article: Politics

Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts

Saturday, February 16, 2013

Recent Events Show Relevance For Civil Rights Organizations

According to Ryan Dody, a contributor on ehow.com, civil rights organizations were in the forefront for the underserved in the United States.

He noted, “The American civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s forever changed the political spectrum and social interaction within the country. Though advocacy groups had long been in place, it wasn't until this era that they began to wield major political influence on a national scale. Many nonprofit organizations help advance the cause of civil rights for African Americans and other minorities. Similar organizations monitor human-rights violations on a global scale.”

Many argue that the pressing issues of that period are now resolved and the relevance of civil rights organizations are in question.

“There is a need for civil rights organizations now, more than ever. Hate crimes are still being committed, some neighborhoods are still segregated, and there is still a disparaging economic gap between minorities and Whites,” stated Randye Bullock, an emerging author in Detriot and co-founder of the National Black Public Relations Society.

“Many Americans feel that since we have a Black President, we should feel that we have ‘arrived.’ But as long as there is discrimination in the job market, housing, insurance, etc., the watchdog groups must not rest. America should never go backwards, be complacent, or sit on its laurels, for there are always those who would like to eliminate all progress.”

In order to determine the relevance of civil rights organizations, let us point out that infringement on these rights have impacted more than people of color.

The civil rights organizations of prominence include the NAACP, National Urban League, American Civil Liberties Union, National Organization for Women, Amnesty International and the Anti-Defamation League, which have been in the fight for civil and human rights for decades.

Their constituencies range from minorities, women and religious groups to political prisoners, disabled people and immigrants, encompassing issues including racism, sexism, age and workplace discrimination with a common goal for justice and equality.

The rash of recent racially charged statements, particularly those directed at President Barack Obama, made by individuals in the public eye from industries ranging from journalism to the judiciary have emphasized to many the relevance of civil rights organizations.

Paul Meacham, former president of the Clark County Community College (now the College of Southern Nevada) put it this way, “Are civil rights groups still relevant? To quote Sarah Palin: ‘YOU BETCHA!!’ One needs only to look at the Republican/Tea Party circus going on to get the answer to that question. If any one of them somehow gets in the White House, we're going to need more than civil rights groups like the NAACP, Urban League, etc. As I see it, the only antidote is the vote. So get out from behind your comfort level and start registering people to vote. And after that, GET THEM TO THE POLLS.”

Also, Jon A. Shields, a retired high school teacher and certified adult trainer in Illinois added, “They are definitely still relevant. Racism still is alive and well in this country. There is strength in numbers and minorities need to show strength through affiliations with groups; and in groups that stand for civil rights.

“Rights of Black men are violated constantly by the law enforcement establishment. Yes, civil right organizations are needed to address this injustice. If the president of the USA can be bombarded with racist actions and attitudes daily, then there certainly must be a need for groups to address these same issues for Black folks who haven't achieved such an elevated status in this society as our president.”

The relevance of civil rights organizations to a generation that has benefited from the sacrifices of previous generations may warrant a review of the basic foundations for these organizations and how they can evolve to survive and still maintain their established legacies.

“Civil rights organizations will always be needed - whether or not they are relevant is based on other factors like the mission. Over the past 16 years I have worked for or consulted with multiple African American organizations focused on technology, employment, training and energy and my time with each was unique plus special and I found that all of us worked hard to champion our stated causes,” commented Guy Madison, Principal Consultant, GM Consulting in Atlanta.

“What keeps the organizations going are those individuals that will approach you and say I wish we had this when I was coming up or thank you for making a difference because I had nowhere else to turn as other methods have yielded little to no results.

“The question is important because the next generation isn't drawn to civil rights organizations and it is a growing trend. We know ‘why’ these groups are still needed, but we need to focus on ‘how’ to bring in the next generation of leaders and give them the skill sets to deal with the current challenges of the day.”

Civil rights organizations paved the way for people from all walks of life to pursue “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” in this country.

Without these “drum majors for justice,” the lifestyles that many of us take for granted would not exist. Without diverse people today taking up those same banners we are jeopardizing the access to these same “inalienable rights” for the next generation.

More from: Recent Events Show Relevance For Civil Rights Organizations - Article: 1457331 at Isnare.com Free Articles
Published at: http://www.isnare.com

Chad Holley, Martin Cases Show Black Male Life Has No Value

Sorry Black men, but your life is worth nothing. It is worth nothing in the eyes of the law, which allows others to brutalize you and murder you without any repercussions. And it is worth nothing in comparison to other forms of life, not just human beings.

Most of the country has paid attention to the senseless murder of Trayvon Martin at the hands of self-appointed neighborhood watch captain George Zimmerman in Sanford, Fla. However, very little attention has been given to the beating of Houston teenager Chad Holley at the hands of six Houston police officers on March 24, 2010.

Chad Holley was avoiding arrest on a burglary charge when officers were caught on video beating and kicking the then 15-year-old who appears to be submitting to the officers’ arrest.

According to the Houston Chronicle, the six officers, including the recently acquitted Andrew Bloomberg, were fired for their actions by Police Chief Charles McClelland. Nevertheless, an all-White jury in a town as diverse in Houston found Bloomberg not guilty of the misdemeanor charge official oppression, despite clear video evidence that he assaulted Chad Holley.

The acquittal of Bloomberg harkens back to the acquittal of the officers who beat Los Angeles motorist Rodney King. More peaceful protests have erupted throughout Houston since the acquittal on Wednesday.

The next day, the Associated Press reported that Martin had traces of marijuana in his system the night he was murdered by Zimmerman. The AP also reported that a photo surfaced “showing Zimmerman with a bloody nose on the night of the fight. A paramedic report says Zimmerman had a 1-inch laceration on his head.”

The evidence is crucial to Zimmerman’s defense that he shot Martin in self-defense, invoking Florida’s stand your ground statute. However, where were Martin’s rights the night of Feb. 26?

Many have sided with Zimmerman, stating that he had every right to shoot the teenager because he feared for his life as a result of the physical altercation, but why didn’t Martin have the same right to stand his ground and defend his life? Was Zimmerman’s life worth more than Martin’s life? Unfortunately, it seems so.

Black male life has been undervalued, devalued or not valued at all for generations. The murder of Martin and the police brutality endured by Chad Holley are just the most recent examples of the obvious.

We can go back 15 years to the murders of Tupac Shakur and Notorious B.I.G. Despite evidence pointing to several suspects over the years, police in Las Vegas and Los Angeles, respectively, have seemed to turn the other cheek at evidence that could have led to the arrests of the murderers of these two Black men. You can add Jam Master Jay and others to a growing list of unsolved murders involving high-profile Black males.

Furthermore, football star Michael Vick was incarcerated for killing dogs, but it seems very few, Black, White or otherwise, are ever incarcerated for the deaths of Black males.

To make matters worse, when Black men are victimized by crimes, the media and society at-large find a way to demonize these young men, as if one mistake in life justifies their assault or death.

Yes, Chad Holley was wrong for his part in a burglary and he paid the price. The officers who assaulted him should also have to pay the price for their wrongdoing.

