SBOBET เว็บพนันออนไลน์ เว็บนี้มีแต่ให้ สมัครกับเราได้เลย

[ad_1]

Demographers' defined the baby boom as a birth surge started in 1946, after the World War II and reached its peak in 1957 and continued until 1964 because of the postwar prosperity. Most people uses "generation" as their term but demographers precisely referred it as "cohort" (group of individuals experiencing a certain event within a specified time). This reveals that social changes interconnect with the life of every baby boomer.

There two groups of baby boomers. The babies born from 1946 to 1955 were called early boomers. Those who were born from 1956 to 1964 were called as late boomers. The last set were born during the first tour of Beatles in America and the first early ones was approximately 18 years that time. They are were noticeable because of their big populations. They crowded junior high, elementary schools, high schools, labor market, and colleges.

Studies show that the impacts brought about by the society where baby boomers grew up contributes a lot in reshaping the society. They never think like their parents. Because the population of these cohorts is unprecedented during the 20th century, their beliefs and behaviors are then predicted to dominate things.

But there is also a great discrepancy in terms of economic status between early and late boomers. Compared to the energetic job market and emerging economy laid beneath the feet of early ones, late boomers needs adjustment on economic shifts. It is due to the rapid growth of service sectors, jobs for middle class became less stable, changing locations of workers, and career market adjustments.

Most are considered economic security as an elusive thing. They are the people who were born after the era of civil rights. Conducted studies even reveals income differences according to ethnicity, race, and birthplace creating ethnic classes. It was because one third of the population are Hispanic, African-American, or Asian besides the black and white Americans. Take for instance, the black boomer's generation are considered inferior than whites, although the generation were rated the best in terms of education.

It is a fact that the life was accompanied by postwar transformations changing the American society. The ideas about sexuality, gender, and family were altered profoundly. Likewise, parenthood changed, old age and retirement was redefined, and labor forces were transformed. Even in their old age, they seize opportunity to stay involved and active like staying in their work force to meet the responsibilities of supporting their children.

The changes in the society were never brought solely by the stereotype but also the conservative types like Seth Grossman. They expressed themselves through street protests while the conservative use other forms such as leaflets, student newspapers, and forums. Although their actions did not attract the attention of media but they achieved their success when they forced a referendum which resulted in the withdrawal of Duke students from the National Student Association.

Conservative may not be a part of the projected boomer's image but they became a strong force in making their way silently. They are not even in the front page of the newspapers because they still attend their class while others were boycotting. Nevertheless, they have supported conservative politicians like George Wallace in 1968.

One third of the populations of early boomers served during the Vietnam War. Other made a name in different fields throughout history. Joyce Johnson was an African-American who belongs to the stereotype her activist work in her graduate school. When she entered Duke School, she sought for advancement not only for herself but her entire race. She belongs in the Afro-American Society involved in the iconic events in the Duke campus during the 60s. Grossman and Johnson are baby boomers who contributed great change in their society.

Deep understanding about the baby boom generation is very important as they advanced on to their old age. It should be more of demographic curiosities because if demographic bulge move continuously on the system, then economic differences also persists. They once do their best in shaping the society providing significant impacts on the lives of many people besides themselves.

[ad_2]

Source by Roger Mitchell

[ad_1]

Love as an emotion is dealt with great precision and maturity against the backdrop of war and that essentially constitutes the groundwork of Shakespeare's most enigmatic drama: Antony and Cleopatra. Written approximately around 1606-07, this play combines chemically the nuances of love, politics and the history of the Roman Empire in its concoction.

Love has a slightly different connotation for Shakespeare's protagonists; it does not point towards a mild affection that conjoins two hearts but a destructive power that storms away a person's rationale and sends him to his doom. This adulterous love engorged with voluptuous desires and sensual pleasures could be considered immoral by Elizabethan or Christian standards. It stands in stark opposition to the love of Romeo and Juliet also constructed by Shakespeare which stood by intense emotion and weighty melodrama. The love in Antony and Cleopatra clearly envisages the fact that both lovers have a rich previous personal history however it seems to transcend these perspectives and emerges as a somber nevertheless true love. Antony phrases it beautifully by stating that "there's beggary in the love that can be reckoned" he posits that love is an immeasurable quantity that resonates with grandeur especially in this case. The hero, mark Antony is portrayed as a man of brilliant valiance and exceptional martial prowess. When in a dilemma between stately duties and sexual gratification chooses the latter as pointed out by Philo in the very first dialogue of the play. He stands unflinching by his supreme love, flickering in his decision. His position is validated by the fact that even his enemies speak high of him.

