The State of the American Economy and Its Relation to National Politics

Over the past several months, the condition of the United States economy has been a concern on the minds of many. And, although most economists now agree that we are currently in the state of a recession, it is debatable as to how concerning this recession really is.

On September 15, the Dow Jones Industrial dropped more than 500 points following the weekend announcement that two market giants Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. and Merrill Lynch & Co. would be going under. This has thrown some into a panic while others continue to watch and wait.

It is basic economics, which any first-year college student can tell you, that recessions are a naturally occurring phenomenon. Although it can be unfortunate sometimes, economic growth requires a period of balance. Thus, without periods of recession, we could never have periods of progression.

For example, there was a recession in the mid-1990's before a period of growth going into the new millennium. There was another just after the terrorist attacks of 9-11 which was followed up by arguably the greatest economic growth in our nation's history.

One question on the minds of many Americans is, "who is to blame?"

Some politicians like Senator Barack Obama, like to blame the oppositional party when it might benefit them to do so. In this case, this philosophy is irrational and highly inaccurate. As that we are a capitalist economy, the federal government is limited in its power and influence over business.

Obama suggests President George W. Bush and his party-mates are the problem here. Well, as a member of the executive branch of government, Bush has no ability to institute law in relation to business. On the other hand, the Congress, being the legislative branch, does have some say here. However, rather than react appropriately, the overwhelmingly Democratic Congress has invested more of their time into such efforts as renaming post offices than strengthening the economy.

On the other hand, although he should have clarified his comments immediately, Senator John McCain's comments have been a bit more realistic. He suggested that the fundamentals of the U.S. economy are strong. He should have informed the American public of his definition of "fundamentals" which he later defined as the skills and work ethic of the American worker.

However, as opposed to Obama, McCain places the blame on companies themselves. And, now that these businesses are constantly replacing workers with automated systems and sending jobs overseas for slave wages, nobody can really argue his logic.

I truly believe that to find the source of this current recession, one need not look any further than the pocketbook of the average American CEO, cooperate spending and the ugly monster known as greed.

Multi-million dollar bonuses, the aforementioned trend toward outsourcing and an increased emphasis on profit margins have been killers. And, who can forget the pathetic business practices of mortgage companies and those dumb enough to fall into their traps.

As always, we will come out of this recession, it's just a matter of when. What we must ask ourselves is these two questions: "Do we really want a man with only 11 years of political experience running our country in these times?" or "Do we want to rely on McCain, with decades of experience and a VP who has actually been the only person on either ticket to work with a budget, to be leaders?

The answer seems pretty obvious to me.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Jason_Greiner

Read more...

Barack Obama's Extraordinary Rise In Politics, "The Obamagic"

It is evident that in politics predictions are difficult. Even the best and brightest of political pundits with so many years of intellectual and practical experience behind them get it all wrong sometimes. In spite of the overwhelming difficulty in predicting political outcomes, certain outcomes defies comprehension. Barack Obama's rise falls into this category.

Barack Obama ever since he was elected into office as a Junior Senator from Illinois and assumed office in 2005 has been seen as a rising star with the ability to have a rich and successful political career and get very far in this respect.

In spite of his achievements prior to his election as US Senator 3 years ago, he was relatively unknown. For him to have come this far is very commendable. His "fast track" political career is simply unbelievable. Being audacious is not enough to guarantee perpetual success but the resilience to sustain this audacity to propel you from to success to success is what is really needed. It is not surprising that these qualities are lacking in many. Obama has these among other qualities. The man who wrote "the audacity of hope" is truly living it. The possession of such attributes among others such as charisma and intelligence does not necessarily follow that success is assured. It is not like the right combination of hydrogen and oxygen atoms to produce water. Obama's rise in the US political arena to the extent that he has been able to make such an impression and stamp his authority and clout over the political process can be compared to a protagonist in a Grisham or Ludlum novel.

When Obama decided to run for the presidency, in fact it seemed premature to most people. This is because he had been insufficiently tested in crucible of federal politics. The reason is that he was assumed to lack experience. In addition, would he be able to absorb the "shocks and hits" and not falter?

The ability to absorb "shocks and hits" and still remain undettered is a major characteristics that sets political giants apart from the others. President Bill Clinton has one or two advise to give on this. It will be unwise for President Clinton to make public such advise in this area. Clinton will obviously divulge such tactical secret to Hillary his better half. Since she is on the chase having the table turned and pursuing "Obamagic" which has gripped the United States.

Senator Clinton is very eloquent and intelligent and was seen as a front runner. But Obama's win in Iowa and The impressive performance of Obama in South Carolina meant that the race for the Democratic presidential candidacy was not still tight and open. The overwhelmingly impressive performance in the Super Tuesday meant Obama could no longer be dismissed as a lucky politician whose achievement on this political journey will luck energy to fuel such an enormous momentum.