Yes, Martin experimented with marijuana like many teenagers, but that has nothing to do with what happened on the night of Feb. 26 and it is definitely not the reason Zimmerman confronted him on that night.

He was confronted because he was a Black male, and because of stereotypes and stupidity some idiot decided his life was not as important as a non-Black life.

It is just sad that Zimmerman is not the only person who feels that way; just ask Chad Holley, Vick and King among others.

More from: Chad Holley, Martin Cases Show Black Male Life Has No Value - Article: 1580317 at Isnare.com Free Articles
Published at: http://www.isnare.com

The Hispanic Trayvon? Self Defense Laws Gone Awry

In his historic letter from a Birmingham jail, Martin Luther King, Jr. stated “injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” Those words can also be paraphrased to state injustice to anyone is a threat to justice for everyone.

Black America, and some in mainstream America, have been justifiably up in arms over the senseless murder of Florida teenager Trayvon Martin in February. Many have blamed racial profiling and Florida’s self defense laws as the culprits along with George Zimmerman.

Although many non-Blacks have participated in the rallies for justice, just like during the Civil Rights Movement, the sea of people in these marches against similar self defense laws have been predominately chocolate.

However, what if the roles were reversed and the killer was Black and the victim was White or Hispanic, would African Americans be as vocal about injustice and these asinine self defense laws?

I asked Houston community activist Quannel X why we do not see more diversity at these protests and he stated that many people do not care about injustice if it does not affect them. His assessment is probably the truth whether we admit it or not.

According to USA Today, on April 3 in a Taco Bell parking lot in Phoenix, Daniel Adkins, Jr. got into a verbal altercation with Cordell June. After the altercation ended Adkins was dead from a gunshot wound and two months later June is still a free man. June stated that Adkins swung an object at the passenger side door of his car where his pregnant girlfriend sat. June invoked Arizona’s self defense laws and has avoided prosecution.

The only difference from the Martin tragedy is that the victim is Hispanic and the killer is African American.

USA Today writer Marisol Bello wrote, “Unlike the Trayvon Martin case, in which civil rights leaders pounded their pulpits in protest and signed petitions calling for an arrest, the death of Daniel Adkins, Jr. has gotten little national attention

“As in the Martin case in Florida, in which police did not arrest George Zimmerman for 45 days, a stand-your-ground law is influencing action in the Phoenix shooting.”

Although Adkins’ parents do not believe race was a factor in their son’s death, they understand how stereotypes or misinterpretation can lead to tragic consequences. Their 29-year-old son was mentally disabled and could have come across wrong to June. Likewise, a hoodie worn by a Black teenager could have come across as threatening to a person that is steeped in stereotypes.

Nevertheless, wrong is wrong and right is right no matter what color the victim and the perpetrator might be and it is imperative that the Black community stand up for justice not only when it affects us but when it affects others as well.

Like Martin’s parents, the Adkins family will never see their son again because of an avoidable situation. And like Sybrina Fulton and Tracy Martin they deserve justice for their son, despite the self defense laws that make it more difficult to punish killers.

More from: The Hispanic Trayvon? Self Defense Laws Gone Awry - Article: 1612644 at Isnare.com Free Articles
Published at: http://www.isnare.com

Abdel Aziz of Mauritania Should Step Down Now

His government nothing more than a pack of lies and his regime a dictatorship bent on oppressing the people of Mauritania, it is past time that Ould Abdel Aziz stepped down. His illegal seizure of power in 2008 remains to be addressed honestly. Despite numerous calls from the international community for an honest reckoning, Aziz has rebuffed any attempt to show his illegitimate his government is. His promises of elections “as soon as possible” is a complete joke and is reducing Mauritania to a laughing stock across the globe. The 2009 election in which he won 52.58 percent of the votes is widely considered a fraud. The US State Department has regularly issued statements condemning the coup d’état as illegal and unconstitutional. The African Union has issued condemnation of General Aziz. He is the subject of travel bans and the asset freezing. Aziz is directly responsible for lack of reliable election mechanisms, unresolved humanitarian issues, unemployment, slavery, violation of human rights, insecurity and terrorism, even while he publicly decries these very things. In 2007, slavery was declared illegal but since then only one person has been brought to justice. Rather, attempts to end slavery are prosecuted. “Seven anti-slavery activists were arrested in April after burning religious books advocating slavery. When they were tried for threatening state security in June, the court dismissed the case for “incompetence and procedural nullity,” according to the Movement for Justice and Equality in Mauritania. Despite the ruling, the seven remain behind bars,” states The Daily News from Egypt. If he was so against these crimes, why do they continue to run rampant and unabated in Mauritania? Why does law enforcement kowtow to him and persecute those opposed to his regime why his supporters are free to do as they please? Where is the justice this man has promised? The answer to that is, the promised justice has been perverted, subverted and rejected by this man who is more interested in dominating the people of Mauritania than serving them. The Daily News from Egypt reports “The West African country suffers from corruption, drought and an unemployment rate of 30 percent, the third highest in the Arab World after Yemen and Djibouti. Slavery is endemic, with CNN estimating that 10 to 20 percent of the country’s population of 3.5 million live in some form of slavery. In addition, the ethnically African population is increasingly disenfranchised by the ruling Arabic class.” Step down Aziz, now, if you honestly love the country.

More from: Abdel Aziz of Mauritania Should Step Down Now - Article: 1705476 at Isnare.com Free Articles
Published at: http://www.isnare.com

Australia’s Debt Tops $200 Billion After Government Borrows $100 Million Per Day – Jamie McIntyre

On Friday our nation’s debt went over $200 billion for the first time ever. We borrowed $3.2 billion over the last week.

Our debt ceiling was $75 billion when the current party got into government. On 11 March 2009, “special circumstances” warranted an increase to a “temporary” level of $200 billion. The last budget saw the government increase it permanently to $250 billion.

If we keep borrowing money like we borrowed last week, we might be able to give this latest ceiling a nudge.

This ignorance and recklessness has got to end. Ongoing debt cannot sustain our country’s needs forever.

The government has increased our gross debt by $140 billion since they came to office in November 2007.

Having been in government for 1371 days, they have therefore borrowed over $100 million per day.

With 12.3 million taxpayers in Australia, this government has borrowed an extra $11,000 on behalf of each of them.

Ignorance is not bliss. We need to be asking the real, hard questions – What have we got to show for this debt? Apart from some new school sheds costing $16billion which haven’t improved our children’s education one bit, and batts in roofs to increase the chance of house fires.

Sure stimulus is necessary in a Credit Crisis.

Not blatant waste and mismanagement of tax payers’ money.

By falling further and further into debt, are we really assisting our nation and the future of Australia?

Yours in Health, Wealth & Prosperity,

Jamie McIntyre.

Jamie McIntyre is the founder of the 21st Century Group of companies and CEO of 21st Century Education. He is also author of the bestselling book ‘What I Didn’t Learn At School But Wish I Had’, successful entrepreneur, investor, sought after success coach, internationally renowned speaker and world-leading educator.

