Month: June 2016

[ad_1]

In an article written and published by Ed Crooks on January 6, 2011 entitled "America: Riveting Prospects," he writes about why companies in America are opposed to exporting.

To summarize his article, showcased is the Middle River Aircraft systems plant where the world famous Rosie the Riveter, during the second World War, represented the millions of women that joined the manufacturing workforce making the industry a power house, and compared it to today's meager offerings. The plant that is now owned by GE, although still thriving has faced some tough times through the years. Although weathered by the storms, the president of GE's aircraft parts division has hope for a brighter future.

Although some political leaders and some American businesses also have hope in rebuilding growth and employment based on manufacturing, production, exporting and earnings and less on construction, consumption, importing and debt, leaders of some of America's largest manufacturing companies feel that it will be a long hard road to rebuild production in the US GE's chief executive Jeff Immelt, however, shares with Andrew Liveris of Dow Chemical the dream of restoring industrial America to greatness, especially with unemployment at 9.8 and rising. Liveris has even written a book on the topic of how to be competitive on a global basis, "Make It in America: The Case for Reinventing the Economy."

Ed Crooks, however, claims that many US companies, overall, has issues with exporting. Although the world offers many opportunities and America is seeing some of the benefits with emerging markets in China, India and Brazil and creating everything from az, Barry Botsworth of the think-tank, Brookings Institution, states that although the US is similar to other developed countries in importing, we are very poor when it comes to exporting manufactured goods. Other industry executives agree that the problems with US manufactures run deep. Ed Crooks has given five reasons to support his view and I summarize them as follows:

* American industries are not familiar with selling internationally. According to the chamber of commerce, only one percent of US companies participate in exporting and 58 percent of those companies only export to one other company.

* The United States has been the most inactive entity at signing agreements to participate in international trade. With about 262 agreements around the world and about 100 in negotiations, the US has only signed 17. In addition, the US is severely affected by tariff barriers and ranks number 8 out of 121 'tariff-faced' exporting countries.

* US manufacturers have inefficiently skilled and inefficiently educated workforces which threaten the industry base to fall into disrepair, job opportunities to dwindle and closing of production lines. Furthermore, without a strong pipeline of industrial talent in the future, there will be no capacity for future opportunities, no chance of developing new market segments, or creating the next innovation in aerospace, which will further deteriorate the industrial base of the US

* With the emerging economies furthering skills and facilities, there us the opportunity for them to replace production in the US and other developed countries. An example is Lewis Chenevert of United Technologies that manufacture Otis Lifts and Pratt & Whitney Jet Lines who stated that by the year 2013 he planned to source 40 percent of his business to Poland, China and Mexico because of the low-cost economy.

* Large US companies like to manufacture where they sell which means the American companies make more money in their foreign operations than they make by exporting goods to other countries. This means that US owned foreign companies make about three times more than the US domestic owned companies that export their goods.

I can totally see the trouble we are in and something must be done. As a business we are in the business to make money. However, it seems that in order to make money you may have to hurt some people along the way. Foreign owned business only seems to help the foreign land they are in and it would seem to me that the only winner is the company that manufactures from those countries. It does nothing to help the US economy.

When it comes to which side of the story I reside between the economist and the industrialist, I believe I would have to side with economists. Everyone can not be in the manufacturing industry and where we run short in that arena we have other tradable skills that we should sharpen. Although we should never give up on the industry or just give it away, we need to find some balance in order to make the industry strong again. I recently heard about a particular product that salons use on natural hair. The product was created by a woman in her kitchen in 1993 and contained no mineral oil or animal fats. She used the best ingredients but along the way operated in the red. Last year it was reported that the company was filing bankruptcy and people were losing their jobs after 5 stores closed. Yesterday it was announced that L'Oreal has acquired the company, Carol's Daughter. It saves her from going bankrupt, it saves her leadership team, but her production people lost jobs. It will now be available internationally. It seems to me that she had no choice. She is now directing her attention to other services and is in partnership with other companies.

International trade is important, however, how we trade and if we should trade is still debated. In the example that I gave with Carol's Daughter, she took the path that was best for her. However, we can see that unless we are more proficient at trading we will not be able to quantify any real gain for the masses. As usual, some benefit and others do not. As Mr. Franklin Vargo of NAM, the nation's largest industrial trade association stated in the article written by Ed Crooks, "The future is not yet written; it is not black. But it could be disappointing. (Vargas, 2011)"

Works Cited

Crooks, E. (2011). America: Riveting prospects. Financial Times, 1-4.

Vargas, F. (2011). Quote. Financial Times, 3.

[ad_2]

Source by Barbara Powell Love

[ad_1]

The challenge for any election season is to write radio scripts that touch the heart and not deflect off the shield that surrounds the soul of most voters. The conditioning of the mind has been evolving since the first political radio commercials. The challenge for the writer is obvious. Be subtle in the approach. The days of overt name calling or shouting the candidates name in hopes of making an impression with the voters is over. With so many listening options outside the commercial radio market, candidates and special interest groups will demand much more from the writers than before.

Scott Radio, a radio political voice and script writing organization conducted a survey of over five hundred radio listeners in a quest to understand the mindset or comfort zone of the average radio listener. Some of the discoveries were as follows:

First, the tolerance level for commercials is eroding. Fifty percent of those surveyed stated that they have a quick "trigger" to avoid commercials.

Second, the survey revealed that for political radio advertising specifically, the over saturation by candidates during the campaign is reason enough to avoid commercial radio.

Finally, the research shows that candidate bashing is what the cable news shows do each day in such detail that for a candidate to spend time on the negative issue radio advertising is pointless.

The content of the commercial usually outdated. The American public is now quick to find resolution to an issue. They no longer wait for someone else to assess guilt or innocence. They frame their opinion and only when presented overwhelming evidence to the contrary do they waiver. They take pride in being stubborn on political issues, because they can be.

To spend money advertising issues or negative commentary about an opponent now runs the risk of being old copy, as the voter has most likely formed an opinion before the commercial is produced. By the time the political attack ads make the commercial rotation, a new issue will have surfaced. There is a much better way. scottradio.com has discovered it.

[ad_2]

Source by Scott Perreault

[ad_1]

A revolution is a struggle between the future and the past. Fidel Castro

Who better to author the account of the "dirty little war" which pitted the US Marines and the guerrilla forces of Augusto Cesar Sandino than a man who is both a historian and a first-hand combatant revolutionary? Neill Macaulay's role as a lieutenant in Fidel Castro's 26th of July Movement Army lends an authentic pen to illustrating the tactics, politics and international reaction to the native revolt of peasant, Indian and rural worker against both the US involvement in the government and politics of Nicaragua .

To a reoccurring backdrop in Latin America, motivated individuals were drawn into insurgent rebellion against an installed government, stolen election and US interference on foreign soil. These backwater combatants learned quickly the virtue of stealth, utilizing geographic complications and unconventional tactics to their advantage in the jungles and mountains of Nicaragua. The sum of these attributes was that the US "doctrines of war were useless." (Macaulay 174)

Sandino and his nationalist movement proved a hard target to hit under these tactics. American Minister Mathew Hanna expressed just this when he announced to the Department of State "banditry can not be eliminated and order restored by present means and methods." (Macaulay 178) What the US soldiers faced was contrary to the forces that they had trained for on Paris Island, what they found success with in WWI and left them on uneasy, and unfamiliar ground.

Like other revolutionary movements in Latin America, Sandino's nationalist motivation was forged in response to a perceived foreign imperialist influence upon his country and the instillation of a president. Sandino led his army in an attempt to end both the US interference in Nicaragua and against the conservative government that the US backed in the civil war that ensued.