Even after Super Tuesday, with successive wins over Senator Clinton in many states including major states like Washington, Maryland, Virginia and Wisconsin meant that Senator Clinton the front runner is now chasing Obama and finding it difficult to stand up and keep pace with Senator Obama.

In spite of this development Senator Clinton can not be dismissed. She is eloquent and intelligent in her own right and capable of turning things around. Though now it seems most difficult at this stage but not impossible due to the unpredictability of politics. If this happens it will be one of the most extraordinarily surprising outcomes and "comebacks" ever. She is fighting a good fight but so far Obama is simply a major stumbling block to Senator Clinton and the Democratic presidential candidacy. In his speeches Obama seems to have an overwhelming power over words and delivers them with passion and poise which endear him to the American people. His charisma is profoundly magnetic which draws people to him.

Obama seems to have shattered the long time held prejudice that a black person can not get that far in politics. Though Jesse Jackson and Alan Keyes have been unable to get this far, Obama has, and that erroneous belief can now be dismissed with contempt. American have shown and are showing that the "land of the free" with the Statue of Liberty which greets many is indeed a land where one can aspire to be whatever he wants to become no matter how far fetched the aspiration is. Indeed the first black person and the first woman thus far have shown such maturity, intelligence that indeed they have made history.Their names will always be remembered from generation to generation.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Nana_Kwame_Aboagye

Read more...

Understanding 911 and the Politics of Blame

These 911 Commission hearings are fascinating. But lurking beneath the surface is something that really bothers me.

They don’t get it.

Then again, we don’t, either. It’s not enough to point the finger at those who did it. No, our blood lust demands more. So our “unbiased” bi-partisan surrogates are looking under every rock for someone else to blame.

But they’re looking in the wrong place. They should start with us.

Now, don’t think for a second that I want to give us some giant guilt complex. That monkey’s on our backs already. Here we are, the nation of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, standing before the world as a beacon of light. And somehow we’ve misplaced our torch.

Let’s face it. We’re confused, stumbling around in the dark.

We delude ourselves into thinking we’re a bastion of freedom. Perhaps in a sense we are, at least to the extent we haven’t traded it for a false sense of self-righteousness. But as far as lighting the way for others to follow, we’ve got a long way to go.

We pray not to the God that speaks to us from the silence within, but to the god of comfort, acquisition, and preservation of our over-indulgent lifestyles. While much of the world is experiencing the stirrings of awakening consciousness, we’re content to sit back and tell them, “Sorry, guys. You’re on your own.”

And while many struggle to claim their own right of self-determination, our demand for more, bigger, better spurs our leaders to ride out on our nation’s technological steed, wielding a sword of righteous indignation. And if they don’t keep the heathens from the gates of our magnificent creation, we’ll get someone who will.

With that perspective, the 911 commission is doing us a big favor. They’re wielding the broom so we can pretend we’re sweeping out all the cobwebs that contributed to this horrible event. But when they’re done, we’ll still have our heads in the sand.

And the wounds that give rise to terrorism and conflict between cultures will continue to fester.

So what are we doing to combat the root causes that led to this mess in the first place? Do we ask our leaders to address the underlying problems of religious conflict, nationalism, hunger, and political oppression? No, we put them on the hot seat to explain how they let some third-world terrorists awaken us from our reverie. While we sit back wringing our hands, demanding they build our walls a little higher. We arm ourselves even more, hoarding the spoils of our conquests. Thomas Jefferson would have been proud.

Can I let you in on a secret?

Some of us want more of our nation. More than a safe place to live, more than a reasonable income to feed our families, and even more than sand in which to stick our heads.

In fact, we want more from ourselves. We want to stand up and be counted, to make a difference and this world a better place. But those desires stem not from a reaction to protect our way of life, but from the inner whispers of our souls. Perhaps the 911 tragedy was a wake up call for some, but for most it only accelerated what was already happening inside.

Many are beginning to wonder where our great experiment of democracy is headed. What is our role in the world?

Sure, we need to protect ourselves from wanton destruction. But we are so much more than a loud mouth carrying a big stick, threatening to swing it at anyone who so much as gives us a dirty look.

We’re supposed to be a nation of vision, where inner guided principles and individual rights take precedence over everything else. Isn’t it time we walk the walk, and demand our leaders put that vision before commercial interests, or the most recent blip in the economy? Or will we keep letting them buy us off through entitlements and pork-barrel benefits?

Some say we should go beyond our role of world cop to one of true leader, not by force, but by love and patient guidance. That doesn’t mean rolling over and playing dead. But it does mean putting our actions where our principles are, and not simply reaching to protect our wallets.