In search for a ‘real-life’ education that would teach him the strategies to excel in the 21st Century, Jamie travelled the world meeting and learning from some of the best educators and leaders on the planet. He invested over $100,000 within a 3-year period to access people who had produced outstanding results in different aspects of their lives and studied through seminars, personal mentors, interviewing successful people and researching hundreds of books.

Through this extensive research Jamie was able to completely transform his life in a period of only 3–5 years. From being $150,000 in personal debt, he became a self-made millionaire whilst still in his twenties, founding several companies, massively improving his health and importantly his relationships to live his dream life.

Jamie was able to model and learn from multi-millionaires, entrepreneurs, investors and even highly acclaimed success coaches such as Anthony Robbins, world-renowned economists and presidential advisor Paul Zane Pilzer, leaders such as General Norman Schwarzkopf of Desert Storm, Marketing Guru Jay Abrahams and world leading entrepreneurs such as Sir Richard Branson.

After producing outstanding results in many areas of his life, Jamie decided to fulfill a promise he made to one of his personal mentors, that after successfully transforming his own life, he would pass this education on to others, and so the 21st Century Group was born.

An active philanthropist, Jamie has donated millions of dollars to delivering a 21st Century Education nationwide. He is also the founder of 21st Century Charity which supports charities such as the Australian Red Cross, World Vision, Breast Cancer Network Australia, Make-A-Wish Foundation, Starlight Children’s Foundation Australia, Canteen, Basket Brigade and lots more.

Jamie now resides on the on the Gold Coast, Australia and while he continues to live out his dream lifestyle, he is still extremely passionate about making a ‘21st Century’ education available to everyone worldwide.

Payroll Taxes Imposed by Greedy State Governments Will Lead to a Continued Loss of Australian Jobs by Jamie McIntyre

State governments impose taxes on companies who employ staff in their state.

The rates vary slightly between each state but generally it’s 4 – 5% tax on top of each employee’s salary above a low threshold, capturing almost all small businesses and larger.

Victoria charges one of the highest rates in the entire country and uses draconian methods to collect the monies, even using tactics to enforce companies to be liable for other companies’ payroll taxes within a group of companies.

Only misguided politicians could think of such a tax to penalise companies employing Australians.

A lot of small businesses only operate on a 0 – 10% profit margin.

Paying 4 – 5% payroll tax on employees in many cases eliminates most of the minimal profits small businesses make.

Combined with the GST most companies incur and can’t pass on, it makes many businesses simply not viable.

Which leads to job losses.

It’s ironic; the unemployment rate is at a similar percentage to the payroll tax rate.

In fact because payroll tax is close to 5% it effectively means it costs 1 in 20 employed people a job, or 5% of the number of employed Australians.

That means if there was no payroll tax, with the money saved, businesses could employ one more person for every 20 employed.

If all the saved payroll tax went into employing extra staff, that would effectively, largely eliminate unemployment.

Many people don’t realise state governments made a promise… they agreed to eliminate payroll taxes, in return for a slice of GST revenues.

Then they lied and reneged on the deal, took the GST money but failed to reduce or eliminate payroll taxes, as promised to tax payers.

Penalising businesses to employ Australians is perhaps the dumbest tax in Australia.

Especially when Australian companies can now easily outsource work to overseas staff via sites such as www.elance.com and www.odesk.com where you can not only hire harder working employees for $3 – $10 an hour, but you pay zero payroll tax.

And you give someone a job who, not only deserves one, but is often higher skilled. In their country the payment is equal to a middleclass salary and enables them to live a life that, until recently, was only a dream.

State governments should be forced to deliver on the GST agreement and eliminate payroll taxes, starting with companies who employ less than 200 staff, which will help solve the high labour costs in Australia; one of our greatest economic threats.

These small to medium businesses employ 70% of Australians and can least afford to pay payroll tax.

I suggest businesses deliberately cap employing more Australians and consider outsourcing work overseas as a protest to state governments to deliver on their promises of payroll tax relief, or suffer the consequences of being the contributor to significant job losses in Australia.

I’ve personally capped the number of Australians I will employ in Australia, especially Victoria. In my companies I’ve approved up to 150 positions to employ oversee contractors, who don’t incur payroll tax and lower the cost of labour.

Some of these jobs would have gone to Australians but due to the greed of state government’s they won’t, and are unlikely to ever return.

In fact the next step for a lot of companies to be globally competitive now and into the future is to effectively cease operating from Australia altogether, or cut back to bare minimum staff here and grow their overseas operations.

Governments need to wake up to the fact we live in a globalised society. Payroll tax simply isn’t competitive. It’s nothing but a rort that only a bureaucrat who’s never earned a dollar in their life could dream up, to take from those who produce.

In my new book I’m about to release, 101 Ways to Improve Australia, I suggest that not only should payroll tax be eliminated, but state governments. They’re not necessary to effectively manage Australia.

(The UK has 60 million people and only two levels of government, whilst Australia has only 22 million people, yet 3 levels, costing significantly more for no extra benefit.)

Such a move would see a whole host of state taxes abolished. They simply wouldn’t be needed because costs of running state governments could be radically reduced without any effect on services (or some would say without any effect on the current lack of service).

If they hope to keep a long-term job in this country, employees in Australia should write to their state governments lobbying for payroll tax to be eliminated.

Trends Support Australians Want a New Political System and Don’t Like Compulsory Voting by Jamie McIntyre

One fifth of eligible voters, almost 3 million people choose not to vote according to the Financial Review.

It appears the land of compulsory voting is breeding non voters in large numbers.

Australians also have record disapproval ratings for both Gillard and Abbott.

Australia is only one of ten compulsory voting nations.

3 million people didn’t vote, or didn’t vote properly, at the last election in 2010.

1.2 million weren’t on the electoral role, 729,304 voted informally and 955,202 people on the role didn’t vote.

The turnout was the lowest, and informal votes the highest, since the advent of compulsory voting in 1925.

Political Professor, Andrew Hughes says, ” It will be even worse at the next election, which will again make the message against compulsory voting louder and clearer.”

The Government’s plan is to find the 1.5 million not on the electoral role.

Which misses the point that people are against being forced to vote for leaders or parties they simply don’t like.

In the coming fortnight, the Senate will consider a bill that will allow the AEC to use information from other sources – such as Medicare and Centrelink – to track down voters who have changed their personal details and re-enrol them.

Neilsen pollster John Stirton says, ” Voters are unhappy with politics and politicians, and the hung parliament hasn’t helped. The minority nature has damaged the government and it has damaged the system.”

It also shows the majority of voters want a change of leader on both sides.

62% prefer Rudd over Gillard (32%) and 61% prefer Malcolm Turnbull over Abbott (34%).

There appears to be an overriding trend against our political system, with only 60% of respondents supporting Australia’s democracy over other political systems, suggesting an alarming disconnection between voters and the political process that serves them.

Voters don’t seem to want Gillard or Abbott according to high disapproval ratings for both.

Voters want to be rid of Labor, but the huge collapse in Labor’s primary vote to record lows has not resulted in a stampede to the Coalition.