What is poignant in the tale of Augusto Sandino is the they echo similar aspects to other revolutionary movements in Latin America. Both Sandino and Zapata (Mexico) as historical figures were thrust into their roles due to legitimacy issues in politics and government. Both of these charismatic figureheads applied guerrilla tactics against larger, better-equipped armies … and succeeded in slowing the cogs of war against all odds. Zapata and Sandino shared the ideology of reform, liberal, progressive ideals for the population in general and sought nationalistic, patriotic goals for their respective countries. Further, both Zapata's and Sandino's downfall was precipitated by their disinclination to appeasement.

Both were unwilling to compromise the tenets of their movement-leading to friction with promising comrades and politicians who would have afforded both these characters political and actual security in ties to new governments and an end to aggression. Unfortunately, they share also the ill fate of being betrayed by politicians that gained from their exploits. Sandino and his Army in Defense of the National Sovereignty of Nicaragua aided Liberal rebel Commander General José María Moncada in gaining the Presidency of Nicaragua. This done, Moncada distanced himself from the guerrillas as he made pacts with the US military. Sandino vowed to continue to wage his war and found himself at the wrong end of Nicaraguan politics again, as he and his army were targeted by both national and foreign troops. Sandino declares Moncada's government unconstitutional and continues to fight. Like Zapata, Sandino finds himself on the outs with his compatriot as the other rises to power and does not stay true to the ideals fought over.

When Sandino pledged his loyalty to the new President Sacasa, a past liberal leader, and enters into agreement to de-mobilize his men, Sandino and his entourage were rounded up by Sacasa's men and executed … As Zapata was in Mexico. Each one believing that they were doing their patriotic duty, standing up for their ideals, their people and the general independence and equality of the peasant class subjugated under unconstitutional regimes.

The story of Augusto Cesar Sandino stands out as a Robin Hood tale, where a charismatic man and a band of outlaws stand up against the forces in the name of citizens, country and progressive pursuits. Macaulay's keen take on the quest for Nicaraguan liberalism, free of US involvement is truly a testament to the character and virtue found in rebellion movements in the wake of imperialism and counterfeit governments.

Latin America has deep roots in popular revolution, past and present. The flowers of these roots are conspicuous against the travel of time, as imperial and political designs from outsiders and domestic would-be usurers of the populous will be repelled by men like Augusto Cesar Sandino, who advocate for liberty and the defense of common people against foreign interference and political elitism. Macaulay's book represents well both the historical facts, the details and decisions of a nationalist movement and insight into the mind of a guerrilla. As both a historian and a player in a rebellion himself, the trials of Sandino and the US Marines are documented lyrically and with an awareness and acumen they deserve.

[ad_2]

Source by Zachary Parker

[ad_1]

Aristotle, the Greek philosopher lived and wrote his discourse on 'Politics' around 350 BC while the Florentine Machiavelli's 'Discourses on Titus Livy' was published posthumously in AD 1531. Aristotle enjoys an established position in the field of ethics, politics, metaphysics, and he 'formulated the field of natural philosophy by summarising what the natural philosophers before him had considered relevant …. he is the creator of modern scientific terminology who founded and classified the various sciences extant today' (Jayasinghe 2009). That Machiavelli's reputation is somewhat more controversial can be ascertained from the dictionary definitions of the word 'Machiavellian'. The Shorter Oxford Dictionary begins straightforwardly enough with the definition of 'Machiavellian' as a noun: 'A person who adopts the principles recommended by Machiavelli in his treatise on statecraft'; and then, as an adjective: 'of, pertaining to, or characteristic of Machiavelli or his principles, adopting unscrupulous methods; duplicitous, deceitful, cunning, scheming '. Our contention is that the latter explanation, although accepted over a along period of time by popular use, is a misconception of the valid and influential contributions that Machiavelli made to political theory and practice.

Machiavelli:
Although chronologically more recent than Aristotle, this essay purports to begin by discussing the impact of Machiavelli on political thought and statecraft, especially his contribution to the modern concept of 'democratic elitism' followed by a discussion of Aristotle's contribution to the field, especially his central and influential concept of 'polity' as a precursor to democratic elitism.

Machiavelli gained a reputation and a following for his contributions to political theory, while he also contributed to the principles of warfare, literature, history and diplomacy. His negative reputation rests on his very first work, written in 1513 but published posthumously in 1532, 'The Prince'. As a realist and pragmatist Machiavelli discounted the common view held by political philosophers that moral goodness was the basis for political power, giving legitimacy for the exercise of authority. From first hand experience as the Second Chancellor of the Republic of Florence before the Medici regained power in 1512, Machiavelli saw that the only real concern of a ruler was to acquire and maintain power with no regard to the moral dimension which he saw as completely irrelevant to statecraft.

For Machiavelli, force of arms is the only legitimising instrument and the foundation of a well-ordered political system. Political authority and legitimacy is built upon force or the threat of force and not always upon established principles to which all citizens pay homage to. Machiavelli described people in general as being 'ungrateful, disloyal, insincere and deceitful, timid of danger and avid of profit' (Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, 2005; 2009). Subjects obey the laws of the state because of fear of the superior power of the state. He bases his arguments on the self-interest of the majority of individuals who do not, in practice, subscribe to moral injunctions unless forced by fear of consequences. Here we find the basis of Machiavelli's idealisation of the 'prince' as against the passive, indolent and ignorant 'people'.

What political thinkers who came after Machiavelli termed 'democratic elitism' (Bachrach 1967) had its origin directly in Machiavelli's vision of the requirements for attaining and holding political power, although not everybody subscribes to this view. The concept he developed was termed 'virtu', not the same as the English word 'virtue' with connotations of moral uprightness. To Machiavelli, who held pagan beliefs, Christian virtues of humility, piety and submission to God's will, were not the ideal, but heroism, manliness, force of character, and conquest, were. What Machiavelli means by 'virtu' is … 'the range of personal qualities that the prince will find necessary to acquire in order to "maintain his state" and to "achieve great things," the two standard markers of power for him' (op.cit.). According to Machiavelli, the ruler must adopt a "flexible disposition" where he varies' her / his conduct from good to evil and back again "as fortune and circumstances dictate" (op.cit.). Machiavelli has also postulated another central concept in 'Fortuna', as the irrational, malevolent, ultimate threat to the safety and security of the state. However, if 'virtu' and wisdom of the ruler is equal to it, Fortuna may be mastered at least to some extent, if not totally. What Machiavelli means, according to some commentator, is that in times of trouble the ruler needs to take drastic, even violent action to restore stability.

'Machiavelli lays claim to the mantle of the founder of "modern" political science, in contrast with Aristotle's classical norm-laden vision of a political science of virtue' (op.cit.). Those politicians who considered Machiavelli to be an ally expounded the doctrine of 'reason of state' for actions that strayed from accepted codes of right and wrong (Viroli 1992). This current view of Machiavelli is in sharp contrast to how he was denounced in the 16th century as 'an apostle of the Devil' (op. Cit). However, Machiavelli never advocated evil for its own sake; it was to be merely an instrument of power, which was neutral as far as conventional morality was concerned. There was also another view originated by Rousseau that Machiavelli was a satirist and was merely exposing the immorality of most rulers. However, all things being equal, Machiavelli preferred conformity to moral virtue and not to its opposite.

The advocates of 'reason of state' who argue for state absolutism, argue that the good of the state takes precedence over all other considerations, but is not supported by Machiavelli himself. To him the state was a 'personal patrimony' almost synonymous with 'private property'. Allied to the concept of 'virtu', which equates to individual initiative, skill, talent and strength of the ruler, this shows that the 'reason of state' idea can not be directly attributed to Machiavelli. 'Machiavelli is at best a transitional figure in the process by which the language of the state emerged in early modern Europe'. The idea of ​​a stable constitutional regime that reflects the tenor of modern political thought (and practice) is nowhere seen in Machiavelli's conception of princely government '(Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, 2005; 2009).

