You know your government is bad shape when it starts comparing itself to fallen empires of the past. Unfortunately, that’s the case in modern America.

The Government Accountability Office, the independent agency charged with investigating the (in)efficiency of government programs, recently warned us that our “burning platform” of unsustainable public policies was so dire that the agency felt obliged to warn of the “striking similarities” between our government’s situation today and the fall of the Roman Empire.

In this panoramic landscape of abject government failure, political liability should spread across the generations. Intransigent leaders from the Silent Generation have delayed social and political progress. The apathy of voters from Generations X and Y has entrenched the power of reckless and incompetent politicians. But given their power, influence and rhetoric, the leaders hailing from the Baby Boomer generation have been the most disappointing in their contributions to our current mess.

Baby Boomers have occupied the White House since 1993 and have held a solid majority in the House of Representatives since 1998. In the U.S. Senate, which has a higher age requirement, Boomers have still held nearly half the votes since the turn of the century, even gaining a brief one-vote majority from 2003 to 2007. A whopping thirty-seven of our fifty states currently have Baby Boomer governors. One wonders, given this impressive hold on power for the past decade, what does this legendary generation have to show for itself politically? Or in other words, what have these 1960s idealists, now boasting decades of real-world experience, done to strengthen our democracy and lead us into the new millennium? (Answer: Not much.)

As the obstacles to our nation’s progress have mounted, Baby Boomer political leaders have largely sought to deflect responsibility, avoid tough decisions, and instead focus their efforts on discrediting their political opponents. As the Boomers have grown in their influence, they have not only failed to solve problems, but in many ways, they have left American Democracy worse off.

Along with their manifold policy failures, Boomers have led American politics into what Andrew Sullivan has called “the debilitating, self-perpetuating family quarrel of the Baby Boom generation.” Nowhere is their childish bickering more apparent than the partisan mud-flinging that currently passes for political commentary. Best-selling conservative Boomer pundits such as Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity, et. al, pen a dizzying number of worthless screeds accusing their political opponents of treason, stupidity and hypocrisy, and their best-selling Left Boomer pundit counterparts, Michael Moore, Al Franken, et al, respond in kind with equally nauseating vitriol.

The Boomers’ failures are distributed uniformly from Right to Left. But given the liberal-leaning Boomers’ original rise from the 1960s counterculture, their weak-kneed absorption into the partisan political establishment is most ironic. The generation that fought for free speech and the right to question authority now enforces strict political correctness and quashes political dissent from their tenured posts in academia.

The proverbial light at the end of the proverbial tunnel

Perhaps the only hope for change lies with the younger generations – Generation X and my generation, the millennials – who will someday, inevitably, take over power.

Granted in many ways, relying on my generation is a risky bet. We’re known mostly for our political apathy and ignorance of current events. We don’t even care to vote, know who our representatives are, or really feel the need to have any sort of political identity whatsoever.

But as we know, things can change. If there’s anything that the Baby Boomers prove, it is that political activism in one’s youth fails to translate to effective political leadership in one’s better years. Seriously – why not us?

In many ways, our generation is best equipped to help lead America through the challenges of the 21st century. We’ve got lifetime experience with modern trends like computer technology and globalization, and thus are the most capable of transcending the fear, cultural division and xenophobia with which most of our elders face those new realities.

Our entrepreneurial streak – our peers have founded some of the most innovative new media companies in the world – makes us better understand the importance of fiscal responsibility, market competition and open trade.

Raised on rap music, lascivious music videos and violent video games, we are remarkably adept at making our own judgments of personal morality, whether or not our parents believe it. Our love of social networking leaves us appreciative both of individual expression and group association. Our advanced technical knowledge of computer networks can even help us better understand how terrorist networks operate. We have no working memory of the Cold War, and thus much less interested in the divisive ideological battling that afflicts the Boomers who cannot seemingly escape that period.

Will the late-coming millennials, currently wallowing in their self-absorbed world, put those brilliant social resources to work and actually change something? Here’s hoping.

The author of The American Evolution, Matt Harrison is the founder and executive director of The Prometheus Institute, Los Angeles, CA, a nonprofit public policy institute. He has authored more than 200 articles and has been a guest on several talk radio shows and a guest blogger for CNN.

Author: Matthew S. Harrison
Article Source: EzineArticles.com
Credit card currency-exchange fees

Part I – Current Trends

As we become more globalized, is it time that the citizens of the world created a worldwide political party? Such parties exist in Europe, for example, under the umbrella of the EU. There are loose associations between the European wide Christian Democratic parties, Socialist parties and Green Parties. But there is no real sense of a truly international party, it is more like an association of like minded parties, but the membership is definitely national.

The democracies of the world have been able to reach very high levels of prosperity, especially since the end of the Second World War, but unfortunately the prosperity of the non-democratic countries has lagged tremendously. The most blatant examples are in Latin America and Eastern Europe. Countries like Argentina, Mexico, Ukraine or even Russia, when one takes into consideration the amount of natural and human resources; the only explanation for the gap in development with other nations is political.