Labor’s primary vote, according to Neilsen Poll, has fallen 12% since the last election and the Coalition only increased 4.5%

The remaining 7.5% has simply been parked with minor parties and ‘don’t knows.’

According to Geoff Kitney of the Financial Review, “Party politics in Australia is now deeply uninspiring. Few bother making the effort to get involved, a turn- off that will be reflected in poorer quality parliaments.

Australia is sleep-walking towards a longterm , systemic disaster.

If the old parties can’t see their deaths approaching, then the time has surely come for someone brave enough to stand up and say we need a new party.”

I agree Australians are more open now than ever to not only a new major political party, ideally down the middle and led by someone like Malcolm Turnbull, but are also open to new political systems such as those proposed by the 21st Century Political System. For example, a system where voters get to vote direct on major policy and the eradication of political parties and compulsory voting.

Do We Have Free Press and a Democracy in Australia? And the Fairfax Saga Continues by Jamie McIntyre

According to Treasurer Swan, Gina Rinehart becoming the major shareholder in Fairfax is a threat to democracy.

I find this interesting.

Is this the so-called democracy where the majority elected Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, was sacked by minority union factions who dictate to the Labor Party?

Is this the so-called democracy where Gillard, when finally sent to an election, was clearly voted against by the majority of Australians yet she remains Prime Minister?

Is this the so-called democracy when the majority are against a carbon tax yet our unelected Prime Minister (who said, “there will be no carbon tax under my Government”) is introducing one because another minority, the Green party, dictates us?

Is this the so-called democracy where our Labor Ministers are now trying to change laws to ban media owners having an influence over what their employees (journalists) can say, and provide the Government with media control?

Isn’t that closer to communism than democracy?

Perhaps we just have an illusion of democracy in Australia, not actual democracy.

Isn’t a democracy one where the majority rule?

Thus my agenda to change our failing, out-dated 19th Century political system, and bring it into the 21st Century.

One where voters get to vote directly on major policy online several times a year, and only if they so wish to. Eliminating compulsory voting and the need for political parties.

It’s a simple, common sense, practical solution to put the power into the hands of voters and create a real democracy.

For more information visit http://jamiemcintyre.com/modern-day-21st-century-political-system-replace-current-outdated-19th-century-2/

The same reason my agenda is to revolutionise the out-dated 19th Century socialist education system that has failed – and continues to fail – so many people, and replace it with a modern day 21st Century one.

Once again, based on common sense and practical solutions.

Fairfax and Independent Media

The other thing I find interesting is the response to Gina Rinehart buying an 18.7% stake in Fairfax and her request for 3 board seats.

Fairfax journalists are in an uproar, demanding she sign a charter of editorial independence not to interfere in editorial of Fairfax papers because they’re afraid people will lose trust in journalists and the brand may be damaged.

I find this interesting, and honestly, more amusing than anything.

Firstly some news for Fairfax journalists:

Most people already don’t trust journalists, especially ones with clear political agendas and bias.

Since when do people believe what’s written in the papers anyway? That it’s independent and agenda free, and journalists are trustworthy people?

Most people would trust a used car salesman before a journalist to tell the truth and not distort it for their own agendas or to sell papers.

Secondly, if I’m the majority shareholder in a company, I’m sorry but employees wouldn’t dictate to me what I can and can’t do.

Being an owner gives one the right to dictate to employees, not the other way around.

To the arrogant journalists who don’t like the hard reality, I’d say, if you don’t like it, leave.

Actually in the next few years at Fairfax some 1900 employees are being cut and made redundant, so management might just take journalists up on their threats to leave if Gina Rinehart doesn’t sign a charter of independence.

By the way not one of the other Board Members have signed the same charter of independence, but they want to single Gina Rinehart out. Why?

She has opposing views to most of the left wing journalists at Fairfax.

Yes, editorial independence is important. But that’s something Australians haven’t had for a long time.

To suggest Fairfax journalists are independent is amusing. What they’re really saying is, “We don’t want the owners/board interfering with what we write because we want to be free to write and espouse our own agendas and don’t want our employer telling us what to do.”

I’m sure every other employee in Australia would also like to tell their boss not to interfere and where to go because, “I’m good to do as I please” but unfortunately that comes with severe consequences, unless you’re a protected species above everyone else somehow.

But I’m sorry, if you take a salary you can’t have your cake and eat it too.

Firstly, it’s unlikely Gina Rinehart would overly interfere in editorial because she would risk damaging her own investment.

And secondly, she doesn’t have to.

She could easily sign the charter (and be the only director in two decades to do so).

It doesn’t stop her sacking editors.

And editors are the ones who influence what we read in the papers.

Personally I find it amusing, a left wing newspaper company being bought by a right wing entrepreneur.

In fact it may bring balance to Fairfax publications and increase its readership.

Because if the Fairfax journalists haven’t noticed, their publications are largely losing money, so maybe it’s time they started listening to their new employer and they may just become more popular.

And it may be better at reading what the public want, rather than bias, agenda driven journalists free to write and push their largely socialist views.

I’m starting a political magazine shortly, for this reason. My 21st Century Media team have been busy planning.

It’s time Australians had access to balanced political content, rather than either just left wing or right wing media.

Common sense, down to earth, straight talking commentary opinions and facts designed with one disclosed agenda: to improve and advance Australia.

One that doesn’t aim to be politically correct and avoid controversy.

One that won’t care to offend, because often the truth offends those in denial.

It’s also why 21st Century Media is investing into a daily online news site, as well as business and finance news sites.

It’s time Australians had access to valuable news and educational content that strives to continually add value, allow for healthy debate, and advance the interest of our country and its citizens.

A media company that, yes, does have an agenda, but one it discloses right up front.

And one that isn’t reliant on external advertisers (however by the number of large brands signing up advertise with 21st Century Media it clearly has people’s interest).

Stay tuned.

This country needs change… and change is coming.

Does Australia Need a New Political Force? By Jamie McIntyre

According to a recent article in the Australian Financial Review, if an election was held now and voting wasn’t compulsory there would be record low voter turnout because on the whole, Australians aren’t happy with our current political leaders and choices.

As shown in the Queensland election, Labor voters have deserted their party in droves and it appears largely based on Federal issues. Mostly the unwanted carbon tax Gillard promised us all would never occur under her government.

Australians are fed up with the current government and powerful union factions dictating who our Prime Minister is.

However despite their loss of faith in the rapidly declining Labor party many just can’t bring themselves to vote for Tony Abbott.

Even though Abbott has done better than anyone expected, you get the feeling he has the ability to lose an unlosable election.

Or he’ll be elected simply because Gillard is so unpopular.

What is clearly being demonstrated in Australian politics is the lack of real choice.

What if you don’t want to vote for Gillard or Abbott?

What choices do you have?

“The Greens!” Some would say.

However that’s a vote for Labor.

Now if Australians were given freedom of choice at elections to tick a box, either:

1. Gillard

2. Abbott

3. I feel neither are competent

I know which box would win.

