France had a revolution in 1789, just a few years after the American Revolutionary War. Terrible things happened in France, shortly after the storming of the Bastille and the killing of King Louis XVI and Queen Marie Antoinette. That was the time of the guillotine and the beheading of royalty along with many other people who confronted the leaders of the "Reign of Terror." Napoleon became the emperor of France in 1804. He lost his rule after the battle of Waterloo. Napoleon was first followed by a king, then a democracy and then another king. France is currently in its Fifth Republic. My point is that a democracy is not easily achieved. It takes a great deal of time to establish a democratic government.
In my opinion, a large and prosperous middle class is essential in obtaining and maintaining democratic rule. This is because the middle class has growing investments in businesses and even houses. They want to protect all their financial interests. Through voting, the middle class feels that they have some involvement in promoting and keeping a strong democracy. Several countries prove this point.
Russia has had a democracy for a short time. However, Russia is returning to the rule of a new tyrant because of the huge lower class, the small rich upper class and relatively few middle-class people. The new ruler, Putin, seized a few wealthy peoples' assets and then jailed them. Putin will not give up his power quickly. He will probably figure out how to overcome the constitution or eliminate it all together.
Germany is another democracy. Germany had the Weimar Republic, a supposed democracy, after World War I. Hitler and his Nazi party were able to easily overthrow that Republic. Germany, as most of the industrial countries had suffered a depression. The United States had the longest depression during the 1930s. Germany fell easily to the Nazis because of rampant inflation. Germany became very prosperous after World War II, with the aid of the United States' Marshall Plan. It continues to be a successful democracy with a large middle class.
Many countries in South America demonstrate the issues facing democratic societies. Both Argentina and Chile have middle classes. Each country has been in the control of dictators. Argentina also had economic difficulties. But the large middle classes of Argentina and Chile struggled hard to reestablish prosperity. Now it appears that these two countries maybe well-established democracies. Several countries in the northern part of South America are teetering on losing their democracies. Venezuela just had an election. Democracy seems to have narrowly won out. But the strong man, Hugo Chavez, has yet to react. Several other countries in that region are having their democracies challenged because the middle classes are not large or secure.
The United States is also having economic problems. The current administration, by bending over backwards to help the very rich through tax reductions has increased the national debt. Most of the debt is owed to foreign countries. The debt has been run up at a rate never known before in the western world, even during the many wars our country has helped finance or when the U.S. has made adjustments for inflation. Favoring the rich has negatively affected the middle class, whose incomes have fallen due to inflation. The middle class is becoming less effective in trying to maintain a strong democracy. The wealthy people, who can afford lobbying, are influencing Congress to pass laws that are against middle/lower class voters' interests. The media has also been ignoring the economic problems of the country. Running up the huge national debt will eventually affect the soundness of the country's economy by destroying the middle class. The upcoming elections will be very important. Yet, a group of religious zealots, who only care about insignificant religious issues, may distort the election results. Unfortunately, the future of the U.S. rises or falls over the Iraqi war, abortions and same-sex marriages, rather than on the country's declining economy and the debts that future generations will be left to pay.
Chester P. Soling
Tuesday, March 31, 2015
Thursday, March 26, 2015
Cutting Back On Watching The News
In rare emergency situations, such as floods or earthquakes, I watch a TV news show for a few moments. Other than that, I stopped watching TV news 20 years ago. I stopped listening to news on the radio 15 years ago. These days, I tend to get 100% of my news from the Internet, spending less than 15 seconds a day skimming the news; and I suspect I am not alone. I am a judgment broker who writes a lot.
A long time ago, radio and TV news was much more important for reasons that included back then, there was less choice about what to watch on TV. And, before the Internet, TV and radio news was the fastest way to learn what was happening worldwide. The Internet ruined the newspaper business, and conventional radio stations are finding it more difficult to stay profitable. These are five reasons I do not watch TV news or listen to radio news:
1) Media news often exaggerates, and may even occasionally lie. Consistently, every news source or anchor seems to say almost the same thing. Sometimes later, the facts seem to indicate that the real story was somewhat different. News cannot avoid covering topics with selective bias and/or selective indignation, which omits some news, and focuses on a limited number of topics.
2) Even if TV and radio news was 100% accurate, it just does not seem to apply to me. I prefer to focus on good things, and what I can do now and in the future. I do not focus on what the world does or does not do. Why worry about what I cannot change?
