SBOBET เว็บพนันออนไลน์ เว็บนี้มีแต่ให้ สมัครกับเราได้เลย

[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

[ad_1]

Political campaigning for election of 1824 began two years earlier, as various candidates began to position themselves to receive their party's nominations. At one point, there were as many as 16 potential candidates for the Republican Party's nomination. Gradually, they were whittled down to 6 and then to 4: Secretary of State John Quincy Adams, the former Federalist from Massachusetts; William Crawford, the secretary of the treasury; Henry Clay, the Speaker of the House of Representatives; and Andrew Jackson, the military hero who had bee elected as a senator from Tennessee.

The party that had been so disciplined in bringing Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and James Monroe to office had lost its focus. Chaos reigned as competing interests lobbied for their chosen candidates in the upcoming presidential political campaign.

Without party organization supporting a particular candidate, the election campaign proved to be a mess. Voter turnout was very low, little more than 25 percent. Andrew Jackson led in both the electoral and popular votes, but by such a number that he failed to achieve the necessary majority of electoral votes. This meant that the election had to be decided in the House of Representatives.

According to the Constitution, only the leading three candidates were to be considered. Clay had received the fewest electoral votes, so he was eliminated. Crawford was suffering from a serious illness, misdiagnosed as a stroke, so he, too, was not considered in the House. The contest came down to John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson.

Clay was soon the focus of a different kind of political campaign: intense lobbying efforts by the backers of Adams and Jackson, who wanted his support for their candidates. Clay did not like Jackson, however, and did not think that he had the qualifications to serve as president. Clay met several times with Adams and ultimately gave his support (and his electoral votes) to Adams, who was then declared to be president.

[ad_2]

Source by Paul R Turner

[ad_1]

The Egyptian revolution of 1952, which was a coup d'état made by young military soldiers who named themselves "The free officers", it was initially aiming to over throw King Farouk. However, thing ran more smoothly than the free officers thought, they made more political change that just overthrowing the king, they abolished the monarchy and established the republic, and ended the British occupation of Egypt. The free officers, who were headed and founded by colonel Gamal Abdel Nasser, chose Mohamed Naguib to be the first president of the Egyptian Republic. However, his reign did not last long due to disagreements with Nasser which lead to his forced removal from office, and put in house arrest. Nasser took power in 1956, the people cherished Nasser, as they saw him as one of them; under his leadership he nationalized the Suez Canal, this even made him more charismatic and loved by the people.

After Nasser's death in 1970, his vice president, Anwar El Sadat took over the power and became the third president of Egypt. Most of the people were disappointed by Nasser's death, and did not think of anyone else who can rule them. So, in his first speech as a president, Sadat promised the people that he will continue what Nasser had started and that he will follow his path. However, later, Sadat took a different path than Nasser's. Sadat is well known for launching the 1973 war against Israel, and for signing a peace treaty with them after the war, which lead to the return of all Egypt's territories which were occupied by the Israelis under Nasser's era. Nasser's and Sadat's regimes are one of the most important in the modern Egyptian history. Their different characters played a great role in shaping the Egyptian political structure, as both of them had absolute powers as presidents. The base of the political structure did not change from Nasser to Sadat, the regime was still authoritarian with absolute power to the president, and however, each one of them used his absolute power in a different way that resulted in a big difference in the political structure of the country. In this essay I will illustrate Nasser's and Sadat's structure of the political system and to what degree they differed from each other.