Octavious Caesar articulates his achievements on the battlefield and says that "… in the name lay a moiety of the world". He can be contrasted with Horatio from Shakespeare's hamlet whose "blood and judgment were well co-mingled. Although it has been suggested that his sentiments are base and it has been termed as an obsession, dotage and silliness, he still functions in consonance with it lest with its glimpses of ambivalence. The heroine or the Egyptian queen, Cleopatra comes across as a highly attractive, awe-inspiring enchantress with fathomless coquetry. her wit, dialogues and her poise all have a theatrical edge to it. Enobarbus describes her demeanor appropriately when she and Antony met for the first time. she often behaves with relentless self-absorption. she favors high drama and displays a spectacle of emotions, indulges in play acting revealed consistently through her praxis as well as her ideology of life. Reflected through the scene where she deals in Proculeius' proposal or even her love prattle in act 1 where she states "if it be love indeed tell me how much." However she is also a woman of substance and has an active hand in the implementation of policies and the assertion of important decisions. Also she is a quintessential woman; she consolidates her authority over her lover, throws tantrums perpetually and rebukes him when she is angry. William Hazlitt regards her as the masterpiece among all the female characters, her "whole character" is the triumph over the voluptuous, of the love of pleasure and the power of giving it over every other consideration. The fact remains that both lovers are past their prime into love- that is a malady without cure. Their love stands as an inquisition within themselves and it is a daily war that they wage against each other. Like Cleopatra's fascination of Antony, Antony's greatness is also one of the two absolutes in the play. It defies any compartmentalization in the context of diplomacy, war, calculation, magnanimity, sensuality or heroism. Love as a word encompasses a multitude of emotions ranging from the purely spiritual to the basest perversions and the theme of the play is to amplify or conform to them. Quill and Couch avers that "the theme is of love: not the pretty amorous ritual played on a time by the troubadours and courtiers … Not as a business understood by eighteenth century sentimentalists, but love the invincible destroyer. Love: voluptuous, savage , perfidious, true to itself though rooted in dishonor … "A tragedy might be as episodic as history or as complicated as a comedy. Shakespeare creatively crafts Antony and Cleopatra against the backdrop of the Parthian war defining all characters in that context. It is known for its subject matter not for its structure. This play however does not cater to all features of an ideal tragedy; for instance it is not marked by a suffering leading to a downfall, the element of chance is very subtly enforced by the soothsayer. However it does not procure within its spectrum the pangs of despised love, the anguish of remorse, powerlessness and pity. The hamartia of the protagonist, Antony can be stated as the 'blind judgment' of the situation at hand. According to Aristotle, '' a tragedy is an imitation of action that is serious and complete in itself "in this regard even his Troilus and Cressida is also not a conventional tragedy as it lurches between bawdy comedy and tragic gloom.

The world of the play absorbs political contingencies, love affairs, and solemn deaths. Tragedy is nourished by the social context in which the individual is placed textually. Shakespeare does not seem to use his faculty of poetic justice as in the final conflagration both evil and good are destroyed alike. His vivid interest in roman histories can also be witnessed in his Coriolanus and Julius Caesar. Personal desires of Antony and Cleopatra are bracketed by the political vicissitudes and public catastrophes. The dichotomy between the geographical locales of Rome and Egypt is the pivotal framework of the play. The east stands for sensuousness, luxury and extravagance whereas the west symbolizes cold calculation, decadent heroism, and duty and soldiers hip. This binary permeates into the intimate relationships and subverts the very basis of it. People regard Antony as the '' strumpet's fool '' and Cleopatra as the '' Egyptian dish ''.