3) Media news is constantly repeated, sometimes in mind-numbing detail, often for trivial topics. Most news topics do not improve from knowing all the details, however media news seems to dig to find trivia, and present it as being important to understanding the main concepts of the story.
4) Just like newspapers, TV networks and stations, and radio; we get the same news, much faster on the web. There, we can catch up on the news while watching TV, a movie, listening to music, etc.
5) Media news is often disturbing, biased, and celebrity-centric. These are things I prefer not to focus on. If I watch TV news, I watch it only in short and fun doses, for example clips and discussions on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, or the Colbert Nation show with Stephen Colbert.
The Internet is changing our world as much as electricity did. News is something we want to know the full details about, only for topics that interest us, and that is best accomplished on the web. You can set Google News, and other news portals, to show you just the news stories that interest you.
TV and radio news may work best by sticking to the headlines. Maybe if TV and radio media news just offered headlines, and had several good comedians telling lots of jokes in each show, that would persuade me to tune in again.
Mark D. Shapiro, a judgment broker at JudgentBuy, and I never watch the news.
A long time ago, radio and TV news was much more important for reasons that included back then, there was less choice about what to watch on TV. And, before the Internet, TV and radio news was the fastest way to learn what was happening worldwide. The Internet ruined the newspaper business, and conventional radio stations are finding it more difficult to stay profitable. These are five reasons I do not watch TV news or listen to radio news:
1) Media news often exaggerates, and may even occasionally lie. Consistently, every news source or anchor seems to say almost the same thing. Sometimes later, the facts seem to indicate that the real story was somewhat different. News cannot avoid covering topics with selective bias and/or selective indignation, which omits some news, and focuses on a limited number of topics.
2) Even if TV and radio news was 100% accurate, it just does not seem to apply to me. I prefer to focus on good things, and what I can do now and in the future. I do not focus on what the world does or does not do. Why worry about what I cannot change?
3) Media news is constantly repeated, sometimes in mind-numbing detail, often for trivial topics. Most news topics do not improve from knowing all the details, however media news seems to dig to find trivia, and present it as being important to understanding the main concepts of the story.
4) Just like newspapers, TV networks and stations, and radio; we get the same news, much faster on the web. There, we can catch up on the news while watching TV, a movie, listening to music, etc.
5) Media news is often disturbing, biased, and celebrity-centric. These are things I prefer not to focus on. If I watch TV news, I watch it only in short and fun doses, for example clips and discussions on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, or the Colbert Nation show with Stephen Colbert.
The Internet is changing our world as much as electricity did. News is something we want to know the full details about, only for topics that interest us, and that is best accomplished on the web. You can set Google News, and other news portals, to show you just the news stories that interest you.
TV and radio news may work best by sticking to the headlines. Maybe if TV and radio media news just offered headlines, and had several good comedians telling lots of jokes in each show, that would persuade me to tune in again.
Mark D. Shapiro, a judgment broker at JudgentBuy, and I never watch the news.
Sunday, March 22, 2015
Life, Liberty And The Pursuit Of Happiness
What is most important to anyone anywhere? Unquestionably, it is one's own life and the freedom to live it. No one wants to lose his/her life, or some kind of freedom of action.
The problem, which seems unbelievable for those of us in the United States, is that our Federal government thinks that it can deny an individual's freedom, and/or life based on secret evidence. The Federal government has taken supposed terrorists into court, or kept many people in prison, as "enemy combatants" solely on its claim that the evidence is secret. If that argument is valid, then our basic human rights established in the Declaration of Independence, have been abrogated. "We hold these truths to be self-evident... " It goes on "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness... That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just power from the consent of the governed."
It can be argued that our government must keep secret some things, especially living with the threat of terrorism. But on the other hand, one's life and freedom overrides even the government's claim of secrecy. This has to be a fact! Our government should give up on the prosecution of that individual when the government is to represents all people. A person can't be put in jail on evidence that the defendant can't confront. That is also one of the basic principles of our law. It can't be otherwise! Put yourself into the situation of being unable to confront an accuser within your own life. Why our courts forget this basic principle today is beyond reason.
There has to be a balance in all things. Much of the world does want democracies. When a country decides upon a democracy, it doesn't mean our type of democracy, as we hope to understand it. It could be a religious form of government. Our understanding is undermined by our present government's actions of holding and/or trying people on secret information. This becomes like trial in "absentia," which is illegal in the United States.