Gamal Abdel Nasser was the leader who was almost worshiped by his people. He was incredibly charismatic and had a direct relationship with the Egyptian people. He used to always give public speeches that were very emotive and touching. He succeeded to build a common ground between him and the people, in his speeches he always referred to them as his "fellow citizens". Nasser managed to remove the gap between the ruler and the public; this improved his credibility and his legitimacy to the Egyptian nation. Moreover, Nasser was a down to earth, simple person. He did not live in a palace or in a luxurious villa; he had a modest small house. According to the movie Nasser 56, he refused to build a pool for his kids, as he declined to gain any benefits from his position. Nasser gave the low class jobs, houses, health insurance, free schools and land. In addition to, in the 1964 constitution he assigned half of the national assembly seats to peasants and workers. In his political decisions, Nasser used to consult and put into his consideration the opinions and comments of his cabinet; before taking the decision of nationalizing the Suez Canal, Nasser made numerous consults. The political system structure under Nasser was based on the socialist political ideology. Nasser was a socialist; he founded the country's sole political party: The Arab Socialist Union. He was a pan Arab nationalist; he made a short lived union with Syria.

Under his reign, he reformed the economy and made an agrarian reform by distributing land to the peasants. He initiated a centrally planned economy; he had a major nationalizing program that nationalized all the chief sources of income to the country, making the state the largest employer. Although the revolution promised a democratic rule, Nasser was an authoritarian dictator. He attempted to lay the groundwork for democracy, however, democracy is still absent in Egypt till our present day. Nasser owned a monopoly of power, when Nasser noticed the amount of control Abdel Hakim Amer; the chief of the armed force, Nasser striped Amer of his position and appointed himself the chief of the armed force. When Nasser became president, he aimed to put an end to all oppositions, he got rid of all the parties and abolished the Muslim brotherhood, and he established the only party The Arab Socialist Union.

As a result of having absolute power, there was no any legal legitimacy, the president can change the constitution whenever he likes, he changed the constitution 5 times, Nasser made a legal constitutional frame work to maintain and increase his powers. The coercive apparatus had a great role in Nasser's regime which was known for extreme torture for prisoners who might even be imprisoned for no charges. In his era, army soldiers were given the top policy management roles instead of politicians or diplomats. In 1956, after a lot of researches, reasoning and considering the risks, Nasser decided to nationalize the Suez Canal, this is one of the main decisions that people admire Nasser for. Nasser allied with the Soviet Union because he believed that in order to develop the country; it must have a proper army with good arms. Later in 1976, Israel attacked Egypt and took over territories, this incident led to the resignation of Gamal Abd El Nasser, soon after; people demonstrated and rejected the resignation, so Nasser decided to postpone his decision. Despite the Israeli victory in the 1976 war, Nasser succeeded to become a symbol of Arab victory and dignity, even though he could not do all what he promised but people were satisfied that he at least tried. In 1970 Nasser died in office and Anwar el Sadat became the President.

Anwar El Sadat, third president of the republic, was one of the free officers. Sadat's presidency was considered widely among the people that it is going to be short lived, and they assumed that he is merely a puppet of the former president Nasser who is controlled by Nasser supporters. Sadat surprised everyone by taking serious political actions that retained his powers as a president and enabled him to emerge as an independent leader. Sadat was a cunning and clever person, many incidents show that he had a decisive character by which he can reach unattainable goals, and two of these incidents are: his escape from political prison before the revolution, and the tactics of 1973 war that has depended on deceiving the enemy. Unlike Nasser, Sadat initiated a gap between him and the people, he did not make public speeches, and he preferred talking to groups of people and especially the parliament.

Sadat did not care to justify his actions, while some actions really needed justifications because they were refuted and considered bizarre, to the people; he can occasionally justify it to individuals who have the capability of seeing and asking him. Another notable difference between Sadat and Nasser, Sadat addressed the nation as his sons, he was playing the role of the god father and he believed that he is more knowing than anyone else. This can be noticed in his decision taking, he was a sole decision taker, and he rarely took advice or a consultant from his cabinet, even in the most serious decisions. For example, everyone was surprised when he stated that he was ready to go and negotiate with the Israelis in the Knesset. Sadat was so full of himself and arrogant, he gained tremendous self confidence after the 1973 war, and the nation considered him a hero. Sadat's ideologies were totally different than those of Nasser.

