Political Risk For The Party In Power

The old adage, "Be careful what you wish for," is never more true than in politics. The political party out of power always wants to gain control, but being in control has major political risks. Politicians want control for their political parties, feeling that control will offer them the privileges of power. These perceived privileges include: more powerful leadership positions; controlling the political agenda; control of committees and sub-committees; higher budgets; and "pork" projects for their constituents; among other things. In their fervor for control, they ignore certain political realities, or convince themselves that the past election results in favor of their party was due to certain factors, when the reality might very well be otherwise.

The Democratic Party enjoyed a near landslide election result in November 2008, not only electing the President, but gaining sizable majorities in both houses of Congress. The margin in the Senate, when one counted in the two Independent Senators (from Vermont and Connecticut), who generally vote with the Democrats, actually secured the magic super-majority of 60, which, if voted as a bloc, created a filibuster- proof majority. In their fervor and celebration of the results of the election, Democrats began believing their own campaign slogan, and falsely interpreting the results to mean that Americans voted for "Change," when a more accurate analysis would probably be that the American electorate had enough of the Bush- Cheney Republicans.

President Obama began his Presidency with a near record popularity and approval rating, which has dramatically dropped in a year. When the economy worsened and joblessness increased, many Americans perceived that the President and his party's agenda was further to the "left" than most Americans desired. While most Americans wanted their government to make the economy and, specifically, joblessness, the number one priority, it was perceived that too much time was spent on a health insurance plan that polls indicate the majority of Americans disapprove of. While the candidate Obama portrayed himself as the peace candidate, and promised to get out of Guantanamo, etc., President Obama's policies often dramatically conflicted with those promises.

There's an old political adage, "It's the economy, stupid." President Obama and the Democratic Party did not sufficiently heed this advice, and the mid-term elections in November 2010, found Democrats on the outside once again in the House of Representatives, and the margin in the Senate reduced dramatically. Americans predominantly blame incumbents, and specifically, those in power, when things are going badly. Republicans are now rejoicing about the Republican victory in the Massachusetts Senate race, the New Jersey Gubernatorial race, and their dramatic victories in the mid-term elections, etc. Republicans had better be careful what they wish for, because if they don't have a workable plan that is palatable to the American public, their rejoicing will likewise turn to regret.

The lesson politicians should learn is that, in the long run, we have had enough rhetoric and empty, unworkable, un-doable promises. When politicians become statesman instead of just "empty suits," both they and the American public will benefit!

Read more »

Economic, Political And Corporate Manipulation

It seems that every day, the American public is being manipulated by someone or something. One day, one side or the other tries to manipulate us to their point of view, often by "spinning" information to put their view in its best light. About a year ago, a book was published that indicated that during the 2008 election campaign, both sides spent almost all their time discussing political "spinning," while almost no time was spent discussing policy strategy. That would be upsetting if it was an isolated case - however, it seems almost epidemic in American politics for politicians to "always be running," and they never seem to transform from politician to statesman.

Have you ever wondered that gas prices at the gas tank seem to go up as soon as oil futures group, but do not drop nearly as precipitously when oil futures drop? There was a time when oil and gas pricing was predominantly dictated by supply and demand. Today, it appears to predominantly impacted by whim and manipulation! I know it infuriates me when I drive past a gas station and the price is lower in the morning than it is in the afternoon, even though that station has not gotten a gasoline delivery during that period! To me, that is a combination of manipulation, greed and contempt for the consumer. Yet, our political leaders address the issue more with rhetoric, than with any real action. Alternative energy usage, including natural gas, clean coal, solar, wind, etc., should all be aggressively pursued if our political leaders wanted to impact that market, but instead they play the blame game! I guess, in all fairness, since the same leaders depend on taxing these commodities, they are unwilling to do "the right thing."

The Surgeon General has for years, warned of the dangers of cigarette smoking, yet no politician would consider outlawing these unhealthy products, because they are so dependent on the tax revenues received. It is the same thing with rising gas prices, since most states have sales taxes as a percentage of the price of the gasoline, and therefore lower prices mean lower gas tax revenues.