Republicanism, to which Machiavelli attaches the most importance, dissociates politics from the religious and moral order. Machiavelli is said to be the first modern writer to point out that that there was no natural god-given framework to political life. Rather it was the task of politics to create order in the world. In the 'Discourses' Machiavelli refers to the French monarchy and the system of government approvingly. However, to him it was a minimal constitutional order in which people live securely (vivere sicuro), but not in freedom (vivere libero). The French government was strong, and held in check the aspirations of both the nobility and the common people. According to Machiavelli, the goal of political order is the freedom created by the active participation and contention between the nobility and the people. While the common people formed the democratic foundation by consent freely given, the nobility ruled, as is fitting for the elite. This then, was the foundation of the more modern concept of democratic elitism.

Machiavelli recognised the importance of laws and orders made by 'Parlement' in Paris, which provided the checks and balances that kept the monarch and the nobles from exercising arbitrary power. However, security alone was not enough, to truly guarantee freedom or liberty to the entire nation. Only in a republic would both aspects of political freedom take root. The French government, because it seeks security rather than liberty has needed to disarm the populace. Machiavelli believed that an armed citizen militia was the only guarantee against the tyranny from within, or from an external aggressor. Another facet that Machiavelli stressed in democratic elitism was that both the nobility and the 'plebs' take an active part in governing themselves. They may often clash, but this ( 'the tumults') is to be expected. In Machiavelli's own words … 'they do not realise that in every republic there are two different dispositions, that of the people and that of the great men, and that all legislation favouring liberty is brought about by their dissension' (Machiavelli, 1965 ).

For Machiavelli, the elite are opinion-makers. He set great store in the 'rhetorical' character of his republicanism. Leaders are identified in open, public debate and this is a cornerstone in the concept of democratic elitism.

Aristotle:
Aristotle's 'Politics' is a polemic on political philosophy. To a certain extent he had been influenced by his teacher Plato, but whereas Plato was a grand theorist pure and simple, Aristotle's writings reveal him to be of a more grounded and empirical turn of mind. Although influenced by his teacher to some degree Aristotle breaks new ground in his exploration of political philosophy.

Aristotle explores the concept of a political community ( 'koinonia politike'). He deals with the organisation of the household with the male as the head and then women, children and slaves, in that order and their relationship to each other. The male, as husband, father and master, is the central political unit of the household. The 'natural' hierarchies in a state are thus recognised from the beginning. He then deals with 'wealth-getting, outlining practices he calls natural and unnatural forms of trade. He expresses some views which may be seen as quite unacceptable in today's world. '… The male is by nature superior, and the female inferior; and the one rules and the other is ruled; this principle of necessity extends to all mankind. ' It is clear, then, that some men are by nature free and others slaves, and for these latter slavery is both expedient and right '(The Internet Classics Archive: Politics by Aristotle). However, his beneficent view of this 'natural' order of things is revealed in:

The abuse of this authority is injurious to both; for the interest of part and whole, of body and soul, are the same, and the slave is part of the master, a living but separated part of his bodily frame. Hence, where the relation of master and slave between them is natural they are friends and have a common interest, but where it rests on law and force the reverse is true.

Aristotle goes on to describe various forms of household management and various means of earning a livelihood. After discussing the moral virtues of slaves and freemen, Aristotle goes on to assert that a ruler must have 'moral virtue to perfection, for his function taken absolutely, demands a master artificer, and rational principle is such an artificer …' (op . cit.). This is in marked opposition to the Machiavellian position.

The word 'democracy' carried negative connotations for Aristotle. His ideal form of constitutional government was the 'Polity (politeia)', an amalgamation of the best of aristocracy and democracy. While Plato advocated rule solely by the 'philosopher king', Aristotle explored several forms of rule extant in the real world. He discovered monarchy, with only one head of state, which could degenerate into tyranny. Aristocracy, rule by a few, is another viable constitutional form. This can degenerate into an oligarchy, a junta. A democracy could also degenerate into mob rule. Aristotle condemns an 'extreme from of democracy' where the assembled mass of people fall victim to the exhortations of a demagogue and sets themselves above the law with dire consequences. For Aristotle, 'polity' as a mixed and balanced form of government is exemplified by his advocacy of the 'golden mean' in all things. Polity was a healthy mixture of the elite and the masses in a mutually sustaining arrangement. This surely was a precursor of a sort, to the modern concept of democratic elitism. For Aristotle it did not really matter whether the city-state was governed by the one, the few, or the many, what he was concerned with was whether each of these forms of government ruled in the interest of the state, or of themselves .

Polity is defined as the rule of the constitutional majority under the law in the interest of the whole state. In keeping with his admiration for the 'golden mean' Aristotle also favoured the growth of the middle-classes who are neither very rich nor poor.

For this degree of wealth is the readiest to obey reason … Hence the latter class (the poor) do not know how to govern but know how to submit to government of a servile kind, while the former class (the rich) only know how to govern in the manner of a master. The result is a state consisting of slaves and masters, not of free men, and of one class envious and another contemptuous of their fellows ….. But surely the ideal of the state is to consist as much as possible of persons that are equal and alike, and this similarity is found in the middle classes …

Aristotle recognised the best 'law-givers' as coming from the middle class. He cites Solon, who was called upon to frame laws and a constitution for Athens. He is said to have put an end to an oligarchy to establish the original Athenian democracy. Aristotle found Solon to have established in Athens a democracy which operated under constitutional law and the result of a good mixture of political elements. Whereas Plato and Socrates had bowed down to the expert opinion in all matters, Aristotle saw in Solon's achievement the soundness of the judgment of the majority, at least in constitutional matters.

Among the practical recommendations that Aristotle made to balance the contribution of the rich, and the not so rich within the state, he advocated fines for the rich if they did not attend public meetings, or sit in courts of law, with payment to the poor , to enable them to attend the meetings and take part in legal proceedings. He specifies the ownership of property qualification should be high for the rich and moderate for the poor. A commentator concludes that Aristotle's' ideal was the 'expression of finding the mean in political matters and thus creating a more durable political association capable of securing the means for the cultivation of ethical and intellectual virtues as applied to the good life of the citizen'.

With the emergence of China as an economic superpower, and the liberal democracies of the West struggling to make ends meet, questions are beginning to be asked whether, or what kind of, Machiavellian solution may bring stability to the current chaotic world order.

[ad_2]

Source by Migel Jayasinghe

[ad_1]

A government is an organization in a community or political entity that has the power to enact and enforce laws and maintain the peace and order. A government is necessary since is it considered the leadership of an organization, community or political entity.

Laws are important since it defines the behavior of citizens. It defines which are legal or illegal. Without laws, an activity can not be known if it a crime or not. The law-making role of the government creates a code of conduct for individuals to follow.

Another role of the government is the maintenance of peace and order. The police and fire department ensures that crimes like murder, theft, arson, etc. are prevented or minimized. If a crime does happen, it is their role to look into how the crime happened and apprehend the perpetrators.

Government also promotes harmony though justice and equality. Once a crime is solved by the police, it is the duty of the judicial branch of the government to bring the perpetrator to court for fair trial and punishment. It makes sure that the right person gets into jail for the right reason.

It is also the role of the government to build roads, bridges, rail systems and other infrastructure. These are important since it makes moving about easier and more convenient. It also makes doing business a lot easier since goods and services can be moved faster from the source of production to the marketplace.