Many have wondered at the tremendous economic success of the United States. Students from the United States are certainly no where near the top of the any ranking of curriculum.

The Washington Post reported “The scores from the 2006 Program for International Student Assessment showed that U.S. 15-year-olds trailed their peers from many industrialized countries. The average science score of U.S. students lagged behind those in 16 of 30 countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, a Paris-based group that represents the world’s richest countries. The U.S. students were further behind in math, trailing counterparts in 23 countries.”

Clearly people in the United States are not better prepared than there counterparts, nor more talented. The secret to the incredible and enduring prosperity of the United States is very simple but often overlooked. The key to American prosperity is the tremendously strong, almost sacred democratic institutions that have guaranteed the supremacy of constitutional rights of those of any person or party. The United Kingdom demonstrated the superiority of these institutions in the nineteenth century as the United States had done in the 20th. And as these two nations spread their ideals through Western Europe and Japan and Korea, prosperity has followed.

It is no surprise, that when the United States denied some groups within its borders the full value of these democratic rights, the economic prosperity of these groups lagged substantially behind the majority. In the Great Britain, the example of Ireland stands out. Where and when legal rights where denied, Ireland remained economically backward. Curiously, now that Republic of Ireland is a full member of the EU, and a strongly democratic country, its per capita GDP is actually significantly higher than that of the United Kingdom.

But there has never been the need or the desire to carry these values into the international arena. What was sacred at home was not considered crucial when dealing with foreign countries. In the case of the United States, suffice to look at our relationship with Iran, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Argentina, Chile, Vietnam, Guatemala or Nicaragua to see how little it valued sound democratic principles when dealing abroad. The example of Iran is particularly interesting, as the United States continually disregarded the democratic movements in Iran. Imagine Iran today if the United States had supported the same values in Iran that it does at home?

The Israeli example is perhaps the most blatant. Palestinians are not considered worthy of the same rights as Jews or Americans, all in an effort to safeguard Israeli prosperity. It seems the lesson is never learned, the key to security is prosperity, and the key to prosperity is sound democratic institutions.

More than any other media, the internet has given citizens of the world the possibility to freely communicate with each others and share information, data and media. One of the major benefits of the emergence of the English language as the ‘de facto’ international language is that joined with the internet, we have now practically overcome almost all the political and economic barriers to people communicating with each other. Basic english skills and access to a PC and the internet, and you can communicate with the world. Isn’t it time that we began to use the internet to give the whole world, what until now, only the privileged few enjoyed.

The economics behind creating a world political party are miniscule. With a few thousand US Dollars, a robust website with an email and chat platform could be created. Leave the marketing to the buzz. If the message is the right, viral marketing will take the parties platform to all ends of the earth, and create a vital force to change the word, for practically nothing.

What do most of the people want in the world? The Financial Times will tell you they want mobile phones or BMW’s. But the truth is, most people want a safe, clean, comfortable place to live with running water, food, clothes, safe and accessible education for their children and healthcare. Imagine a world political party that said the number one priority for all the world is that everyone has these things. Before one more fighter plane is built, before one more Mercedes rolls off the assembly line, every human deserves a clean bed, food, clothes, medical care, and education for their children. Maybe in the past it was difficult to imagine the world as one family; the obstacles between countries and peoples were tremendous. But now we are truly one.

Can you imagine a family, living in a beautiful house, where some members sleep in the bushes, some on the floor in the kitchen while others sleep comfortably in the master bedroom under clean cotton sheets? We are finally realizing that we really all are part of the same family. And with the same intensity that we use to organize and support world athletic tournaments, it is time we began organizing a world political party.

Part II – Structure

Considering the ease at which a world political party could be created with the Internet and the widespread knowledge of English, an important question must be asked and resolved before even ideology is discussed and that is how the party should be structured and how it will intervene in national politics.

One absolutely critical point is that in the party constitution, which will cover the structure and actions of the party, as well as the ideology, it must be made absolutely clear that the party will always act within the laws of the country it is acting in. This could and will be a major point of contention, but it is not negotiable. The viability of the party is based on the fact that it will never support violence in the pursuit of political power and will always act within the legal boundaries of the country where it is operating.

The party will be virtual on the international level, but on the national level it will have a structure similar to other political parties in the nation in which it acts. The website will be the hub of international activity. Members will sign up, have a message board, forum, virtual conventions twice a year, as well as volunteer and paid positions. The key to the structure of the website and the party in general is transparency. All monies coming in as well as going out will be made public on the website. Monthly statements will be made public. Initially, there will be a 6 person representation from each country elected to a international physical conventions of the party, which will take place twice a year. Considering that there are more or less 200 countries in the world and that each would have 6 representatives, there would be roughly a 1200 person World Congress. This World Congress will elect a 12 person Executive Committee, with no more than one person eligible per country. The entire world membership will elect the Chairperson of the Executive Committee which will be one of the members of the Executive Committee.

Once this has been completed at the World Congress, work will begin on drafting a constitution that will be ratified at the following physical World Congress. This is potentially the most challenging moment for the party. The Constitution will not only serve as overriding rule of law for the party, it will also become the keystone for the world constitution that will govern the New World Government. The six month debate the will ensue must be of the highest order, and as widespread among members as possible.