Which raises the question:

Does this mean if Australia had a real choice, like a legitimate 3rd political party, with quality leadership…

- Leadership that could appeal to both the disenchanted Labor voters and also a large majority of Liberals

- A leader who equally appeals to the rural electorate (which the National party used to) and also those that live in the city

- A leader that has real passion and drive to improve the country

- A leader with real life business experience

- Not a career politician after a cushy job, or union-controlled, agenda-driven candidate, or a lobbyist for powerful minorities… But a leader focused on the greater good of the country

- Who isn’t afraid to ditch political correctness and say how it is

- Who has a vision for the country’s future

- A leader that can appeal to a broad section of the population

- A leader who will make the tough decisions and strongly advance Australia’s interest and isn’t concerned with popularity contests

- A leader with financial intelligence and good economic management skills

- A party which isn’t pro-union and not pro-big business either, but pro-small business as the driver of the economy and balanced in regard to ensuring fair work place practices for employees

- A leader who believes all Australians are equal no matter where they have come from or what their heritage is

- Not someone who has extreme socialist views; that believe in welfare and trying to effectively buy votes that led to a dependent society living beyond its means

- A leader who doesn’t believe in big government but believes in effective government

- A party that believes Australia deserves world-class education and health care and knows that a quality modern day education system is the path to prosperity

- A leader who believes the elderly deserve to be treated so much better and Australians should be encouraged to look after their elderly parents in a loving home not just shipped to a nursing home and forgotten

- But not someone who is a ruthless capitalist that won’t ensure everyone gets a fair go

- A leader who is a compassionate capitalist

- A leader who can communicate well and inspire Australians to work together

- A leader who believes in encouraging Australians to engage in policy debate

- A party that would push for major policy to be decided by the voters each year – removing the government’s ability to push through policy they promise they wouldn’t just to get elected

- A leader who reduces the power of party politics that have distorted our political system and who doesn’t support towing the party line, because politicians should be free to move across the floor based on what they believe the policy should be

- A party which encourages freedom and independent thought

- A leader who appeals not just to the Baby Boomers but also Generations X and Y

- A leader who can connect with a large cross section of Australians

- A political force that would unite Australians to work as one…

-…And end the bitter divisions that Labor and Liberal create within Australia to distract from quality policy debate

- A party that would support good policy regardless of which party offers it

- Not just a Bob Katter led party that may provide an alternative for those in north Queensland but rather a credible party that can offer a real alternative, nation wide

- Nor a party that won’t have the policies or ability to lead an entire nation

- A party that’s in the middle of Australian politics. Not too far right or too far left

- A party that is focused on policy, not party politics

- A party people would want to flock to, to become a candidate, or vote for because they believe what it truly stands for and its ability to create change and better living conditions for all levels of society

- A party that encourages entrepreneurship as the cornerstone to prosperity

- A party that invests heavily in innovation and research

- A party that invests into nationwide infrastructure

- A party with 5, 10, 15 year plans

- A party that represents Australians’ interest in a fair and compassionate way

- A political force that has the required financial backing, grass roots support, and organisation abilities to deliver a credible party to gain significant votes

- A party that people feel proud to support no matter who they have voted for in the past

- A party that speaks for Australians who don’t feel their government is listening

- A party FOR the people BY the people

So the question is:

Are Australians ready for quality change, or do they need to endure more incompetent political leadership before they are willing to demand change?

Time will tell…

I think the time is coming for such a political force in Australia.

A party that would ensure Australians had real choice at future elections.

The time is coming for change in Australian politics.

Share your thoughts?

More from: Does Australia Need a New Political Force? By Jamie McIntyre - Article: 1757408 at Isnare.com Free Articles
Published at: http://www.isnare.com

Wednesday, February 13, 2013

Top Complaints in US Healthcare

One would have to dig very hard to find a greater hot button political topic in the United States than healthcare. It is a subject where every politician will publicly agree that change is necessary, but almost nobody can agree on what that change needs to be or how to enact it. It has led to such buzz terms as “Obamacare” and “death panels.” Beyond anecdotal horror stories (which can erupt from any type of healthcare system), it is important to note what the main problems with the current system are. This article will focus on the four areas that have generated the most heated debate. The reader can probably think of a few others as they are going through this, but I will venture a guess that most issues could fit under these umbrellas with minimal effort.

Cost: One could make a strong argument that cost is complaint number one, two, three, and so on with the health care system. Costs associated with healthcare have risen at a rate far greater than inflation or wages. In fact, as of last year, it takes up nearly one-fifth of the nation’s gross domestic product (source: CBS News). Compare this to two decades ago and healthcare accounted for less than one-tenth of the gross domestic product. This is clearly felt among the nation’s citizens who are either paying more directly for doctor’s visits and surgical procedures or experiencing the costs through higher health care premiums.

Another big aspect of this complaint revolves around the fact that it is primarily the consumers that are feeling the pain of these costs. One may frequently hear doctors, drug companies, hospitals, and insurance providers lament the rising cost structure that they face (which is definitely true, they do face higher costs themselves), but it is impossible for them to be churning out the record profits that the industry has in recent years without giving the consumer even a greater markup.

Availability/Quality: One factor that had driven prices so high is a limited availability of professionals, medicine, and facility space. This number gets even smaller if the consumer is looking for high quality care. It is no secret that the United States is facing a physician shortage. Every year, its medical schools produce a limited number of doctors to enter the workforce. Meanwhile, an expanding population produces an ever increasing number of individuals who require the services of these doctors. Hospital space and drug companies also take advantage of the demand outweighing supply by driving their prices up in accordance with standard economics.

Tort: This is arguably the top complaint from those with conservative leanings, and it is certainly not without merit. In the United States, tort accounts for a significant percentage of the GDP as well. It leads to doctors going to unnecessary lengths and doing unnecessary tests that are not in the best interest of the patient just to cover their behinds in case they get sued. There are no caps in place and the burden of proof often falls on the accused. That last statement is not true legally, but when juries see a crying widow or victim and know that the health care companies have deep pockets and are insured, they often give awards based upon bad results rather than whether or not the defendant actually acted in preventable error.

More from: Top Complaints in US Healthcare - Article: 1248337 at Isnare.com Free Articles
Published at: http://www.isnare.com

The Gillard Government Has to Go; And the National Broadband Network Plan in Tatters by Jamie McIntyre

As highlighted several times, the NBN is one of the biggest wastes of money any Australian Government has ever committed to. And according to Kevin Morgan of the Australian Newspaper it, “is hopelessly behind schedule and its plan in tatters”.

The only town where the NBN is on schedule is Armidale in Northern NSW, 45 minutes from where I grew up.

And why is that? Well, let me tell you.

The NBN only got the go ahead because of a certain Tony Windsor, who backed Gillard to form a Government based on the NBN plan…

…And of course, Armidale falls smack bang in the middle of his New England Electorate.

Of the 34,600 houses expected to be connected by June, over 25% of them will be in Armidale.

Taxpayers should be outraged at such blatant political bribery, which leads to wasting huge amounts of their hard earned money.

I doubt Gillard or Windsor will be around past the next election to clean up the mess. But we’ll be stuck with an expensive white elephant that will provide little value for money and be out-dated by the time it’s finished.