Another role of the government is to provide children with public access to basic education. It is essential that children learn how to read, write and count.

Another role of the government is to collect taxes and ensure that these taxes fund the right projects that are beneficial to society. Money is needed to build public schools, roads and bridges and provide services like welfare assistance, health care, unemployment benefits, etc. This is where taxes come in. The government collects taxes from individuals and business so that schools, roads and other infrastructure are built.

It is also important that the government protect its security from threats. It is the role of the government to have a military force to defend its territory from external threats like terrorism, war and invasion. The government's police force protects the citizens against internal threats like civil disobedience, organized crime, lawlessness, insurrection.

Another role of the government is to have foster relations with other governments. In an era of globalization, it is important that governments work with each other to maintain world peace and prosperity.

[ad_2]

Source by Kenny Leones

[ad_1]

In his book, The Audacity of Hope, President Barak Obama addresses issues that catapulted him to fame and brought the hope that he would be a prominent presidential election candidate. The book is originally his speech in Illinois state elections for senate chamber which has been delivered in 2004 in only 20 minutes. Later in 2006 he published that speech under the title "Audacity of Hope" that has the same themes he touched upon in the campaign speech in 2004.

Chapter one

The first chapter of the book is dedicated to two American parties, Democrats and Republicans. In this chapter, Obama contents that the congress is now more partisan than other times and that these two parties should overlook the differences and show collegiality and fellow feeling. He is not a supporter of mere partisan stance by the democrats against Republicans, nor does he agree with the old and worn out partisan poses or the Republicans. He hopes that Democrats show a sense of cooperation, while adhering to the central trends of the party.

Chapter two

He then in chapter two has recourse to politician behavior in the American political and social scene, asserting that in the age of information, not any of the politicians can remain exempt from the public scrutiny in the case of blunder. He calls for more adherences to political values ​​in the face of conflict for sheer power. He also objects that the Democrat loss of offices comes from the internal factions and also from a more divisiveness with the Republicans. He admits that political scene dose not permit politician to remain true to their values. He finally hopes that the leaders of the two parties converge in the direction that its outcome be the nation's profit.

Chapter three

Then in chapter 3 Obama gives an account of legislation debate in which the law makers are actually reluctant to amendments necessary to make the law up-to-date according to the needs and requirements of the day. Personally, Obama is in the front who support the idea that, though the constitution is the historical phenomenon, we can have special cased that according to which this constitutions shows flexibility of interpretation. He generally supports this flexibility, when facing the needs of an ever-growing world.

Chapter four

Obama in chapter 4 goes back to previous discussion of politics and politicians, saying that special interest groups have an influence on them, who seek out their special interest during any political event. Obama declares that in order to tackle the problem of being at service of special interest groups and increase the efficacy of any political system, politicians should be true to the morality and values ​​of the party. He, then, calls for democrats' appeasing the power-seeking parties and attitudes, so that they are able to serve their constituency better.

Chapter five

Obama, in chapter 5, this time targets economy and US economy in particular and considers its impact in social, cultural and political domains. According to him economic inefficiency is to the loss of the poor and marginalized people, but his own meetings with the prominent and wealthy people attests that his view is ironically also true.

Chapter six

He then, touches upon school reform, which has been implemented through empirical research. Religion and religious faith is Obama's next resort in his book, by which he contends republican show- off of the religious faith. He gives an account of his journey from atheism to faith and that religious faith has strengthened his personal and moral convictions. Obama objects that since Americans are deeply religious, the only by which democrats can win this people's consent is remaining in a sense of ease to religious faith. He concludes that religious tolerance is the best way to, for the two parties to have common grounds for ideas, not a hotspot in which they lead full-fledged war.

Chapter seven

Race is dominant theme in chapter 7. In this Obama admits that, although the institutionalized form of racial discrimination has been ended, but with a look at American social scene, one can notice subtle form of discrimination is still present, however this prejudice dose not stem from fundamentally race-based attitudes, but from sheer ignorance of its perpetrators. Obama wants all Americans to disagree with any cases of discrimination in order to uproot this filthy phenomenon from Black experience of life.

Chapter eight

Chapter 8 of the book is a scene in which Obama arranges American role in international politics and relations. He asserts that US defense budget is not in accord with the new patterns and needs of international relations and that American must attempt to assume more responsibility in facing the new paradigms emerging after 9 September 2001. In Iraq war issue, he believes that unilateralism was misguided and it has been poorly handled by Republican administration. He admits more multilateral efforts in solving world problems and that the Americans needlessly have been complacent about their role and function regarding the world affairs.

Chapter nine

The last chapter is family in which Obama gives his own childhood accounts. Obama here contends that Republican's stance over the family in posing personal dogmas in the frame of the law is not true to the private aspects of personal life. He finally asserts that in order to provide a center for children to thrive in, the families should have an unshakeable foundation and for that, supportive policies and personal responsibility must be dominant among the collective attitudes toward family.

[ad_2]

Source by Mohammad Heidari

[ad_1]

We've all come across people who just seem incapable of modifying their perspective based on new data being presented. Most of us still mouth the words that additional education (or indoctrination / propaganda as is often the case) is what is needed since surely this person will turn around if his / her consciousness is sufficiently expanded with additional data backing your perspective. However, all too often deep inside we know that some people are "hopeless". This conclusion concerning failure of propaganda is reached from all over the political, cultural, and religious spectrum at one point or another. It thus becomes fashionable to outright dismiss "inconvertible" individuals and opposing zealots (on political and religious fringes of any given population) as nuts and crazies.

Personality theory in psychology allows us to better categorize individuals in society without resorting to name calling. Myers-Briggs typology in particular offers a better construct (compared to useless terms like conservative and liberal for example) to predict how an individual will act politically and socially. Myers-Briggs research combined with biology and brain scan techniques also offers us hints at understanding the underlining anatomical basis that predisposes a person to be either a disagreeable radical or a gentle follower.

There's been little relative popular attempts to scientifically explain why the bulk of the population is always a warzone between the extreme fringes. It's just assumed that it will always be this way just like there will always be criminals and extremely altruistic self-sacrificing givers. This assumption seems reasonable and obvious but gives rise to two other creeping and unsettling assumptions:

1) The human population is relatively fixed along a bell curve type continuum. Perhaps this is better visually represented by a sphere with a number of spikes extending from it. The moderate population is the bulk of the sphere and the zealous "radical" factions (whose opinions differ dramatically from the statistical average) are the spikes extending from the sphere's surface (as well as into the interior to some degree which would represent silent sympathizers) . It is irrelevant to label the spikes as extreme left, right, etc. All that is important is that a relatively fixed minority of the population (lets say 10-20% range) will be:

a) prone to modes of thought that are tangibly different from majority's

b) prone to action and lifestyle based on these thoughts

Authors like Friedrich Hayek for instance, observed that in 1920s Germany roughly a million workers swung their support between communists and Nazis based on who was winning. It was noted that the two seemingly opposing ideological parties clashed with one another the most because they were very often competing for recruits in the same psychological pool of young people. Considering how many overexcited Americans called both Bush and Obama the new "Hitler" in recent years, we can easily imagine how an aggressive drooling at the mouth anti-war protestor from a big city could have been an equally excitable protester at a teabag rally if only he was born in a small town and into a different culture.