He was more western oriented he drifted away from the Nasserism by establishing a multiparty system and initiating a liberal economy and the open door policy (Infitah). He changed his political party from the Arab Socialist Union to the National Democratic Party. One of the focal differences between him and his Nasser is that Sadat is far less Arab Nationalist; he was more focused on the well being and the liberation of his own country that he signed a peace treaty with Israel after the 1973 war. Sadat was not in good terms with the Soviet Union, he expelled the soviet actors from Egypt before the 1973 war; however the soviet kept on equipping the Egyptian army with weapons and equipments throughout the war.

After the war Sadat was seen as a hero to the Arab world, but not for a long time, after he declared that he is ready to make peace with Israel, he was seen as a traitor by most Arab countries. Later, Sadat established relations between Egypt and the United States in order to negotiate for getting back Egypt's occupied territories, and he succeeded, and one of his famous quotes were "Russians can give you arms, but only the united states can give you a solution "(Simpsons Contemporary Quotations", p.14).

Nasser established a base political structure during his regime that Sadat inherited. Both regimes were authoritarian and shared the same policies that give the president absolute power and control over the country. What has not changed in both regimes are the monopoly of power to the president, the lack of legal legitimacy, the dependence on the coercive apparatus to eliminate opposition, manipulating the constitution to suite their practice of powers and the one dominant party, even though Sadat reinstituted the multiparty system, other parties acted like pressure groups. However, since the president has absolute power, then the personality of the president is a big deal in shaping the political structure.

As noticed, Sadat was really different in character than Nasser, thus the political system. As Sadat took over the presidency, he started his "Correctional Revolution", he started by purging Nasserites members in the government and security forces, and replaced them by professional diplomats and politicians. In addition to, changing the paths of foreign -domestic policies, economy and ideology; plus the imprisonment of many political forces including many Islamists. Nevertheless, there was more political freedom under Sadat; he took another step towards democracy. The multiparty system gave more space for opposition, which was extinct in Nasser's era. Sadat also gave the press more freedom, unlike Nasser who nationalized and controlled the press.

After 1973 when Sadat launched the Infitah, which is the open door for private investment which encouraged domestic and foreign investment in the private sector and ended the domination of the economy by the public sector, created a wealthier more successful upper class and a smaller middle class , however, negative and violent protests happened after Sadat decided to cut subsidies over basic food supplies, these protests forced Sadat to go back on his decision and reinitiate the subsidies. The Egyptian foreign policy witnessed a dramatic change under Sadat, from the expulsion of soviet actors, to the alliance with the United States. The most important point of change is that Sadat shifted Egypt from the policy of confrontation towards Israel, to a peaceful accommodation through the negotiations that took place after the war of 1973. This change in policy had three critical influences over the modern Egyptian history:

(I) Egypt got back all occupied territories that were overtaken in 1976

(Ii) Egypt declared the country of Israel

(Iii) Most Arab countries cut relations with Egypt, and Egypt was dismissed from the Arab league.

Finally, the last notable change in the structure of the political system is the long term alliance with the United States, which is still present until today. One of the main benefits of this alliance is that Egypt became one of the top recipients of American aid.

In conclusion, Nasser created a base political structure that has not changed, but it enables the person in power to have full control over the state. The strong base that Nasser built makes the person in power able to build his views and ideologies over it. And that is what happened, Sadat shifted Egypt's path, and we are still living the consequences, but what Sadat has fulfilled was founded on Nasser's base. And what can be concluded is that Nasser built the base of dictatorship in Egypt, and Sadat relied on it. So I can argue that the political system has changed under Sadat, but the form of government remained the same.

[ad_2]

Source by Ahmed Abou El Ezz

[ad_1]

All types of business analysis seem attractive and extremely efficient. However, one need to remember that real-life usage differs from all those plans, graphs, tables and other documents characteristic of business evaluation methods. In theory it looks simple, while in real life there can be certain problems with application of analysis results. PEST analysis is not an exception here. In theory analysis of all those 4 factors (political, economic, social and technological) works while problems may begin when top managers receive the very first results. In this article we will talk about application of PEST evaluation results in real life. However, to begin with, we need to define all 4 components of PEST analysis in order to evaluate their usage in real business environment.