Latest opinion polls show the Gillard Government approval ratings are down to 27%.

That’s the same level Anna Bligh had, which saw the Labor party wiped off the map in Qld.

“But we need a fast broadband network!” Some people foolishly claim. As if that somehow justifies the waste of over $36 billion dollars (and counting) and the decade or so before we’ll have it.

Of course we need a fast broadband network. There’s no argument there.

The argument isn’t that we don’t need fast broadband network, rather that we don’t need to spend $36 billion (which is likely to exceed $50 billion) to have one.

We don’t need a plan that the Government refuses to do a cost benefit analysis on.

Nor do we need to wait 8 years (that will no doubt stretch to 10+ years) for one to be built, which will by then have a high probability of being obsolete.

Has no else noticed, by the way, that with the rapid growth of smart phones most of us already access the Internet via Wi Fi… let alone in 10 years time.

This is where more money needs urgent investing, because its traffic is already jammed.

Notice how Wi Fi Internet speeds are becoming slower in most areas…

An NBN can be built for a lot less (like $25 – $30 billion less) and rolled out where it’s needed most, like in major and capital cities.

Why is it China has high speed Internet already? Why do Australians have to wait 8 to 10 years?

And why is the rollout occurring in country areas and Tasmania first?

Wouldn’t ensuring the CBDs of major cities are covered ASAP be the way to go? And it would be done for a fraction of the costs too. What I mean is, focussing 20% of the effort and money to cover 80% of the result.

Maybe the Gillard Government and NBN board should have attended the Financial Education Summit in Melbourne last year, and listened to best-selling author Tim Ferriss share the power of the Pareto Principle (the 80/20 principle).

Yet here, in any capital city in Australia – let alone rural Australia – we have some of the slowest Internet speeds of any modern economy.

Less than 1.7 million homes are likely to be connected within 3 years, well below the 4.173 projected.

And what about the new housing estates that are meant to be connected upfront? Out of the 135,000 projected, by now only a measly 798 are ready for service. Appalling.

My millionaire mentor always taught me, when running a business:

“Be wary of employees, because it’s easy to spend other people’s money. It’s human nature. So in business, don’t put incompetent people, who don’t value money in charge of a chequebook, otherwise they’ll send you broke.”

I wish only Julia Gillard had had access to my mentor and some sound advice. Then this great country of ours wouldn’t be $250 billion in debt, with little to show for it – when the previous Government had retired nearly all Australia’s debt.

However, as Australians, do we not know by now: Labor Governments know how to spend tax payers money to bribe the electorate to remain in power, invent new taxes to fill their budget black holes, and run up massive debts?

Then we boot them out and spend 10 years catching up to where we were.

I mean, how much further ahead could our country be, if we stopped running this idiotic pattern?

Stuck in that cycle, a country will never achieve its full potential. And we risk missing out on this once in a lifetime commodities boom because, as Australians, we allowed such amateurs into office.

And I’m sorry if this offends any Labor supporters. (I know there aren’t many left to offend these days. Statistics say 1 in 4. And those 1 in 4 die hard Labor voters will go down with the ship, they’re so committed.)

However, my point isn’t about politics. Political Parties just create division.

Australians all need to work on the one team, not continually competing against each other.

Incompetent Governments from any side of politics warrant criticism where it’s deserved and I’m sorry, but this current one deserves a lot.

If the Liberals were doing this to the country I’d be equally critical, so this is not about political bias.

It’s about an abundantly clear observation that many notice.

And we haven’t even started on the Carbon tax yet. (European carbon is currently trading at $8 – $9 per tonne yet Australia’s is going to be priced at a massive $23 per tonne. Get ready to kiss billions more of our nation’s wealth away; and achieve very little for the environment, if anything.)

There are ten times better solutions for the environment than a Carbon Tax. See my 21 ways to Improve Australia article for details.

And you know what? As I recall we didn’t elect Julia.

The Union factions sacked our elected Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, and put Gillard in power.

Then, at her first contested election, (despite her party receiving significantly less votes than the opposition) individuals like Windsor and Oakshot (who were clearly happy accepting electoral bribes to put them in power) forced a Prime Minister upon this country that the majority of Australians voted against. And voted against for good reason.

A Prime Minister even the majority of Labor supporters don’t want.

She also promised there would be no Carbon tax, ever, under her Government.

Such democracy!

Not only does this all highlight the need for an improved, modern day 21st Century Political system…

…To better the quality of political leaders and help eliminate incompetents like this from screwing up a great country in the space of a few short years…

…It also highlights an obvious opening in Australia for a legitimate 3rd party political force.

One that the deserting Labor voters would support (which is enough to give any new party a major support base), as well as deserting Union supporters, and the many Liberal voters who don’t particularly like Abbott (but at this point in time have little choice) plus many independents…

Hmmm something to think about…

ASIC Chief is Doing a Good Job by Jamie McIntyre

I think Greg Medcraft, who’s been head of Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) for the last year, has done a good job compared to his predecessors.

Regulators should work cooperatively with the industry to better regulate industries they oversee.

A collaborative approach always works better, and gains the respect of the relevant industries.

Especially when there are so many grey areas in corporations law, unlike criminal law, which is generally black or white.

Because of the many grey areas where laws aren’t clear, it’s important industry regulators provide guidelines of what their interpretation of the law is, so companies know what is and isn’t compliant. And if one disagrees with ASIC’s interpretation, there’s always mediation, or courts to clarify the law.

Of course if there’s blatant criminal activity, a regulator has to send white-collar criminals to jail, to scare people so they don’t break black and white laws.

For example: if you rob a bank, you know you’re committing a crime.

But you could easily breach a corporations law and be none the wiser.

Because many laws are not clear and only a court can determine if something is or isn’t a breach, as both ASIC and the industry don’t actually know.

And that’s because many laws are untested or actually conflict with other corporations laws.

But in areas where there is uncertainty in relation to the law, regulators need to take a “tread softly” approach and educate on what they believe to be compliant behaviour, to achieve a fair outcome.

Mr Medcraft’s leadership should be commended because it is collaborative approaches like this that encourage better working relationships with industry; and greater investor protection.

This is a far cry from a decade ago when ASIC was using suspect tactics with the courts and would point blank refuse to provide guidelines to industry, simply to increase their chances of capturing companies accidentally breaching uncertain laws to boost its report card.

My battles with ASIC a decade ago gave me great insight into how abuse can occur at the hands of overzealous bureaucrats given too much power.

And how they can often go on relentless non-commercial pursuits to target certain sectors of industry, while neglecting to keep an eye on important, obvious areas.

Like the blatant losses caused by companies such as Storm Financial, which could be seen coming for years before any action was taken.

Or doing the dirty work for industries such as the financial planning body who lobbied to ASIC to wipe out competitors like financial educators a decade ago, using draconian measures that are an abuse of its mandate.

ASIC now seems to be more about doing its job, whereas in the past it was largely about being seen to be doing its job.

It didn’t care if someone was innocent or guilty; instead it was all about getting as many convictions as possible, to be seen as doing something.

Heavy-handed, unfair tactics discredit the regulator.