2) Since the ratio of intensely active people (prone to being perceived by population at large as "wingnuts" or criminals or radicals or genuinely informed and committed activists, etc) to more relaxed apathetic majority seems to be roughly fixed across all societies and globally as a whole, the explanatory basis for such a dynamic can only be biological. Just like there exist (and can further be bred) aggressive dogs and peaceful friendly dogs, there exist aggressive people, natural Buddhist-esque peaceful people, etc. A person who is an aggressive pit bull equivalent (and who wants to impose his views of the world onto others the most) would differ in his relatively extreme ideology depending on what part of the world he was socialized in. Psychiatry has shown us that people are born with different ratios of neurotransmitter production and quantitative as well as qualitative differences in the types of chemicals that affect their mood and cognition. We now understand that people differ a lot more in terms of brain architecture than they differ in terms of things like body type, skin color, fast twitch / slow twitch muscle ratio, etc.

The reason why these assumptions are unsettling is not because there is a degree of fatalism involved ( "he will be a radical of one stripe or another no matter what" or "he will be socially lazy, shallow, apathetic, and uninvolved no matter what ). Obviously with modern socialization methods and pharmaceutical modification (with psychological genetic and cybernetic modification to follow in near future), an individual can be shaped more than ever before by society and by himself. The assumptions are unsettling because if the broad direction of our views, opinions, and political / cultural / religious affiliations are largely physiologically determined at birth, then societal progress becomes enormously more difficult. Societal progress can be defined here as one zealot faction (that is seen by majority as the most "correct" in its socioeconomic policy perspectives and formulations of what humans should do next) dragging everybody else along behind it as has always occurred throughout history.

Obviously people will disagree on what constitutes progress (some actually thought arrival of Reagan was progress) but if majority of people are physiologically predisposed towards the status quo, progress of any sort becomes a lot harder in a democratic society. In the past, one intense dedicated fringe of the aristocratic elites dragged the other nobility along behind it (since majority of nobility would also have a soft apathetic bulk) and thus dragged the rest of the population behind it as well. We also had scenarios of power vacuum developing and one intense fringe political faction overpowering the others (as in the case of Bolshevik and French revolutions) and filling the leadership position to then drag the rest of the serfs behind it.

In today's democratic structure however, protection of the status quo is a lot more preserved since the moderate bulk of the population has a political voice and thus a way to provide the ruling elites with legitimacy. The moderate bulk of the elites now also has ever more sophisticated consent and perception manufacturing methods to influence the newfound voice of the majority. For a small number of dedicated activists, pushing society along towards desired version of progress against the forces of social inertia is now harder than ever. The powerful activists now need to sway both the fellow elites and the people simultaneously.

Let's finally get to the Myers-Briggs part of the article to see what we are now dealing with.

The most widely used way to get a glimpse of people's underlining neural physiology has been the Myers-Briggs psychological questionnaire (one of the better versions found online for free can be found here). Over the past few decades, the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator has been utilized to collect enormous amounts of statistical data on personality types found within the human population. The statistical type breakdown (I am using a combination of 3 different sources on the%. Do not mind the catchy positive nicknames each type and group cluster has been given. What matters here is the number within a population.) So far has been as follows,

Protectors (SJ)

ESTJ – Overseer, supervisor = 11.8%
ESFJ – Supporter, provider = 11.7%
ISTJ – Examiner, inspector = 9.8%
ISFJ – Defender, protector = 9.9%
All SJs = 43.2%

Creators (SP)

ESTP – Persuader, promoter = 8.4%
ESFP – Entertainer, performer = 10.3%
ISTP – Craftsman, mechanic = 6.4%
ISFP – Artist, composer = 7.9%
All SPs = 33%

Intellectuals (NT)

ENTJ – Chief, fieldmarshal = 3.2%
ENTP – Originator, inventor = 3.7%
INTJ – Strategist, mastermind = 1.5%
INTP – Engineer, architect = 2.2%
All NTs = 10.6%

Visionaries (NF)

ENFJ – Mentor, teacher = 3.4%
ENFP – Advocate, idealist = 4.2%
INFJ – Confidant, empath = 1.2%
INFP – Dreamer, healer = 2.4%
All NFs = 11.2%

Each of the personality types (the well defined strong ones at least who have not self reported to be a mutt of 2 or more different personalities) can be seen as a specific brain type. As mentioned above, the physiological neural difference between 2 people of vastly dissimilar brain types is a lot more significant than how a person looks on the outside. That is because the brain type determines a mental and emotional predisposition of a person for the rest of his life. People classified as "bipolar" or "anti-social / sociopathic" for instance, have neural structures that will make them lean towards some things more than others during their entire lives.

We can see from the statistical breakdown that SJ (left-brained people with parietal lobe strength) predominate in the overall population. The second biggest group are the SP (right-brained with parietal lobe strength). Together they are almost 80% of the population. The SJs tend to be conservative, authoritarian in outlook, conventional, focused on concrete "what is", and protective of the general society. They do not rock the boat too much and defer to tradition. The SPs tend to be fun loving, crafty, entertaining, and have uncanny ability to focus on "what is" (with their parietal lobe) in order to fix and modify it.

If you look at the cute nicknames given to different brain types, you can see that the human herd pretty much needs all of them if it is to evolve and survive. Some types are needed more than others in the great scheme of things. The SJ and SP groups for example are conveniently numerous. SJ population provides a great amount of soldiers, policemen, social workers, self sacrificing charity givers, accountants, and status quo protectors. In other words they keep the herd safe even if it means stagnating the herd through using their positions in the executive to slow down rapid change. SP group provides us with artisans who improve quality of life for the herd through provision of entertainers, artists, dancers, singers, and resourceful improvising mechanics. SPs can be said to exist to entertain SJs and keep them on their toes by having more fun than them.

It's easy to see how SJs lean republican and SPs lean democrat overall. The jokes that democrats have better sex lives than republicans begin to acquire an element of truth (considering the different approach left and right sides of the brain take in deciding on how to deal with the here and now). However, the two large groups are united by their concern with all things as they are in the now. That makes the two groups friendly and status quo leaning by default. An ESTJ born in Brooklyn may identify as a traditionalist democrat whereas an ESTJ born in West Virginia may identify as a traditionalist republican, but both are more likely to seek similar professions and get along if they hang out together. Brain type identification provides a lot more material to predict a person's behavior and views on the world than simple political identification.

The overall theme emerges that people with neural computers that predispose them to either protect the status quo or be apathetic about it (since they are busy pursuing hedonistic adventures) are the supermajority that are not as interested in "what can be" (as the less numerous NP and NJ groups tend to be). A point must be made here that not one group is more important than another and that even their numerical breakdowns seem amazingly appropriate. It would be turbulent for the herd to have for example, more ENTJs / INTJs than ISTJs / ESTJs since the problem with authority that NJs have (due to their desire to be the authority themselves) would create unsustainable infighting and not allow enough people who follow orders. Each brain type has a very key social niche and function and over thousands of years there evolved an intricate genetic balance and ratio. There are of course also multitudes of physiological "mutts" who are a hybrid of all and can not be "pigeonholed" (the most common complaint brought against psychological typology in general).

Interestingly enough, the Hindus have spent thousands of years evolving classification of human beings into 4 broad psychological varnas or classes. Each was considered as important as the other (all parts of the same body) with their own particular temperaments and duties.

Some brain types are literally made to create new theoretical constructs on how society should be organized and which steps it should take next (INTPs, ENTPs,). When balanced by the emotional consideration and input of INFPs and ENFPs (since strong T theorists are prone to being too rigidly rational and thus not take into consideration the emotional impact of their constructs) new paths for society can be developed that would be acceptable to SJs and SPs combined. However, as explained above, these people will always be outvoted and marginalized by politicians who mobilize the other more numerous groups. "Think of the children!" is a call to arms for ESFJs and ISFJs for instance whereas being tough on crime, national strength, and defeating foreign enemies is the bread and butter of ESTJs and ISTJs.