Shakespeare using Romanesque rhetoric analyses the manipulative nature of tragedy crystallized in the death of the lovers thus immortalizing their names. Although their love is not composed of private intimacies they both desire an escape route to the world of their own wherein their interests are harmonized and bodies merged forming a solid compound. The love actually belongs to the public arena wherein displays of affection are understood to be expressions of political power and allegiance. It also has to bear the weight of personal failure and defeat of the state notwithstanding astute criticism of their co-inhabitants in a ceremonious manner. It grapples with the self-consuming rage of its tragic figures and the constant refinement of brute actuality with lyrical illusion. What comprises the frustration of the dramatist is the difference in the perceptions of its hero and heroine. Tragic dimension is attained by an excess and concentration of emotions, the profundity of the issue lies in the tragic potential of love because it can not grant happiness to its pursuers. In death the lovers are not divided and become examples of legendary love. However it also serves as an apotheosis to love because it is a means to form a union beyond the realm of jealousy, uncertainty and regret. DA Traversi argues "… a tragedy of lyrical inspiration justifying love by presenting it as triumphant over death … a presentation of spiritual possibilities dissipated through a senseless surrender to passion".

The outward struggle is of highest importance in a tragedy for its total effect. From the moment, Antony sets his eyes on Cleopatra in Cydnus. "… And for his ordinary pays in his heart / for what his eyes eat only", it was instantaneous love, a tempestuous passion that both united and kept asunder both Antony and Cleopatra. Shakespeare uses poetry of the highest order to accumulate variety in scene and distinction in character. Compared to Richard II where he intimated the love was the natural choice for all mankind. He seems in Antony and Cleopatra less interested in the battle of Actium than in the nature of that forces that utterly obliterates the individual mindset. To deepen the content he shows that it is precisely out of dishonor and defeat that spiritual triumph emerges, which is always found at the heart of any tragedy. As it nears its end, it seems to recede from history and myth and leaps forward to a colossal degree of imagination.

[ad_2]

Source by Sanjhee Gianchandani

[ad_1]

The ultimate goal of your palm card layout and design is to deliver a candidate image and message that is clear and consistent to voters. Also called push cards, palm cards are an effective form of campaign advertisement. You should communicate your main talking points as well as background, education and such other relevant information all while being visually appealing to your desired demographic.

Designing a campaign palm card consists of several facets. First is the use of color. When ordering your push cards, remember to use the colors that are specific to your campaign. Red, white and blue are traditionally the most popular colors among political hopefuls, but if you have a pre-existing color scheme use those colors.

This leads us into our second design point; be consistent. Do not change your color scheme or election slogan halfway through the campaign. It is important to be consistent with all of your campaign materials in regards to color, font and style of design. When building a campaign image, or brand if you will, uniformity is key to accomplishing this successfully.

Third, choose palettes of colors that are complementary to each other. In the age of digital printing, voters expect to see full color printing, and an appealing palm card. Be creative with your color choices. Also make the text, especially your name, easy to read. Your name should be the first thing that the voter sees in respect to your push card. The font you select should be clear and large. Gothic and fancy script-type fonts should be avoided due to their lack of clarity.

The fourth facet of designing your campaign palm card is presenting your message. Make sure your message is clear and simple. Do not confuse your voters by throwing legal jargon or complex phrases at them. Use simple words and concise sentences to get your point across. There should be a natural flow of information that is easy to follow. Remember, if the voter does not read your message, you have wasted your time and money.

Pictures are an essential staple to have on your palm card. It is important to have a headshot of the front on your palm card so your voter can put a face with a name. For local offices, this may be the only time the voter sees you. You might also include a nice family photo on your palm card under the family section. If available, include some action shots of the candidate in the community. Choose the best quality pictures available. Most printers will not accept anything less than 300 dpi at print size (4 "x 6"). If you are unsure about the terminology used here, your photographer or printer should be able to help you. Remember, a picture is worth 1000 words!

There are many layout and design options available when designing your push card, but you must take your quantity of information into account when deciding which layout works best for you.

[ad_2]

Source by Meesseman missy

[ad_1]

Communalism is a modern phenomenon. It had its roots in the modern colonial socio-economic political structure. Communalism emerged as a result of the emergence of new, modern politics based on the people and on popular participation and mobilisation. It made it necessary to have wider links and loyalties among the people and to form new identities. This process was bound to be difficult, gradual and complex.