Our technology has created the means to draw this world together into one big society. Yet sometimes it seems we stand in the way of that happening, even as the downtrodden of the world demand a piece of the pie of abundance.

If you’re a parent, you know there comes a time to let our kids grow up. And when they do, we have to let them stand, and fall, on their own. And hopefully we’ll be there to help them up when they do.

The rest of the world is much like our children, and we’re the parents. We’ve fed it these values for 200+ years. Now it’s growing up, and wants to be treated as an adult, not someone to forever be bullied and controlled. How will we respond?

Will we beat them into submission? Or let them choose their own way while holding out the vision of a way to peace and happiness that they, too, may find of value?

Maybe we can drag them out behind the woodshed for a while longer. Eventually, though, what goes around comes around. They’ll grow up, and the beating will be on us.

In the meantime, we know what we have to do. We’ve got to throw the bums out. Because if we don’t, we may be forced to look at the ones who are really to blame.

And that’s one the 911 commission wouldn’t touch with a 10 foot pole.

Copyright 2004 by John Dennison. John is a voice for those who do not hear or know they have an inner voice. Author of Whispers in the Silence: Living by the Light of Your Soul, he can be reached at john@WhisperZone.org or visit him at WhisperZone.org, home for those who know their own way.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=John_Dennison

Read more...

Victims Of Political Correctness

In the United States it is both legal and perfectly acceptable to say that homosexuality is not immoral before anyone with an ear to listen. It is also perfectly acceptable to the hearer or reader of such a statement to agree or completely disagree with the statement. Or is it?

In fact it is not. While it has not become the law of the land to hold to hold an opposing opinion it can be stifled, refused and rejected depending what platform or what place the assertion is made.

The writer of the aforementioned statement was complaining about the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy in regards to homosexuality. He thought it was wrong to force the homosexual soldier to have to live a lie.

It is impossible to miss yet another double standard here that has emerged with the ongoing concept of political correctness.

I have written two books and have hundreds of articles read throughout the world. I have columns online as well as articles in nationally syndicated periodicals and I have only had three articles rejected. The reasons, “not politically correct.” The incorrectness sited was saying that homosexuality was immoral. No, I wasn’t asked my opinion but I was told I couldn’t “tell” it. Maybe I need help here but it sounds just like “six of one and a half dozen of the other” to me.

Being a Christian I cannot espouse or suggest that homosexuals should be hated or harmed in any way whatsoever. To harm them would be clearly unlawful and immoral. It is an opinion not a battleaxe. If it is perceived as one then the kind of slander and character assassination that passes by political correctness proponents of the hour might be considered something akin to a nuclear weapon.

Few Americans have not heard the rantings of Charlie Sheen, Bill Maher, Sean Penn and Rosie O’Donnell regarding everyone from Jerry Falwell to President Bush. Of late even the Pope has taken a few slams.

The President has been called a murderer, a liar and some names I don’t care to mention here. None of the chiefs or architects of political correctness had anything negative to say about these remarks. They are acceptable under PCs one sided definition. No one was censured for making these remarks and we can assume no ones written statement was excluded or deleted. Where then is the balance, where is the fairness, suffice it to say it is conspicuously missing.

Am I on a soap box? As long as my feet are planted here in America, you bet I am. I’m not mad at homosexuals I am rather quite displeased with the one sided and unreasonable double standards of political correctness. If that seems hard to understand remember that even as I write I have in mind previous experiments with political correctness that miserably failed. To be fair they did much more than fail because at the peak of its acceptance it cost the lives of millions of people.

Throughout history there have been despots, rulers and regimes that have decided what people could say or not say. In modern times that is often referred to as “the party line.”

Nazi Germany had one, Communism had one and China’s Mao had one. Has the “party line” shown up in America incognito, perhaps even clandestinely under a different name?

Do we need to be reminded that when taken seriously forcing people to mouth only “the party line” can and does cost millions of lives? Joseph Stalin alone is credited with the death of thirty million of his own countrymen for refusing to talk the right talk. In many cases their deaths were predicated only on a perceived truth and not based in proof that they ever spoke a single word against Stalin’s policies.

The writer of the article previously mentioned in this article has a perfect right under the constitution to state his opinion and to put it forth with all argument and reason as he sees fit. Why is it that those with opposing views are getting censured more and more?

More people then ever are questioning both the meaning and the legality or constitutionality of the concept of “political correctness”, among them of late has been highly respected Pastor John Hagee. He too is warning of the dangers of leaving this threat to freedom unchecked. Others are joining the ranks against this precursor to thought policing and I stand with them.

Rev Bresciani is the author of two Christian books one that is entirely on the second coming of Christ. He is a contributing columnist for several online news and commentary sites. His articles are read throughout the world. Please enjoy a visit to http://www.americanprophet.org

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Michael_Bresciani

Read more...