EARMARKING
Americans seldom hear the word "earmarking;" therefore they don't know what it means. This author just learned about the word and its reference to yet another way that our corrupt Congress works.
Any member of Congress can earmark money for a pet project. The name of Senator Harry Bird is all anyone sees when driving through West Virginia. He was able to get loads of money for his state. In the past, members of Congress had hard time earmarking money because of tight budgets. Bird had that power and the ability in past days. Earmarking is almost unlimited today, with no caps on spending and members of congress having no conscience. The Transportation bill had 538 earmarks in 1991. There were a total of 1,800 earmarks in 1991. Appropriations carried 8,000 earmarks totaling $10 billion in 2004. It was excused under the pretext that it was only 1.2% of the $882 billion budget. The amount of $10 billion is still big money when talking about the secret way our country is going broke. What reader wouldn't like a.2% of the total budget for him/her self?
Numerous frivolous earmarks have been approved and funded. The earmarks are only frivolous to the outsider. The residents in any district receiving appropriations think funding of projects is just great. It is impossible to unseat that district's member of Congress.
All any member of congress has to do is attach an earmark to any piece of appropriation. If money is tight, yet there is no prior review, except perhaps by a conference committee. That means that no members of Congress vote on that appropriation. Today earmarking is an open door. Didn't Republican administrations of the past always preach fiscal responsibility? Earmarked appropriations will be debt that all our grandchildren will have to service or possibly pay off. Just call your member of Congress if there is anything you need.
Chester P. Soling
The problem, which seems unbelievable for those of us in the United States, is that our Federal government thinks that it can deny an individual's freedom, and/or life based on secret evidence. The Federal government has taken supposed terrorists into court, or kept many people in prison, as "enemy combatants" solely on its claim that the evidence is secret. If that argument is valid, then our basic human rights established in the Declaration of Independence, have been abrogated. "We hold these truths to be self-evident... " It goes on "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness... That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just power from the consent of the governed."
It can be argued that our government must keep secret some things, especially living with the threat of terrorism. But on the other hand, one's life and freedom overrides even the government's claim of secrecy. This has to be a fact! Our government should give up on the prosecution of that individual when the government is to represents all people. A person can't be put in jail on evidence that the defendant can't confront. That is also one of the basic principles of our law. It can't be otherwise! Put yourself into the situation of being unable to confront an accuser within your own life. Why our courts forget this basic principle today is beyond reason.
There has to be a balance in all things. Much of the world does want democracies. When a country decides upon a democracy, it doesn't mean our type of democracy, as we hope to understand it. It could be a religious form of government. Our understanding is undermined by our present government's actions of holding and/or trying people on secret information. This becomes like trial in "absentia," which is illegal in the United States.
EARMARKING
Americans seldom hear the word "earmarking;" therefore they don't know what it means. This author just learned about the word and its reference to yet another way that our corrupt Congress works.
Any member of Congress can earmark money for a pet project. The name of Senator Harry Bird is all anyone sees when driving through West Virginia. He was able to get loads of money for his state. In the past, members of Congress had hard time earmarking money because of tight budgets. Bird had that power and the ability in past days. Earmarking is almost unlimited today, with no caps on spending and members of congress having no conscience. The Transportation bill had 538 earmarks in 1991. There were a total of 1,800 earmarks in 1991. Appropriations carried 8,000 earmarks totaling $10 billion in 2004. It was excused under the pretext that it was only 1.2% of the $882 billion budget. The amount of $10 billion is still big money when talking about the secret way our country is going broke. What reader wouldn't like a.2% of the total budget for him/her self?
Numerous frivolous earmarks have been approved and funded. The earmarks are only frivolous to the outsider. The residents in any district receiving appropriations think funding of projects is just great. It is impossible to unseat that district's member of Congress.
All any member of congress has to do is attach an earmark to any piece of appropriation. If money is tight, yet there is no prior review, except perhaps by a conference committee. That means that no members of Congress vote on that appropriation. Today earmarking is an open door. Didn't Republican administrations of the past always preach fiscal responsibility? Earmarked appropriations will be debt that all our grandchildren will have to service or possibly pay off. Just call your member of Congress if there is anything you need.
Chester P. Soling
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)