Analysis of political environment has received a huge portion of criticism. Some business owners think that this is waste of time and money, claiming that politics stands out, thus having no ties with the economy. By the way, this is what most politicians would say. However, there is every reason not to believe them. Politics always influences economic situation and business environment. In real life, results of political analysis have to be applied in a cautious ways. Politics is a changeable field in which situation can change every minute. However, having correctly forecast political changes, business owners can enjoy substantial benefits. It is always important to design several scenarios and possible business reaction to various changes. In such a way the company will be ready to face any challenges since it has anticipated most of them.

Analysis of economic environment is a must for every company. First of all, every business is operating in a certain national or international economy that has own rules, norms and regulations. Every slightest change in the national economy may negatively (or just to the contrary, positively) influence business development. For example, rising economies offer great loan opportunities for businesses that can invest much money into own development. If economic analysts forecast worsening of economic situation, the company should work out new methods of business management. Very often, results of economic analysis are wrongly applied in real life. Thus, high inflation rate is not always a negative trend, and top managers should think of the ways to take advantage of such changes. The same concerns purchasing power of customers. If it goes down, then maybe it is reasonable to release cheaper products or services with fewer features.

Social trends are now playing an important role in business development. Business goes social – this is a hot trend these days. Business is a social phenomenon that can not stand apart of the society and its needs. Thus, social trends require due attention and analysis. For example, if people love spending time in social networks, then it may be reasonable to install social network features in cell phones and other communication devices.

To properly analyze technological factors, top management of the company should locate new technologies that are being used or developed in a particular industry. After that, the company must evaluate use of latest technologies and their impact on profitability.

[ad_2]

Source by Sam Miller

[ad_1]

The media is full of vitriol for Donald Trump.

Even amongst those political commentators who normally incline towards right-wing views, he's a figure often discussed in terms closer to naked hatred than objective political analysis.

Yet what is Trump really saying? Is he being misrepresented in the press when portrayed as speaking solely for 'the lunatic fringe'? Does he actually represent mainstream America rather more than his opponents would like to suggest?

The Pressures in US Society

All societies have stresses and tensions within them – and the US is no exception.

Since the 1960s, US society has changed out of all recognition and has arguably fractured along major fault lines. Those stress points are not exactly news and include things such as abortion, gay marriage, race, social care, gun laws, immigration, multiculturalism, economic management and so on.

Although it's very easy to portray these as typically Republican right wing versus Democrat left wing political inclinations, that's overly simplistic. There are people with strong opinions on all sides and it's misguided to assume all Democrats support abortion on demand because it's a "woman's right" or that all Republicans support free access to guns on demand.

Yet what has undeniably happened increasingly over recent decades is that liberal viewpoints captured the moral high ground and are today often represented as being 'mainstream', 'enlightened', 'just' and 'politically correct'. By contrast, viewpoints that argue against (eg) increased social care provisions are labelled as 'reactionary', 'outdated', 'oppressive' or the domain of marginalized cranks.

However, the intelligentsia in DC political and media leadership circles seem to have made the mistake of believing their own propaganda in this respect.

That's perhaps understandable because they'd 'seen off' the previous rumblings of groups such as the Tea Party. So, they hugely underestimated the frustrations in very large sections of 'traditional' US society who lacked an outlet for their views, fears, hopes and aspirations – and into that breach stepped Donald Trump.

Trump – A Voice for the Unheard

Whatever one thinks about individual elements of Trump's approach during the Primaries, there is little doubt that he has tapped into a vast reservoir of discontent in US society.

Nobody should doubt that Trump has the large-scale and spontaneous support of many in the US. His views, whether one agrees with them are not, are those of a large number of ordinary Americans who have been frustrated by not having a spokesperson.