This dynamic reinforces the need for proportional representation in our system of governance. Proportional representation is practiced in most European Union countries to great effect. This way each brain type cluster can get a political party of their own. The marginalized 20% of the population can get representation and even serve as coalition kingmakers. New voices can be heard in the discourse. Today the 20% of population has to either join the big parties they do not like and "radicalize" them (seen by the tail wagging the dog phenomenon of militants dominating today's Republican party and driving moderates out of it) or abstain from the process thus depriving society of valuable input. In proportional representation, each batch of brain types seen as "radicals" can find a party to call home and really support. They would also have more political representation to vent out their frustration and to institutionalize their presence and views. Citizens can then pick and choose which vision of progress to support and which to leave behind.

[ad_2]

Source by Pavel Podolyak

[ad_1]

Ever since Charlotte Osei's appointment as the Electoral Commissioner of Ghana, she has faced so much vitriol and negative press. It is apparent a lot of people want to see her fail.

To give you some idea, a Google search of her name and that of her predecessor Dr. Afari-Gyan yields surprising results. 'Charlotte Osei' produced 392,000 results whiles 'Afari-Gyan' produces 238,000. Charlotte has barely held this post for a year whiles Afari-Gyan was in the post for over 20 years. This search is in no way a scientific one, but it paints the picture.

I personally became a fan following a Newsfile interview discussing pertinent and controversial issues with the voters register. In this interview she may have made a few slip ups on data she was using to make a point. That did not happen out of an intention to misinform. A slip up is acceptable considering the sort of pressure she was under. Following the interview, she immediately came out to correct the error.

From that interview and other discussions attributed to her in the press, I see her trying her best to implement an enviable reform agenda for the Electoral commission. She is doing a good job trying to communicate this complex task. I saw her as being open and candid to a degree we are not used to in Ghana. Charlotte Osei is indeed an agent of change.

Two other recent issues she has been faced with are that of the change in the Electoral commission's logo and the statement that ID cards are not mandatory to vote. So people should not worry to about being disenfranchised if they have lost their ID card.

The new EC logo though contemporary, I must admit does not look appealing to me but a logo does not make an election. It is obviously part of a much needed re-branding programme. I can not even remember what the previous logo looks like. We have all been witness to the launch of the London 2012 Olympic logo. It was an appalling logo but it grew on many people and some still hate it but the 2012 Olympics was a tremendous success.

With the need for ID cards issue, her statement was; "… Once you have your fingers and you show up, we will scan you on the register, your details will pop up, you will be verified, and then you will vote". She received insults for this as well. Even though it is safe to assume that scanning your fingers is some sort of biometric identification and as such a paper voter ID card is not absolutely necessary.

The problem partly stems from the acrimony and litigation following the last National elections (dubbed the pink sheet saga) and the psyche of the citizenry being used to the patriarch Dr. Afari-Gyan. He had been the electoral commissioner ever since the fourth republic for more than 20 years. It is hard for the nation to get used to the fact that we now have a new electoral commissioner. Just like in the UK, an influential part of the media and the nation find it hard to see Prince Charles as future King. The UK and the rest of the world have gotten used to the Matriarch Queen Elizabeth II as head of state and I dare say Charles will face the same sort of resistance and scrutiny as Charlotte Osei when he becomes King. But I digress from the main discourse.

Should in case the majority party in opposition wins the 2016 General elections, what sort of relationship is the new government going to have with the Electoral commissioner and the Electoral commission? Is it going to be an untenable one to the point that Charlotte Osei will have to resign? What sort of precedence will that set? We should be careful not to get into a situation where electoral commission leadership will change with change in government.

The electoral commissioner should not be falsely painted as being sympathetic to any political party out of propaganda. The character assassination and cheap gutter politics is quickly becoming entwined in Ghana's political landscape. It is time we nip this in the bud and give this young democracy a chance to progress.

[ad_2]

Source by Eli Demanya

[ad_1]

As of Labor Day, 2015, Donald Trump has turned the world upside down, and has had every political pundit from coast to coast, scratching their heads while they try to think of something intelligent to say. At best, they will work to recover from all of the previous prognosticating gone awry. The truth is, none of them know what they are talking about, when it comes to Donald J. Trump.

Two days after Trump blasted John McCain with his remarks about his "War Hero" status, I posted on Facebook, "Trumps numbers will go up by the end of the week, and he'll gain the support of many veterans." That's what happened. On August the 6th, the night of the first GOP debate, I posted on Facebook "Trump's numbers will go up after tonight." They did. The night of the debate, after Trump had said he would not rule out a third party run, and after he had locked horns with Megyn Kelly of Fox News, and, after nearly every political commentator from every network was predicting doom and gloom for Trump , again, I posted on Facebook, "Nothing that happened tonight will hurt him, and his popularity will increase." It did. There have been other posts I have made where I have predicted how a given event or incident would impact Trump. I have been right, every time.

I will eventually reveal precisely how I have been making accurate predictions, when none of the guys who do it for a living have been able to. For now, though, I want to talk about one of the things that gives Donald Trump the powerful presence that he is known for.

In 2008 I started getting calls from Fox News, The Early Show, MTV, The Bill Cunningham Show, and The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, asking me for my insights and comments on human behavior and nonverbal communication, or body language. The requests are usually for a body language analysis on a celebrity or political figure. While the most in the media world focus on what people say, others are interested in what they are communicating with their gestures, facial expressions and posture, and whether it aligns with what the words they are speaking, are saying. When it comes to body language, a seemingly small thing can have a monstrous outcome of how a person is perceived.

People who have been on the other side of the table in negotiations with Trump, talk about how intimidating it was. Clay Aiken-who was on Celebrity Apprentice-said this about Trump: "Being in front of Trump is more intimidating than (being in front of Cowell)." In this article my aim is to isolate one of the things central to Donald's presence that plays a big part in his "Intimidation Factor."

When is the last time you saw Donald Trump smile? Think about that question for a moment. Take some time and watch some video clips of the other Presidential candidates, and notice how often they smile. They intentionally smile. It's been a part of their conditioning in the world of politics. Yet, when you watch Trump, you just will not see it; even when he says or responds to something funny, the most you will usually see is a twinkle in his eye, but a full blown smile, you just will not find.

Is this intentional? Yes, I believe so. While it is very likely a decision, at this point, that takes place outside of his conscious awareness, I feel confident that in the early days, the decision not to smile was very much an overt, conscious and purposeful decision.

To fully understand why I might say this, you'll need to have some background information on the biological underpinnings of a smile. A smile is actually a sign of submission. For those who subscribe to the theory of evolution, Psychology Professor at Knox College in Galesburg, Illinois, offers this about what a smile means in our closest relatives: "Baring one's teeth is not always a threat. In primates, showing the teeth, especially teeth held together, is almost always a sign of submission. The human smile probably has evolved from that. "

Likewise, Dr. Lisa Parr discovered numerous facial expressions that comprise the use of the zygomaticus major muscle. Primates exhibit facial expressions of enjoyment while playing, eating and socializing. They display facial expressions that are comparable to the smile of a human being when they're conciliatory and trying to sooth other primates that have become aggressive. This shows submission and / or that they feel nervous.

When Trump sits down with others to negotiate, the last thing he wants to convey is an attitude of submission. As a negotiator it is a sign of weakness, and could certainly put one at an emotional and attitudinal disadvantage. Here's the most important factor: Trump sees everything as a negotiation. Whether it be talking with a journalist, the host of a TV show, someone who holds property he wants to acquire, or the moderator in a Presidential debate, to Trump, it's a negotiation, and he is negotiating, for Donald J. Trump.

It's the combination of things he's learned over the years and his innate instinctual ability that makes him the powerful force that he is in a negotiations.