Especially when blatant, illegal activities happened in the market with ASIC failing to take action, which would have stopped billions being lost unnecessarily by investors.

It’s good to see ASIC take action against the financial planning industry for their blatant abuse of consumers over the past several decades in their efforts to ban financial planning commissions; and for this they should be commended.

Their efforts to improve financial advertising standards are also a step in the right direction, if they aren’t overdone.

I’ve said before, “Financial regulation will only do so much”.

Financial education is far more effective at protecting consumers than over regulation.

I mean take a look at things like the size of a prospectus now.

Over regulations have made the fine print expand to so many pages that no one bothers reading them. Which has decreased investor protection.

And it’s on that note I’m proud to say I’ll soon be announcing the launch of a brand new industry body for financial educators.

It’s been designed to provide free financial education resources, push the importance of financial literacy and the financial education industry, and increase consumer protection within the industry with a free consumer complaints service.

Did you know: Across the ditch an equivalent of ASIC (the FSA) has been started?

However they want Australian financial educators to be licensed in NZ now too.

This is a bad move, one that will prevent NZ consumers from accessing a financial education and leave them at the mercy of the financial planning industry, which caused massive losses to NZ investors in recent years.

So much so that the NZ Government had to fork out $795 million to cover losses.

This is an example of over regulation having the opposite effect than intended.

Most Australian financial educators, who are already licensed in Australia and paying thousands in fees, simply won’t invest in a NZ license for such a small domestic market.

We have recently written to the NZ FSA suggesting they consider financial educators licensed by ASIC in Australia be able to speak at events in NZ without having a dual license.

For Kiwi’s sake I hope so. Otherwise they’ll all have to spend more on airfares to access leading edge financial strategies and education over here.

More from: ASIC Chief is Doing a Good Job by Jamie McIntyre - Article: 1757305 at Isnare.com Free Articles
Published at: http://www.isnare.com

Which Required Pieces to Explore When Paying For an Barack Obama Shirt

Now industry is starting being flooded with the having more than enough about tailor made t-shirts which have been dedicated to a upcoming US Presidential political election highlighting The federal government along with his lower adversary Mitt Romney. There certainly are a great deal of distinctive creations available to flaunt for a wide variety of unique supplements, not merely Obama t-shirts. For that reason, it is very important to select the ideal fashion for the Obama shirts to wear with pride to the promotional event trek in addition to Barack obama. The challenge apparently is normally, how must an intelligent human being the right way decide stunning Obama t-shirts to put on and then reveal his / her care? Luckily, here are a few key components to analyze when acquiring Obama shirts. Here is an excellent not to mention efficient directory first off.

One of the leading matters to always be quite receptive to when picking Obama t-shirts or even every personal design and style will be communication that it must be undoubtedly corresponding. If that you're traditional and you should not for instance College, then there'd always be very little explanation to really slip on Obama t-shirts. This stage will distribute a poor sales message on the people today you meet. Yet, Obama shirts in the hands of his enthusiast is really a differing predicament that should be addressed. For the optimists and those that have confidence in great imagining, probably Obama t-shirts which has a message involving expect are your favorite. On all the other palm, on your pessimists and people who happen to be containing comment hatred, Obama shirts the fact that encounter your partner's foe are more desirable.

The 2nd subject when selecting Obama t-shirts is a expertise of the custom made t-shirt an additional apparel. Finding Obama shirts from the block source that is certainly selling these products for the purpose of really less expensive is usually not best. You have to have a highly regarded outfits collection and / or stylish which produces excellent Obama t-shirts. If you don't, about strange jeopardy involving awful t-shirts, in addition to the fact is that people who drive inexpensive items will suffer seriously when you need it. It is actually essential to see the high quality with Obama shirts.

At last, the last component a real client must look into in selecting Obama t-shirts certainly is the dimension. There is undoubtedly an awful and even terrible phenomena not long ago that would rather dress yourself in really firm t-shirts. Fundamentally, entire to seek just like models who may have extraordinary our bodies. Yet, your depressing fact is that many us residents can be fat and also bad. They want to dress yourself in Obama shirts for his or her's big systems. Do not test to help you con typically the shirt measurement. Get the suitable volume and sometimes it means abusing the ego.

To summary it, Obama t-shirts tend to be getting more popualr and then right now include a wide array of design to pick from. Why not, perform people a big favor together with wear Obama shirts which you feel comfortable throughout as well as consider what is the model indicates.

More from: Which Required Pieces to Explore When Paying For an Barack Obama Shirt - Article: 1621921 at Isnare.com Free Articles
Published at: http://www.isnare.com

The Selling of a President

There are many things online businesses can learn from the recent American Presidential election and you don’t have to be an American to appreciate their significance. Presidential elections are exercises in marketing big ideas, and big ideas are the key to marketing success. After all is said and done the 2012 US Presidential election boiled down to, is there a place in government for governing? Put that way it really doesn’t seem to make sense, but that was the big idea voters were asked to decide: should government be run by politicians looking out for ‘the people’ or should it be run by business executives looking out for the ‘bottom line?’

By the way, stay tuned to our upcoming posts because in the not too distant future we will have a lot more to say about big ideas and you will be made privy to a host of marketing concepts that you can use to blow the competition away, that is, if you have the nerve and patience, but more on that at a later time.

A Half-Truth Isn’t True No Matter How Many Times You Say It

In politics as in business repeating a lie numerous times doesn’t make it true, and the most dangerous lies are the ones that have some vague tantalizing relation to the truth, but in the end they are obfuscations; self-serving prevarications designed to play upon people’s naivety, ignorance, and insecurity.

The information age aided by the Internet has regurgitated a data-dump of gargantuan proportion into our laps, some of it relevant, some of it nonsense, and some of it contrived. It’s a problem the Intelligence community has always had to deal with; there is just so much data to sift through that the task becomes impossible to distinguish the significant from the irrelevant. There is just too much information to deal with, so people fall prey to charlatans selling each new magic cure-all. Politics, business, and life in general are far too complicated to be parsed into a superficial 140-character tweet or a 20-second out-of-context video clip, but a big idea can stand alone as a sign post of where you’re headed.

Belief and Action Are Often At Odds

Back in the 1950s Ford’s marketing department asked people what they wanted in a car and Ford gave it to them, the Edsel. Sure you could argue about various details and tactics, but in the end the big idea was people knew what they wanted, so Ford gave it to them, and we all know how that worked out. So having a big idea is not enough if the big idea is based on a faulty premise. What people say they want and what they really want are often very different.

When it comes to government, people want it to help them despite what they may say to the pollsters or even to themselves. Ask people if government should be smaller, spend less money, and lower taxes, and they’ll answer, ‘right-on brother, you bet.’ But ask them if they are willing to eliminate all the services and benefits they receive that are funded by taxes and delivered by government agencies, and they’ll scream like stuffed pigs.

You can poll the man-on-the-street about government spending from now until the next election and get the same “I hate government” answers, but people understand no amount of Noblesse Oblige can substitute for responsible government. Perhaps the lesson was finally learned by the good folks of New Jersey, and even their staunch Republican Governor, who collectively realized that, ‘Yes Virginia, it’s good to have government there when you need it.’