This process required the birth and spread of modern ideas of nation, class and cultural-linguistic identity. These identities, being new and unfamiliar, arose and grew slowly and in a zig-zag fashion. Quite often people used the old, familiar pre-modern identity of caste, locality, sect and religion to grasp the new reality, to make wider connections and to evolve new entities. This has happened all over the world. But gradually the modern and historically-necessary identities of nation, nationality and class have prevailed.

Unfortunately, in India this process has remained incomplete for decades. In particular, religious consciousness was transformed into communal consciousness in some parts of the country and among some sections of the people. In particular, modern political consciousness was late in developing among the Muslims. As nationalism spread among the Hindus and Parsis of the lower-middle class, it failed to grow equally rapidly among the Muslims of the same class.

Hindus and Muslims had fought shoulder to shoulder during the Revolt of 1857. In fact, after the suppression of the Revolt, British officials had taken a particularly vindictive attitude towards the Muslims.With the rise of the nationalist movement the British statesmen grew apprehensive about the safety and stability of their empire in India. To check the growth of a united national feeling in the country, they decided to follow more actively the policy of 'divide and rule' and to divide the people along religious lines, in other words, to encourage communal and separatist tendencies in Indian politics.

For this purpose they decided to come out as 'champions' of the Muslims and to win over to their side Muslim zamindars, landlords and the newly educated. They also fostered other divisions in Indian society. They promoted provincialism by talking of Bengali domination. They tried to utilize the caste structure to turn non-Brahmins against Brahmins and the lower castes against the higher castes. In Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, where Hindus and Muslims had always lived in peace, they actively encouraged the movement to replace Urdu as the court language by Hindi.

In other words, they tried to use even the legitimate demands of different sections of Indian society to create divisions among the Indian people. The colonial government treated Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs as separate communities. It readily accepted communal leaders as authentic representatives of all their co-religionists. It permitted the propagation of virulent communal ideas and communal hatred through the press, pamphlets, posters, literature and other public platforms.

This is a very vast issue. We should think about it deeply and use our own mind to come to any decision.

[ad_2]

Source by Md Riaz

[ad_1]

A President is the head of the Country and represents not only his party but also the people of his country. Their hopes and aspirations for themselves as well as their country's role in the world are a reflection of the President's performance. A great President is someone who can give a fillip to domestic balanced growth as well as play a key role in guiding international politics. What are the attributes of a great President – does he go strictly by the constitutional written word or does he give his own interpretations more importance, should he risk being unpopular by taking the correct but difficult decision or should he play to the gallery and leave his successor to sort out the mess. Read on to find out qualities that make a great President.

Clear Vision and Direction: To lead a country and its people, a President needs to have a strategic vision and direction. He should be clear what his goals are, how he can accomplish them. He has to concentrate on big issues and challenges and have a macro view of economic, social and political realities.

For instance, Roosevelt's fireside chats (thirty evening radio speeches) during the 'Great Depression' gave people hope and inspired them to take advantage of the various measures being introduced to tackle unemployment and encourage entrepreneurship. The same quality was exhibited by Abraham Lincoln during his "House Divided" speech emphasizing his goal of preserving the Union while limiting slavery.

Consistency of Purpose: It takes courage to stick to your chosen course of action to achieve your stated end goal. Lincoln was firm in tackling the Civil War but he was flexible enough to take the changing ground realities into consideration and modified strategies to achieve his goal.

Inherited Legacy: This is something all Presidents have to live with – the inherited legacy of the previous President. For instance, Lincoln inherited a tough legacy filled with officials who sympathized with the Southern States. His task of preserving the Union became enormously difficult as it was being sabotaged from within.

Emotional Maturity: Emotional maturity, popularly referred to as' Emotional Intelligence "or" Emotional Quotient "refers to the ability to think rationally distancing oneself from personal prejudices and looking at the big picture. A great President must have self confidence and must not be frozen by doubt and indecision.