We should demand that politicians become statesman, and think "outside the box." Doing that would not only address our potential energy dependence, but improve our trade deficit situation, increase domestic

employment by redeploying some of the jobless into these essential alternative energy related industries.

There is hardly any business that does NOT use manipulation as part of its marketing plan. I am sure that you have noticed certain retailers that constantly run "Buy One- Get One Half Price" sales (actually a total of a 25% discount), while others weakly run percent off sales. How about jewelers who appear to have inflated retail prices, only to promote their "great" discounts?

Why all the manipulation? Because it works. Human nature searches for bargains, so retailers make consumers believe they are getting one. It is certainly the rare retailer that promotes their every day off-pricing.

There are many things that Americans should be upset about. Isn't it about time for U.S. citizens to demand more from their political leaders, their businesses, their banks, and their energy/ utility/ gas companies? Let's all join together to say, "NO MORE!"

Read more »

Human Cloning - Considerations for the Future

Much has been said about human cloning, and in particular the ethical concerns that arise. From therapeutic cloning to provide us with replacement organs or research material to mitigate illnesses, to reproductive cloning to provide us with exact copies of ourselves, the whole field is awash with vociferous and semi-evangelical proponents and opponents. What, then, is the future of this intriguing field?

Recent advances, in particular the work conducted by Dr Edward Darmos, have shown us that human cloning need not be the future, and that, instead, a process called synthetic somatology, or somatic synthesis, could provide us with a future filled with artificially-grown humans, designed for specific tasks. These 'synthetic humans' can be made anywhere that we can assemble the technology, which means that we could quickly populate the galaxy with colonies of living, breathing humans, designed to survive in adverse conditions.

While it's unlikely we'll see these in our lifetime, the possibilities are immense: imagine human colonies spreading across the galaxy, taking our cultural heritage and knowledge to unknown places, and all without having to overcome some of the fundamental problems of sending live humans across such enormous distances -- problems like lifetimes, inertia, the resource costs of a life support system, and so on.

From an ethical standpoint, these synthetic humans are something new for our scientists, philosophers and religious leaders to consider. According to documentation available from Gemini Somatics (Dr Darmos's employers), these people are genetically non-identical to any human, and are generally 'randomised', much like we are through the process of procreation. They are grown from donated pluripotent stem cells, which are taken only from adult donors, and never using fetal or embryonic stem cells. Further, their personalities are also artificially built from a number of donors, much as we adapt and change through our encounters with other people. Finally, however, these synthetic humans would have no childhood, which is where the main crux of ethical dilemma occurs.

If we make these people, are we denying them the true experience of human life by skipping over their childhood? It's certainly true that this process would only be required for the first generation, and beyond that natural procreation would occur, so is the benefit of creating a whole new human society far from Earth, capable of discovering new and wondrous things to enhance the whole of humanity sufficient cause to deny a first generation their childhood?

Read more »

Faster Than the Speed of Light

If you have ever watched a science fiction show or movie or ever picked up a science fiction book you will probably know that amongst the scientific world is pretty widely accepted that you can't go faster than the speed of light. But problem is these works of science fiction never tell you why. That's where I come in.

Now before I go on I want to put a little bit of doubt in your mind. The person who said that we can't go faster than the speed of light Albert Einstein has already been proven wrong about certain parts of the theory of relativity. So his theories are just that theories. His theory of light speed could be very well wrong. But whether its wrong or right is not my place to tell it is my place to tell you why people think you can't travel faster.

Einstein found out that energy and matter are one and the same. That matter is merely incredibly condensed energy. If you got a powerful battery it would be heavier if it was fully charged (but only a by small amount). It is important to remember that all energy is the same. So there for all types of energy weigh the same amount. So if something is moving quickly and there for has large amounts of kinetic energy then it would be heavier. Just as a charged battery would be heavier.

