, now one of just 17 females Senators. During that election cycle and for many to come, I flew around the country training women, helping with their campaigns and hopeful that the efforts of so many women who tirelessly gave of themselves, and for a lot less money than our male counterparts, would bring us closer to parity.

Eight years later and hundreds of thousands of frequent flyer miles behind me, I examined the challenge of woman in politics as I created a leadership course at the Graduate School of Political Management at The George Washington University. The reason why women didn't run were clearly researched then and not significantly different that the facts presented today. The answer two decades ago was to prepare women to run for office and 20 years later it has had little impact. Why?

The truth is that preparing women for the battle of politics is not the answer. Woman are not running for office because they are choosing to spend their time and energy in ways other than engaging in the senseless, and all too often futile, act of policy making in contemporary politics. No amount of preparation is going to change the pragmatic nature of women who will choose to focus their energy and attention on real world solutions, rather than engage in politics that rarely creates meaningful change and when it does at a very high personal cost to one's quality of life.

A Political Tool

Setting aside the common notion that politics involves government and political leadership in an organization like a state or community. Politics is actually broader and more complex than that popular belief. It extends to almost every sphere of human endeavor and interaction. In its most general sense, it involves the pursuit of self-interest of individuals. In a particular system of relationships like in a society this pursuit of individuals of particular goals is translated into the competition to wield power. With power one may attain the pinnacle of their goals in relation to others. One one's interest supercedes that of another the former logically wields more power than the latter.
A less known but broader side of politics involves intrigue, schemes & plots, manipulations, deceptions, mind games and stratagem. These comprise most of the realm of politics. An advantage for individuals who are active in this field is in-depth knowledge and understanding of these various aspects of political life. More so if an individual aspires not only to be a participant but an active player. This is because in this domain of human interaction, there are only two kinds of individuals those who influence and those who are influenced. Being the latter means you are subject to the interests of the former. And the latter always aspires to be the former while the former aims to remain as he or she is as the power in the status quo.
A potent tool in conflict, particularly in the realm of politic is social engineering. This is the collection of psycho - social approaches implicitly compel individuals to perform acts, maintain thoughts and even provide information under the pretext that such is in his or her interest. In short, it is an insightful way of instigating manipulation for a particular goal. Meaning a person or persons can, through effective application of social engineering advantageously pursue political goals. The power of this methodology lies in its calculated incorporation of human nature in the techniques it offers. It provides approaches that appeal to the nuances and facets of human thought, behavior, prejudice, motivation and inclination. This implies that with this means holistic, virtually complete but subtle manipulation can be had. This is not new. In fact, for years politics has been closely related to these techniques. If politics can be taken as a form of advanced and complex chess game then this certainly will be the master's guide to the same.
The capability to move another, to fill the thoughts of others with one's ideas, to compel others that adhering to a particular view is valid and legitimate is what politics is about. With social engineering, a new level of micro - manipulation is possible. In the past threat of use of force, denial of material gain or promise of the same was the focal point of political relationships. Now politics can transpire in the human consciousness with a ripple effect towards a person's perception, ideas, and conduct in the social sphere. This makes social engineering an elegant, modern and masterful tool in politics.

The State of American Politics

It's hard to think of a more corrupting occupation than American politics. While it's by no means an illegal activity, as opposed to, say, operating a meth lab or running guns to Mexico, it nevertheless seems to systematically corrupt otherwise good men and women of stature and accomplishment.

Our system has, in the past 235 years, produced political leaders who have provided able national leadership during times of war, of economic strife, of civil unrest, and of growth and regeneration.

But something's not right in today's body politic. Its ability to produce leaders of quality has been severely diminished. Ironically, the world-class quality of our made-in-America products and services has risen steadily and inexorably over the last quarter century; ironically, too, the quality of our elected leaders had deteriorated steadily and inexorably over the same period. Or so it seems to me. We have philanderers and exhibitionists, bribe seekers and bribe takers, money launderers and sexual predators. We have a political class who has to beg for money virtually every day to keep their jobs. We have behavior from high elected officials that is routinely unethical, often immoral, and sometimes outright illegal. And then they have the nerve to complain about the political scruples of the Iraqi and Afghan pols.

We've always had our share of rascals in political life. I get that. And I realize our real-time, right-now, 24/7 news cycle exposes more of the underside of American life than ever before, to include political shenanigans. But heretofore we've always been able to produce political leaders to meet the challenges of the times. Someone has traditionally always stepped forward and led. Washington, Lincoln, TR, FDR, Truman, JFK, Reagan.

So where are they now? I can't find any already in national office, and I'm looking hard, believe me. Oh, maybe there's a leader in the military or private enterprise or state government who could provide quality leadership at the national level, but how long before they would be corrupted by special interests or re-election demands or the hyper partisanship or simply the arrogance that comes with raw power? And why would anyone in their right mind want to enter such a profession nowadays, what with the all-intrusive scrutiny and the pettiness and the begging and butt-kissing that go with it?

Bit of a conundrum, huh? Many good and talented Americans just stay away. And who can blame them? Those who do seek office seem to have to sell their souls to gain the office, only to be corrupted once there, swallowed by a relentless boa-like system. Not always, but seemingly often enough. And that is, if they weren't corrupt to begin with. Those moths have always been attracted by the bright lights.

Where's the leadership? Where's the competence? Where's the integrity?

Beats me. I wish I had a solution. But I don't. Just like you, I'll keep watching. And listening. And waiting.

How to Write Informative Political Articles Online

As an online article author, I feel it is my duty to help article authors create quality content online. Indeed, I've written over a 1000 articles on political topics, and I've learned the hard way how to do it right, and which mistakes are easily made. Writing about political topics is serious business, it's easy to make a mistake and look foolish, and you can't rely on everything you hear in the media, most of the news stations are jaded towards a conservative slant, or a more neo-liberal motif. Okay so, let's talk about this for a moment if we might.

First, I would recommend that you don't write any political articles based on what you see on TV and take their exact perspective. Sure, you might have an opinion on something, but you need to make sure it is your own opinion, and you can back it up with facts, not the sound bites that you viewed on TV the night before. Secondly, I wouldn't recommend writing an article because you saw something which you either agreed with, or disagreed with, because it emotionally sent you into a writing mode. You need to stop and think about what you're writing, and explore the different angles.

Another issue, and this is something that really burns me up when I see other authors do this - you should never take a political article that you read somewhere else, and rewrite it in your own words. A unique perspective and opinion is important. If you have one, and additional personal experience which you can relate to, share that with your reader. Another thing, if you make blanket statements make sure you back them up by citing where you got the information. Perhaps you read something in Foreign Affairs Magazine, Wall Street Journal, New York Times, a research paper, book, or watched a video from the Council on Foreign Relations, say so.

Also, you should never cite something you saw on Facebook, or a tweet that you received, and be wary of citing Wikipedia, even if you did check your facts on that site. Another thing, you must remember is who your audience is, if you're going to be preaching to the choir, you need to write a certain way for your audience. However, if you are writing to persuade people of the opposite position, or from a different political party, then you must handle yourself properly, and not hit them too hard until you've made your points. Indeed I hope you will take this information and use it to write quality content online, we need more of the good stuff, and we need less of the debris. So please consider all this and think on it.