Political Branding

To avoid partisan potshots, I disclose in advance that I am neither a Republican nor Democrat, nor could I be classified as a liberal or conservative. Thus my following analysis is one purely aimed at examining how brands work in presidential politics.

In other words, don't bother commenting if the analysis annoys your personal partisan political peccadilloes. This is about marketing and not the mayhem of presidential elections.

Much has been written in the last year about the destruction of the Republican "brand". A brand - be it for a PC, politician, or even a PC politician - is what the market (voters) think and feel about the product. Yes, politicians and parties are products that can be bought though the price is too high for the average consumer/voter.

Many Republicans felt their party no longer had a brand. Many core Republican/conservative policies appear to have been abandoned by the Bush administration. Translate this into a technology product that had for many years delivered on the core features and functions it promised to provide. Then say that the new release of the product had massive bugs that the vendor did not fix that diminished or eliminated the usefulness of those features. Some GOP members viewed their party as Windows XP users view Vista - failing to faithfully deliver fundamental value.

This is where belief systems enter into marketing. People often believe things about a brand that are not true. But when faced with continuing failure to deliver on a branded value proposition, people quit believing in the brand. In this election cycle we see two brand battles raging. The GOP had lost its brand and is now actively redefining/reclaiming it.

Let's look at each starting with the Democrats. Obama - like any candidate - needs to keep the trust of all classes of people. He set forth a brand which spoke broadly and elicited an amazing amount of response for a candidate with relatively little history. Bowling badly or making three-point buckets spoke well to the working classes who hold the keys to certain battleground states. But Obama's "guns and religion" statement while raising funds in a San Francisco "Billionaire Row" mansion shattered that believability and damaged his brand value in those markets. Blue collar and Blue Dog Democrats indicate they may sit out this election based on brand misalignment. His selection of Biden did nothing to help regain those voters.

McCain's team managed to something that any marketing strategist would love to achieve. They managed to find a brand and value proposition that was broadly popular, that matched the existing brand essence of the candidate, and located a running mate who brought additional authenticity (real or imagined) to the new brand. In other words, GOP marketing strategists scored a trifecta on brand management.

Let's circle back to the Silicon Strategies Marketing copyrighted definition of a brand: a brand is what the market thinks and feels about your product. McCain had for years developed a reputation as both a maverick and a reformer. In fact the media made so much of this McCain value proposition that it became "knowledge" instead of "belief" among most Americans. The market of voters thus "thought" McCain to be a reformer. Adding Palin to the ticket - exploiting her highly personal "small town, common sense" brand - emotionally reinforced the ticket's reformer brand. GOP strategist realigned the original "small government" GOP brand to the existing McCain/Palin brands. Then they used this to co-opt Obama's "change" brand, simultaneously strengthening the GOP brand and weakening the Obama brand.

Polls indicate the plan worked very well.

Obama can only counter this in two ways:

* Try to destroy the McCain brand, which can only be done through negative attacks. This is a bad move because Obama based much of his brand on being a nice guy, rising above "politics as usual". Going negative would be to destroy his own brand.
* Create a more authentic Obama brand: This is tough because many of the mistakes his campaign made (hijacking the presidential seal, mass rallies in Berlin, the "guns and religion" sound bite) has reduced the public perception that Obama is "authentic". Even San Francisco's eccentric former Mayor Willie Brown - a Democrat to the end - thinks "Obama still appears overscripted. Too perfect."

Here are the basic branding lessons to learn from this year's election cycle:

1. Be faithful to your brand: The Republican's learned the hard way that the moment you stop "walking the walk" buyers/voters vanish. The GOP got lucky in finding a new brand that worked in the 11th hour.
2. Do not invent a brand that is not authentic: Obama learned that you cannot talk "small town" in Scranton then disrespect "small town" in San Francisco.
3. Represent your brand at every touch point: You receptionist should reinforce your brand. McCain picked a running mate that reinforced his.

Guy Smith is the chief consultant for Silicon Strategies Marketing. Guy brings a combination of technical, managerial and marketing experience to Silicon Strategies projects. Directly and as a consultant, Guy has worked with a variety of technology-producing organizations. A partial list of these technology firms include DeviceAnywhere (mobile applications), ORBiT Group (high-availability backup software), Telamon (wireless middleware), Wink Communications (interactive television), LogMeIn (remote desktop), FundNET (SaaS), DeviceAnywhere (mobile applications), Open-Xchange (groupware), VA Software (enterprise software), Virtual Iron (server virtualization), SUSE (Linux distributions and applications), BrainWave (application prototyping) and Novell.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Guy_Smith

Read more...