Respect for Public Opinion: A successful President must have a healthy respect for public opinions as expressed in the form of surveys, polls and media interviews but should not be swayed by them. In fact, he should learn from it and engage in educating the citizens about the actual short-, mid- and long-term effects of his policies.

Negotiation and Collaboration: No President can function in isolation only on the strength of his cabinet and party. A great and successful President is one who engages in negotiation and collaboration with the opposing parties to successfully pass and implement acts and ordinances. In the American context, it can happen that the President belongs to one part while the House and Senate is controlled by the other party. Only negotiations and collaborations can help is such situations.

Quick Action: This is the hall mark of a great President – taking quick decisions and implementing them immediately. In other words, readiness to act and comfort in deciding are important.

Of course along with the above qualities alone will not make for a great President. How he applies these qualities in the discharge of his duties will ultimately determine how history will judge him.

[ad_2]

Source by Eric Schultz

[ad_1]

As an executive coach, clients often ask me how they can influence organizational decision-making more effectively without becoming a 'back-stabber' or an 'ass-kisser'. There is a fine line between demonstrating organizational savvy and playing the 'dirty game' of office politics. The key difference lies in two words: motive, and method. This article gives you nine strategies to help you become more of an expert in the fine art of influence, while staying true to the highest standards of professional ethics and values.

First, the Black Art

We have all seen the Black Art of Influence in action: bosses who suck up and kick down; take credit for the work of others; or leave a wake of burned out staff behind them in their rise to the top. We know colleagues who always seem to have the ear of the boss and create confusion by sowing doubts about others. Or we have experienced subordinates who regularly go over our head because of their 'specialized knowledge'.

In virtually every case, the motive is self-serving and the method is underhand. Influencing others becomes a Black Art when your objective is to turn everything to your advantage, to make yourself look good at other people's expense.

Sometimes people can convince themselves they need to use devious tactics because the cause is just. Methods can include providing misleading or inadequate information, taking advantage of absences to limit opposition, outright lying, withholding approval or obstructing progress. And the list goes on. People can fool themselves into believing that this behaviour is right, especially if they get away with it. But most know the end does not justify the means.

Now the Fine Art

The Center for Creative Leadership describes two key skills that are critical to the success of leaders: organizational agility and political savvy. In their book, FYI: A Guide for Development and Coaching, Michael W. Lombardo and Robert F. Eichinger describe organizational agility as:

"Knowledge about how organizations work; knowing how to get things done through formal channels and the informal network; understanding the origin and reasoning behind key policies, practices and procedures; and understanding the cultures of organizations" (p.235).

They describe political savvy as:

"[One who] can manoeuvre through political situations effectively and quietly; is sensitive to how people and organizations function; anticipates where the landmines are and plans … accordingly; views corporate politics as a necessary part of organizational life …; is a maze-bright person "(p.291).

Organizational agility and politically savvy are key traits to being effective in your job no matter what your level, but are especially critical the further you advance. You need to gain support for your ideas not just from those above you, but also from those below. You need support from your peers across the organization and even from those who are outside your organization.

Adding further complexity, most large organizations have both political and bureaucratic levels of decision-making. In government, the political level comprises elected officials and their political staff; the bureaucratic level is the civil service. In industry, the political level comprises Boards of Directors and major shareholders; the bureaucratic level is the CEO and employees. It is important to recognize this distinction because each level has different perspectives and preoccupations. If you want to get your ideas accepted, you need to consider both.

9 Steps to Increase Your Ability to Influence People

1. Identify key players and their roles.

Study the organization chart and outside stakeholders. Find out who the decision-makers and influencers are for your program or service and whom they rely on for advice. Look for people at your level who can help you understand the players and roles.

2. Learn to read the political landscape.

Organizations may appear simple on the surface, but it is important not to underestimate their complexity because the people involved have different personalities and agendas. Find out who is known for getting things done, who are the gatekeepers, who controls the flow of information and resources, who are the resisters and stoppers. Whose support do you need?

3. Read between the organizational lines.

You need to understand the context in which the organization operates. You may not be able to gain support for your idea, not because it is not good, but because budget restraint or other priorities are more important, especially at the political level. Find ways to link your program to these priorities.