Begin watching him when you have the opportunity, and you will see exactly what I'm talking about. He may grin-slightly-every now and then, but as for the big cheesy smiles we are used to seeing in schmoozing politicians, it's just not there.

[ad_2]

Source by Vincent Harris

[ad_1]

When the world talks about science, culture, economy or politics, it speaks English. English speakers do not really need a second language at all. So, what's the use of a second language when the first one is enough? English speakers can look for the luxury items: cultural and linguistic enrichment. In this article, I will evaluate the world's major languages ​​for their usefulness to English speakers, according to three different criteria:

1. Demographics: Opportunity to use the language actively : the number of native and second language speakers, and the chances of communicating with them in this language: use as a lingua franca. It's not simply a matter of numbers. Mandarin is by far the most spoken language but it is concentrated in one country, China, and that reduces the impact. In the case of Hindi, educated speakers will very likely also speak English, so the opportunity to speak to people in Hindi is greatly reduced.
2. Personal Impact: This subjective criterion looks at the impact on the learner. How does this language study increase the learner's own sophistication regarding languages, whether English or another, third language? How does this language make the learner a more culturally literate person?
3. Business factors: How will this language open new business and commercial opportunities?

Criterion I. Demographics: I begin with demographics because this is the criterion that first comes to mind in such a discussion. However, this factor only weighs 40 percent in the ratings, and certain entries here, such as Italian, Swahili and Turkish, will only become understandable when one sees the tables that follow.

1. Spanish: Approx. 350 million native speakers, with many second language speakers in the Americas, North Africa and elsewhere. It is the official language of about 20 countries. (6 points). It is an important lingua franca in the Western Hemisphere and the Mediterranean, (3 points). (Total: 9 points).
2. French: Despite a relatively small native language base of 130 million, French has a major presence internationally, with a large second language population all over the world and official language status in over 25 countries. It is the working language of many international organizations (4 points). It is also the most recognized lingua franca, after English. (4 points). (Total: 8 points).
3. Arabic: Arabic speakers are hard to quantify . Modern Standard Arabic is a second dialect for 250 million people worldwide, but it is quite difference from the spoken Arabic in each of the 20 countries where it is official. It is an official language of the United Nations and of many international organizations. It is also the language of Islam. (4.5 points). Arabic is a major lingua franca. (2 points). (Total: 6.5 points).
4. Russian: Estimates are as high as 185 million for the native speaking population, and it is the second language in all the nations of the former Soviet Union (3 points). Russia spent much of the Twentieth Century securing the position of its language as the lingua franca in Eastern Europe and Central Asia, and it continues to serve in that capacity, in a greatly diminished way. (2 points). (Total: 5 points).
5. Mandarin: It's the native language of 875 million people, however, they are concentrated in one country, China. It is a second language for the rest of China, Taiwan, and for Chinese community world-wide. It has little currency beyond its ethnic boundaries and serves as lingua franca only in this context. (Total: 3 points).
6. German: It has approx. 120 million native speakers and many second language speakers throughout Europe. (2 points). It has had moderate success re-establishing itself as the lingua franca of Central Europe, after the disastrous history of the past century, however, this role has been taken up in the meantime by Russian and English (1 point). (Total: 3 points).
7. Hindustani: It includes Urdu at one end and Hindi at the other, with approx. 185 million native speakers in India, and 50 million in Pakistan. It is a second language for another 180 million people in these country. It has not had success as a lingua franca outside of this context, as that purpose is served by English. It has also been burdened by the reluctance of the Dravidian speaking people of South India to adopt it. (Total: 2.5 points).
8. Swahili: It is spoken natively by 5 million people and by another 50 million as a second language along the East African coast. It's the official language of Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania (1 point). Swahili is the accepted lingua franca in that area, having achieved nearly neutral "tribal" status on a continent where language is politics, but for dealings with the world beyond, it is normally eclipsed by Arabic, English and French (1.5 points). ( Total: 2.5 points).
9. Portuguese: Spoken by approx. 190 million people, it is the official language of Portugal, Brazil, Mozambique, Angola and other states. It has not as yet been able to establish itself as a widely used lingua franca. (Total: 2 points).
10. Turkish: It is spoken by 70 million people in Turkey and Cyprus (1 point). It provides an alternative lingua franca throughout the Turkic speaking lands of Central Asia, replacing the more alien Russian (1 point). (Total: 2 points).
11. Japanese: It is spoken by 125 million people in Japan, but has little currency as a second language or a lingua franca. (Total: 1 point).
12. Italian: It is spoken by 60 million people in Italy, it is also the official language of the Vatican. It has little or no significance as a second language or a lingua franca. (1 point).

Criterion II: Personal Impact: This is the major consideration for the English speaker. It weighs 40 percent in my ratings. How will the learning of this language help one's understanding of English? How will knowledge of this language open up a portal to other related languages? For the first question, Latin languages ​​hold a distinct advantage, since the prestige, erudite forms of English are all constructed out of a Latin vocabulary. The second question favors languages ​​which are seen as leading languages ​​in particular linguistic families, wherever they may be located in the world.

1. French: It holds a particular position among Latin languages, in that it has been the major conduit of Latin vocabulary into English for the past one thousand years. Fully 30 percent of English words come from French, (6 points). In cultural terms, the centrality of France to European civilization can not be overestimated, adding 6 more points. (Total: 12 points)
2. Spanish: This Latin language has enormous influence on the English of the Americas. It has, in turn, been influenced by Arabic and the indigenous languages ​​of pre-Columbian America, giving insight into those languages. (4 points). Spanish culture continues to move into the forefront of Western civilization, ironically, often because of the patronage of its greatest rival, North American English (4 points). (Total: 8 points).
3. Italian: It is the direct descendant of Latin. Thus, a knowledge of Italian gives the learner an exceptionally clear idea of ​​the classical language. By the same token, it is the central romance language, and the study of a second or third romance language is greatly facilitated when the first one learned is Italian. (4 points). Italian also opens up a store of cultural knowledge dating back two thousand years, and representing, with the Roman Empire, the Catholic tradition and the Italian Renaissance, some of the very highest achievements of European civilization. (4 points). (Total: 8 points).
4. German: The linguistic significance for English speakers is great. German provides a clear presentation of the Germanic roots of English, and of the syntactic and grammatical logic of the basic English language. As the major Germanic language it can also be considered a portal to other Germanic languages ​​such as Dutch and Yiddish. (4 points). German culture is also greatly appreciated in Western culture, and its philosophers and artists are key figures. (2 points). (Total: 6 points).
5. Arabic: Although the immediate linguistic impact of the study of Arabic may be hard to discern for the English speaker, the benefits of Arabic in the study of other languages ​​is high. Arabic has greatly influenced other languages ​​of the Middle East and the Muslim world in religion, politics, and social life. Also, the study of the Arabic alphabet opens the way to many other languages, such as Persian, Urdu, Kurdish, etc. (3 points). Arabic culture has had major influence on western civilization but it remains largely unknown in the English speaking world. Knowledge of the language also leads to a greater understanding of Islam. (2 points). (Total: 5 points).
6. Hindustani: In its Hindi form, it is a window on the origins of the larger Indo-European language family with its Sanskrit vocabulary. As Urdu, it gives a significant introduction to many Persian and Arabic terms. Urdu also uses the Persian form of Arabic script, opening the way to wider studies. It is a starting point for the study of other languages ​​of the subcontinent, an area rich in languages. (3 points). India's rich culture has become more familiar in the English speaking world, in large part due to India's ability to project its image through English. However, Hindustani language and Hindi culture are also spread through the Bollywood film industry. Pakistan has yet to make its presence felt, but the potential is there. (2 point). (Total: 5 points).
7. Russian: It has not had major influence in the west, given its geographical isolation. It is, however, the major Slavic language, and as such, opens the way to many other Eastern European languages. The Cyrillic alphabet, moreover, is a tremendous asset for reading many of those languages. (2 points). Russian high culture thrived under both tsarism and communism, and it has a significant place in European civilization. (2 points). (Total: 4 points).
8. Portuguese: As a Latin language, Portuguese has a built-in significance for English speakers, even without a direct relationship with English. (3 points). The cultural significance of Brazil, one of the largest nations of the Americas, is continually growing. (1 point). (Total: 4 points).
9. Mandarin: The official Chinese language has had very little influence on English. It has influenced other national languages ​​of the areas, such as Korean and Japanese, and the other "dialects" of China. The Chinese written characters are the same for all of these dialects, and many of these characters are used in Japanese as well. (2 points). Chinese culture, with over two thousand years of history, is quite significant, if not directly applicable to English speaking civilization. (1.5 point). (Total: 3.5 points).
10. Swahili: As the only sub-Saharan language in the group, it serves to introduce the learner to one of the richest linguistic areas of the Earth. It is from the Bantu family of languages, but it incorporates many words from Arabic, Persian, English and French. (1.5 points). It is the language of trade along the East African coast, and as such, is richly descriptive of the culture there. The West African diaspora into the Americas is one of the great mass migrations of the past 500 years, but because of its tragic social dynamics, it has left many millions of people cut off from African culture. Swahili, although it is East African and not West African, can help to fill that gap. (1.5 points). (Total: 3 points).
11. Turkish: Though it has little direct relationship to English, it is the major language of a family of languages ​​that extend eastward to the Chinese interior. It has been influenced by Persian, Kurdish and Arabic, and thus gives some introduction to those languages. (1.5 points). It also represents the culture of the Ottoman traditions, and of modern Turkey and Central Asian Turkistan. (1 point). (Total: 2.5 points).
12. Japanese: This language has had little impact on English and it provides little insight into other languages. It does, however, include many words from Chinese, and uses numerous Chinese characters. (0.5 points). This island nation has been one of the most successful exporters of culture of the Far East during the past century. (1.5 points). (Total: 2 points).