During the election more quasi statistics and pseudo facts were tossed around than the loose change Koch and Adelson spent to back a loser. We’re not saying all analytics and measuring methods are bogus, in fact the legitimate number nerds, like Nate Silver, who analyze these things without bias and predisposition, knew before the election that the numbers showed the election would most likely not be as close as the news media wanted you to think; and it would be an uphill battle for Romney to win the Presidency.

But no amount of number crunching, even from the likes of Nate Silver, is going to tell you what the next breakout mobile app, must-have service, or digital doohickey that shakes the shekels from the pockets of Joe Consumer will be. Much of what passes for statistical analysis has been corrupted, distorted, and abused by a cast of spin-doctors and pundits intent on selling their bag of cow pies to an audience that doesn’t understand what they are hearing or how to translate the jibber jabber into meaningful information.

Like many voters, Internet entrepreneurs are bombarded by an onslaught of irrelevance and misinformation. Many voters vote against their own best interests because they don’t understand how to interpret code language and instead rely on a media that is either corrupted by bias, or determined to make everything the same, as if fact and fiction were equal. As disturbing is the trend of the news media to instantly report glib 140-character tweets from know-nothing nincompoops as if they were meaningful analysis.

So too, many Internet entrepreneurs act in a manner contrary to their own best interests by falling victim to slickly presented numerical mumbo jumbo causing them to jump on the bandwagon of every new media hyped wunderkind or splashy online must-have marketing gimmick. If you fail to grasp the difference between customer loyalty and the FB ‘likes’ and twit ‘friends’ you amass, then you’re on the fast track to nowhere.

In The End

Romney’s big idea was running a government is like running a business, and in the end, the majority of American people didn’t buy it. Romney based his bona fides on his business experience, in and of itself an arguable notion backed by anyone who has ever had to deal with venture capitalists, the vultures of the business world. But even if you accept his credentials as a business expert, running a country is not like running a business.

More importantly, the strategies and tactics he employed alienated large segments of the electorate, and unlike business where you can choose the niche markets you want to serve, leaders of democratic countries must serve everyone. To quote, television producer Gary Marshall, ‘it’s okay to be out there, as long as someone else is out there with you,” and in the case of Romney, he was just too far out.

It really doesn’t matter which side of the political fence you sit on, what matters is, does your audience buy into what you’re selling, and for the Republicans, the answer was no. And the reason their big idea didn’t fly was that it failed to take into account the contradictory nature of fundamental human behavior: big ideas that work must be based on connecting to the basic human needs that determine behavior; and these innate action-driving forces are not always the ones people are prepared to share in a public forum.

More from: The Selling of a President - Article: 1789234 at Isnare.com Free Articles
Published at: http://www.isnare.com

‘Ways to Improve Australia #2: Government Spending Should be Removed From the Control of Politicians’

Australia needs an Independent Board such as the Reserve Bank Board to oversee government spending.

I strongly feel of all the 101 Ways To Improve Australia I have listed in this book, this is perhaps the simplest and most effective way to improve Australia.

Why leave something as important as government spending in the hands of elected politicians and current governments?

The money wasted on defence spending and unsuitable defence equipment is a good example. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been wasted.

In a recent survey by global consultants McKinsey, the US and Australia came at the bottom of a list of 33 countries ranked according to how efficiently they spent their defence budgets in the analysis prepared.

The US-based company was called in by the Rudd Government to carry out a massive internal search for waste in the Australian Defence Force and the Department of Defence. It recommended that the government should force Defence to find savings of $20 billion over a decade to help pay for major purchases of ships, submarines, aircraft and guns.

That advice triggered an extensive waste elimination program within the department.

The McKinsey study says the US and Australia are the world’s worst performing countries with regard to “equipment output for every dollar spent”.

When governments provide free money we should not be surprised that there are strong incentives to take it.

The Building the Education Revolution (BER) program is a case in point. Julia Gillard’s critics claim she was responsible for overseeing the spending of $16.2 billion on the BER, including a $1.7 billion blowout and up to $8 billion in waste through mismanagement, gouging and state government substitution.

The Victorian Auditor-General, Des Pearson said he would examine the outcomes of the BER work conducted in that state, judged by a federal task force as being slow, lacking quality and at times providing questionable value for money, as part of a broad assessment of waste and budget overruns in major projects.

Critics of the BER program claim huge cost overruns have been committed and covered up. As a nation, Australia eventually outlaid upwards of $16 billion of funding to get maybe as little as $10 billion worth of projects on a value-formoney basis.

NSW alone appears to have chalked up a figure of almost $1 billion in inflated costs on BER projects.

Two of the more important reasons the BER program has witnessed such blowouts is that the commonwealth is not good at overseeing state procurement and states and territories have vastly different procurement practices and planning expertise on the ground.

Some states, such as NSW, do not appear to have had a strict control over their costing structures and may not have used robust benchmarking of costs of similar projects in commissioning their educational investments under BER.

Is Julia Gillard accountable for these things? Perhaps not directly, but she authorised the program knowing these factors were present.

Some states were given next to no time to digest what they were being asked to provide and do. She is also guilty of being too specific in the insistence on classrooms, halls and libraries when schools often wanted other facilities or more integrated infrastructure. She is also culpable for not monitoring the cost overruns with which the states were complicit. And not exercising value for money criteria is unlawful under commonwealth financial laws.

Most of the accountability for poor oversight goes to state education departments and treasuries that gladly spent federal dollars with some abandon.

When over-spending does occur on projects such as the BER, the commonwealth can opt to provide extra funds to ensure the facilities are completed, or it can claim the program is capped and then projects will have to be cut or left incomplete.

This is a strong example of the current government repeatedly proving their ideology is to over-spend, invent new taxes, run up ever increasing deficits by overspending and then create a need to invent still more taxes.

This dangerous cycle, combined with allowing individuals who have little or no financial management experience to run an entire economy, especially one as large as Australia, is economic suicide.

It also leads to vote buying, abuse of the democratic process and enables minority factions to control what is meant to be a majority ruled democratic system.

Imagine if interest rates were set by the Treasurer? How this would be influenced by popular politics? It clearly wouldn’t work!

This is why an independent Reserve Bank board is free to operate without undue government influence. The Reserve Bank Board has skilled and experienced business people recruited to the board, not individual politicians who usually lack the business or financial skills required for such an important task.

I strongly believe Australia must and should move to electing an Independent Board filled with the best business and finance brains the country can hire to oversee and manage government spending and to recommend and find efficiencies and cost savings in the public sector.

This would put the power of tax revenue back in the hands of the people and away from the clutches of inexperienced, biased and often incompetent politicians who have clearly shown they can’t be trusted with the most important part of running a country – that is, its economic management.

This change alone would revolutionise our political system and bring true accountability to our spending and ensure Australia’s wealth is no longer squandered to minority interests or biased and/or unskilled, or simply incompetent politicians.

Combined with my idea of a political system where voters get to vote on major policy this would ensure power is put back into the hands of voters who truly care and want to have their say in how our country is run.

article