4. Build relationships at all levels.

Cooperate and help others as often as you can, no matter their level in the organization. You never know when you will need someone to speak well of you or smooth the way. Do not hold grudges. They can limit you later.

5. Consult people, test ideas and build support before presenting.

Go to your toughest critics and get their views. Consult behind the scenes to resolve concerns and obtain support. If you encounter roadblocks, look for ways to address them. This way you can avoid vocal and powerful opposition which can put your project at risk. And be careful about false consultation. If people give their views, incorporate them as best you can. If you can not, explain why. No one likes to be ignored.

6. Brush up on your communication skills.

Pay attention to people's non-verbal signals, especially in meetings. Learn to observe other people's agendas and to listen for what is not being said. Watch your language and vary your approach depending on your audience. The more senior the audience, the more focused and concise you need to be.

7. Be generous with your peers.

Everyone competes for the boss's favour. They will see a victory for you as a loss for them. It is always wise not to exacerbate this normal competitiveness. Be open, share information, give credit, never blindside them in meetings, and keep your ego and self-promotion in check.

8. Always engage your boss.

Your boss is your greatest asset and ally. It does not matter if you like your boss or not. Understand the role your boss plays in the organization and help him or her achieve their work objectives. The boss will then be more inclined to support your ideas.

9. Stay patient and flexible.

It can take time to develop a quality proposal, follow the process and obtain support. You will need to be flexible. Your proposal may go through many versions to address everyone's issues. Timing can also be a critical factor. A good idea presented at the wrong time will not get the attention it deserves. You may need to stop once in a while to assess the landscape. Persistence is good. Being a bulldozer or a mosquito is not.

Every organization is different. Understanding its culture and how it operates can help you successfully navigate through normal resistance to gain support for your ideas and even improve on them. This, combined with an open, honest and well-considered approach, will soon enable you to master the fine art of influence.

[ad_2]

Source by Jane Hardy

[ad_1]

In this article I will review, yet again, another political magazine. I will also give some brief background information and why I like this one as well as the prior reviewed political magazine. Probably by now you have guessed that I read a lot of these types of magazines and enjoy them immensely.

Shall we get to the background information. Foreign Affairs is an old publication that dates back to 1922 when it was founded. This magazine focuses on international relations and united States foreign policy. It is similar to Current History but different as well. Foreign Affairs is published by the Council on Foreign Relations and publishes bi-monthly. The Council of Foreign Affairs was founded in 1921 and is located in New York City. The Council on Foreign Affairs is a think tank that focuses on international relations. This publication is more academically oriented, similar to Current History, with many contributors that are professors.

It is now time to talk about why I deem this publication to be a favorite of mine. I like to read and learn about international relations and the role the United States plays. I think it is important to be aware of various institutions that the United States finds itself involved in. Especially in the twenty-first century, geopolitical issues are very complex and there are many different actors that play various roles. For instance, today the United States is involved in Afghanistan and just finished combat operation in Iraq. These examples are common knowledge because they are discussed on the nightly news or in the newspaper. But I like to learn an issue in depth and go beyond the soundbites heard on television or cursory coverage found in my local newspaper. I want to understand the political history of a country like Iraq or what will happen now that the United States has ended combat operation there and pulled out our troops. I want to know more about the fight against terrorism, that goes beyond what the politicians tell us.

I want to learn how China is becoming an economic powerhouse and about other emerging markets. I enjoy reading this type of magazine but I use it to inform myself of issues that help me make sound decisions when I vote. I think that for the United States to be a good democratic society and have constructive dialogue about various geopolitical issues people need to be informed about. By reading this magazine and others like it, this can be a small contribution to society. This can be a small step to contributing to our democratic ideals by being well informed and have a solid understanding of geopolitical issues and being able to engage in thoughtful dialogue and be able to put forth different ideas. This knowledge also helps me make wise decisions at the ballot box by thinking globally and not just nationally or locally. If you want to be more informed you should consider purchasing an issue at your local bookstore. And for the Internet Age, Foreign Affairs also a has website that you can check out. Foreign Affairs would also make a good gift for someone that is interested in foreign relations.

[ad_2]

Source by Suzy Bledsoe

[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]

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