Criterion III. Economic Impact. Is this language useful in the world of commerce and business? Certainly English is by far the most useful language for business, but a knowledge of other key languages ​​can be a distinct advantage. Twenty percent in the ratings:

1. French: has a long history as a language of commerce and trade. It is extremely important in the developing world, especially Africa. France itself is the world's sixth largest economy. (4 points).
2. Spanish: the language of commerce and trade in Latin America. Spain is the world's ninth largest economy and Mexico is its fourteenth largest. (4 points).
3. German: often used for business in Central Europe. Germany is the world's third largest economy . (3 points).
4. Japanese: can be extremely helpful in dealing with Japanese business. Japan is the world's second largest economy . (3 points).
5. Mandarin: China has recently become the world 's fourth largest economy, and it continues to grow. (3 points).
6. Russian: Used in a part of the world where English is not well-known. Russia is the eleventh largest economy and is moving up in the rankings. (2 points).
7. Portuguese: Brazil is the tenth largest economy , and continues to grow. (2 points).
8. Arabic: the language of commerce and trade for the Middle East and the Persian Gulf. (2 points).
9. Hindustani: is used in the world's twelfth largest economy, however, English is often the language of business in this area. (2 points).
10. Italian: is the language of commerce in Italy, the world's seventh largest economy. (1.5 points).
11. Swahili: is the language of business along the east coast of Africa. (1 point).
12. Turkish: is used in the world's seventeenth largest economy, and to some extent in Central Asia. (1 point).

By these criteria we can come up with a ranking of the 12 most useful languages ​​for an English speaker to learn:

1. French: 24 points
2. Spanish: 21 points
3. Arabic: 13.5 points
4. German: 12 points
5. Russian: 11 points
6. Italian: 10.5 points
7. Hindustani 9.5 points
8. Mandarin: 9.5 points
9. Portuguese: 8 points
10. Swahili: 6.5 points
11. Japanese: 5.5 points
12. Turkish: 5.5 points

Readers may be Some familiar with George Weber's well-known piece Entitled, . Top Languages ​​, Which Appeared first in the journal Languages ​​the Today in 1997. His study rated languages ​​According to hwy Influence in world affairs and world culture. It is interesting, at this point to compare them. Here are Weber's results:

1. English: 37 points
2. French: 23
3. Spanish: 20
4. Russian: 16
5. Arabic: 14
6. Chinese: 13
7. German: 12
8. Japanese: 10
9. Portuguese: 10
10. Hindi / Urdu: 9 pts.

The rankings are similar, with some major differences. My criteria are based on tangible and intangible benefits for the English speaker which are not heavily weighed in Weber's paradigm. Thus, this subjective focus skewers my results in favor of European languages ​​due to the cultural affinity of English for the languages ​​of Western civilization.

Heritage Languages: The most striking example of a difference is my ranking of Italian as number 6, whereas it does not figure in Weber's top ten. My justification for Italian is the phenomenon of the "heritage language", ie, a language that has usefulness in our understanding and appreciation of the past, rather than in the future. Italian is the vehicle for our understanding of ancient history, the development of Latin languages, Renaissance Art and classical music. It is also the ancestral language of over 100 million people strategically placed in both North and South America. For these reasons, it is the heritage language par excellence. Other languages ​​that benefit from this heritage factor in my listings are German and Swahili.

Point values ​​for English? French, with 24 points, is number one in my listing. Where does English stand in relation? If rating it for usefulness for speakers of other languages, I would give it 10 points in each category, for a total of 50 points. I think that the extraordinary position of English in today's world is indisputable, and considering it to be twice as useful as its closest competition, French, is not a great stretch of the imagination.

The only English point assignment that may require explanation is ten points for linguistic value. The value of English in this area for world speakers is quite wide reaching and significant. English is the vehicle for the spread of the classical Latin vocabulary for abstract concepts, for the Greco-Roman terms for government, science, philosophy, etc. It absorbs world vocabulary without major spelling changes, effectively spreading new terminology from a variety of sources. As the official language of international organizations, it serves as a showplace for each nation and organization to present itself to the world. Like the other "empire" languages ​​of Western Europe, French and Spanish, English is propagated by native speakers worldwide with no ethnic, social or political relationship to its motherland. But English goes one step further, English is capable of evolving and developing completely independently of its native speakers. Second language users of English drive the introduction of new words like "informatics" and "ufology" which gain currency first among these speakers. Foreign governments keep close control of their English language nomenclature, and make changes through the United Nations and non-government organizations. These changes are therefore immediate in English, with no consultation with native speakers necessary. While some European languages ​​are still calling the capital of China "Peking", English made the switch to "Beijing" during the late 1980s (for proof, look at contemporary reports regarding the Tian an Men Square events of June, 1989). Recently, the switch from Bombay to Mumbai has happened before most English speakers have even noticed.

Conclusion – The status of English in world affairs puts its native speakers in a unique position. We have the opportunity of living in a provincial English-only environment in which the world comes to us, or we can take advantage of this favored position to become acquainted with other cultures right within our own language. So, is any second language really useful for English speakers? No study can ever really measure the personal importance of second language learning. That is something we have to discover for ourselves. The fact is that every language is well worth the effort to learn, as every language is a complete way of describing the universe of human achievement, and thus it's significance is as wide and as deep as we personally make it.

Note on Statistics: The statistics that I have used (population, economic ranking, etc.) come from diverse sources: world almanacs, encyclopedias, US government studies. I make no claims about their accuracy, as they are general estimates. Their importance is in relationship to each other.

[ad_2]

Source by Dominic Ambrose