In the past, Democrat Presidential candidates have portrayed this group as political 'dinosaurs', with views that have no place in modern America. Many traditional 'comfortable' Republican contenders have equally distanced themselves from this section of society, as they strove to adopt centrist stances and positions that were both 'PC' and in their view, ones which would make them potentially electable.

Trump's brilliant inspiration and shrewd vision was to recognize the size of this group of disenchanted voters, who were anything but a tiny fringe minority. Even had it been in his nature, which it probably is not, he was not going to tone down his views simply to make himself popular with the media or the 'men in clubs' in Washington.

He has effectively gone over the head of the political and media establishments and appealed to the masses – and masses they are. That's why to date he's been so successful and why he's created a political earthquake.

If nothing else, he's forcing the 'unheard masses' back into focus in the corridors of power.

Is Trump Electable?

Already, the Washington establishment is in danger of writing Trump off, should he get to stand against Hilary Clinton. The same tired-old clichés are being wheeled-out, branding him a racist, sexist and sadly deluded figure who does not represent a significant proportion of US society.

Those views may well be VERY naive.

It's already clear that Trump does not just appeal to older white and 'red neck' voters. His plain-speaking and lack of fear of controversy is striking a chord with many – and that might cross traditional Republican-Democrat demarcations.

For example, it's absurd and patronizing to postulate that African-Americans will not vote for Trump because of his views on immigration via Mexico. If they're struggling to find work and housing, then looking at local immigration issues as a possible contributory factor might be just as likely for African-American voters as White voters.

Equally, his stand on abortion might well strike a chord with significant numbers of predominantly Catholic Hispanic Americans, irrespective of his views on illegal immigration across the border or gun control.

Many voters of all political inclinations might be attracted to his stance on breaking the Washington establishment – whatever segment of society they come from.

Donald Trump is an astute man and has already proven himself to be a capable politician. His appeal may be wider-spread than many believe and he just might pull off an upset in the election. At the very least he's forcing some soul-searching in the DC corridors of power along the lines of "who knows the electorate best, us or Donald Trump?"

It's a question that's worrying the establishment to its core.

[ad_2]

Source by Eby M

[ad_1]

As in any part of the world, political influence is highly essential to start a business in India. Especially if you are planning to start a multi billion business, some sort of political patronage is an absolute necessity. Not only for safeguarding the interest of the company but even to begin the process of getting the required sanctions, one requires hold in the high echelons of politics and administrative circles.

Indian society is highly plural. It is the biggest democracy in the world with multi party political system. In population, India is second to China, with nearly 1200 million people. This is the most important consumer market in the world. It is a fast developing world. India is the third largest economy in the world and second fast growing economy in Asia. It has the tremendous potential of development with huge intellectual human force. With all these advantages and the huge market potential, world super entrepreneurs are looking for business establishments in India. With the overcrowded population and the millions of hard working and qualified personals, India offers a very cheap work force to the world. Many have realized the business potential in India, started exploring the unique opportunities of investments.

During the last couple of decades, India has opened its market to world. It has absolutely become an open global market. Banking sector, Insurance sector and all fields of industrial and business are now open for multi national investment. Of course there are many obstructions to cross. And mostly all issues can overcome and establish business if you have the political patronage.

India has a plural political system. With numerous political parties, national level and state level, it is very difficult to get a consensus among all parties for starting any business. Also these political parties have patronage of many factors, caste, creed and ideologies. There are political parties with left centric communist ideologies; they are totally against direct foreign investments. But other parties, who are main ruling coalition partners, have right centric ideologies and open for foreign investments. In most of the states, mostly local political parties are ruling. Political parties require financial patronage from big business establishments.

Many constituent states have realized the need for foreign investments in their state for a growth oriented economic situation. Hence the climate has changed a lot in India. So many privileges are offered to entrepreneurs to start business. With all these facilities, still political patronage is a must to start a business in India. Even after establishing the business, for a proper running of the business, political help is essential. It is mainly to sort out issues related to local taxes, labor problems and many such issues affecting the normal working of the companies.

[ad_2]

Source by Robert Grazian