Now lets say your in you little space ship. Your just cruising through the milky way and you decide to go to light speed. You start picking up speed. Now something important to remember is just how fast light speed is. If you were traveling at around 100 miles per hour then you would be around 0.000000000002 grams heavier. Which lets admit isn't that much heavier. But light speed is 186,000 per second (and there is 3600 seconds in an hour). You would be a LOT heavier.

Also it should be noted technically your not getting heavier since weight is relative to the planet your on but bear with me here. As your going super fast everything is getting slower. The reason why you are getting slower is because everything is getting slower. If you had a watch then it would it would only tick once every hour. Thing is your brain is also getting slower so you wouldn't even notice. You could be staring at your watch it would say two minutes had passed and you would be at your destination 20 years later.

Eventually the faster you go the harder it is to build up speed. You get slower and slower and push harder and harder. Until eventually you hit a point where there isn't enough energy in the universe (depending on how big the universe is which is a completely different topic) to be able to make you go faster than a specific point and that point is the speed of light.

Read more »

Globalization Of Taxation

Since the invention of the internet it was just a matter of time before the integration of a globalized economy. Globalization means the expansion of the world's economy it's not just about one single country anymore. Globalization takes capitalism to a whole other level with their being competition for about every market which inevitably drives prices further down, and ships jobs to countries where businesses can get the same result for a fraction of a price. Globalization can be a good thing as long as it's done with some sort of regulation, but like capitalism it is becoming a cut throat world a world where only the strong survive, and strength is determined by who can offer the lowest tax rates.

Now that the world's economy has been integrated or globalized it brings with it a whole bunch of free trade agreements which do away with the nuisance of doing business outside your home country. North America has the North American Free Trade Agreement which opens the boarders of the United States, Mexico, and Canada to do business tariff or tax-free with each other. These free trade agreements are all over the world. The Euro zone which allows free trade with the countries that consist of the European Union which helps expand their economy, but tax money that could be generated from such transactions is nonexistent. Asia has the Asian Pacific economic cooperation which has those countries freely trading. It seems like every year there is another free trade agreement that pops up between neighboring countries. It really has set the standard in today's economy because if you're a country who has barriers or high tariffs to trade with then you're not going to have much of a chance to compete in today's global economy.

The catch 22 about globalization is that countries will lower their taxes to encourage foreign investment so they get that money pumped into their economy, but with the these lower taxes means less government which in turn means less regulation to keep an eye on these corporations from doing what they want. Adam Harmes a political science professor at the University of Western Ontario "sees a world already spiralling toward the bottom through deregulation and lower taxes, and views stronger global institutions as the means to protect individuals from this corporate arbitrage" If we don't have someone keeping an eye on these corporations who will do whatever it takes no matter how unethical their business practices are corporation's are concerned with one thing, and that is to make a profit.The globalization of the economy in the short run looks great on paper prices are down costs are down and corporations are expanding at a rapid pace., but the real victim of globalization are the lower class people of their nations. People who depend on government welfare which is funded by taxes is slowly dwindling away because paying taxes all of a sudden has become taboo. That it is not fair for everyone to pay their fair share to contribute to the greater good of the country. Globalization according to Harmes will eventually get out of control when the tax rates are so low that it will be impossible for government to operate efficiently, and these corporations will get away with everything and never be held responsible for their actions.

The globalization of the world's economy has an adverse affect on tax revenue for the United States or whatever country is being concerned. The idea that low taxes are good for business is absolutely true, but what it is not good for is majority of people in the world. The North American free Trade Agreement for example has sent countless number of manufacturing jobs to Mexico. This is putting people out of work and taking tax revenue out of the United States. Since all the corporations are outsourcing (which is their only chance to compete) it is leaving unemployment at almost ten percent which is the greatest since the great depression. This is a problem because the government provides these unemployed people with assistance that is provided through tax revenue. Bottom line is that globalization works only if it is done responsible where you do away with the concept of free trade, and tax responsible

Read more »