Once this constitution is drawn up and ratified, work can begin on bringing the local parties to power. While the ideological basis for the party will be discussed in the next article, it is important nonetheless to discuss the overriding goal of the party, and that is to create a one world government, bound by its own law to protect all member states and citizens. The most likely framework is a governance body that begins with a limited number of members, and grows slowly outward. This must be considered when drafting the initial constitution. All language, attitudes and spirit must be inclusive of those nations not operating under the charter.

The parties operating in each nation must work on all levels, national, regional and local, to gain political power. Once that political power is acquired, it must be used for two purposes: first two pursue policies that promote the values and ideals of the World Constitution, and second to bring the host nation under the charter of the New World Government. This pursuit must always follow the laws of the host nation and never, under any circumstances, promote or support any violent act.

While this may seem far fetched to discuss before even a website is started, we must not underestimate the speed at which these types of endeavors can progress with modern dissemination methods. This will be the first truly worldwide movement. No matter who gains leadership or protagonism within the party, the key to the success of the party is that it never becomes associated with one particular country, area, organization or culture. All people in leadership levels must act in the interest of the whole. Language, actions, or policies that are exclusive must be avoided.

First and foremost we are human beings. Within the context of the party, we will want to avoid any behavior or policies that are exclusive of anyone due to their gender, race, ethnicity, sexual identity, the language the speak or don’t speak, financial position or any other reason. One of the fundamental reasons for the founding of the party is to stop those types of behaviors at least in as much as they hinder many humans from acquiring the very basic necessities of life.

A possible name for the party is the World People’s Party, or WPP. And the congress’s could be called the World People’s Congress and the new government could be called the New World Body. These are simply suggestions; all would have to be voted on at the first World Congress. But in order to act sometimes it is important to have name.

Finally, the call action. For this to get off the ground, one donor must be found to fund the building of the website (programming, design, creative pieces, email service, and initial ad campaign). Depending on the donor, this could range from $10,000 at a minimum, to $10,000,000 at a maximum. The difference in quantities will be reflected in the speed of the campaign and the assurance of success. A $10,000 start could fail before it ever got off the ground, with $10,000,000 success is assured. Anywhere in the middle ands speed and success of the campaign is more or less certain. Before anything can be started, an international organization would have to be founded, to administer monies, payments, charters etc.

So we have the goal, it is time to get started, and have one person initialize funding, create the organization, and get the website and message out there. The rest the people will handle.

Part III – Ideology and Platforms

Three major challenges confront the world today, poverty, corruption, and sustainable growth. The first two particularly pertain to the underdeveloped and developing world. Poverty and corruption today is primarily a circumstance of undemocratic and corrupt government. With current technological advances, a government that works for the people, in their best interest, will quickly be able to raise standards of living. Poverty and corruption work hand-in-hand. Prosperity means strong democratic institutions, institutions that will put the government at the service of the people, not at the service of self-serving politicians and oligarchs who only pursue personal wealth and power through government service.

Sustainable growth is something that is equally difficult for all, developing countries as well as developed countries. Coordinating our consumption of raw materials as well as manufactured goods is vital to sustainable prosperity. Only a universal plan, free of greed and corruption, will be able to administer the world’s resources in a responsible and sustainable way.

Many believe the environment will not be able to sustain a growing world population and economy. Clearly the earth’s resources are strained, but there is also another threat looming that could be a more imminent danger. The possibility that the world is reaching peak oil has been openly debated. It is not clear how close that point is, but when it is reached, the price increases that will occur on the downside of the graph as our oil reserves go from their high points towards depletion will be tremendous. Though we do not know when this will occur, there is a possibility that it could occur within the next 10 years, and it is very likely to occur with the next 50 years.

While the deterioration of the environment is obviously a tremendous danger to the continued progress of humanity, the problem of peak oil could actually be more dangerous in the short term. So much of our current prosperity is based on oil and the economic growth that oil offers, that once it becomes prohibitively expensive, the world may have difficulty supplying basic needs to a population that grew so rapidly from abundant cheap energy.

The entire current world infrastructure, as well as the financial system is based on cheap oil. Once we begin the downward slope from peak, not only could we face real problems to feed and house the world population, there is also the danger of war over the ever declining supplies of oil.

The people of the world must unite under a group of institutions that will be given power by the nations of the world to administer the resources of the world, insure the basic human rights of the world’s citizens, and be the arbiter of international relations.

Human rights are clearly the right to expression, basic private property, the right to work, the right to a clean safe home, the right to eat, the right to health care, and right that all children be given a complete education. Today this is possible. It may not have been possible even 25 years ago, but with advances in technology we can give every human these basic elements of life. It will not happen overnight, but with a concerted global effort, it is conceivable to achieve within ten years. How would this be paid for? Where would the resources come from?

All persons have the right to basic private property, which means a home, transportation, private belongings, investments, money, etc. But the ownerships of the world’s natural resources must be property of all citizens of the world. This may be extremely difficult to implement in the short term, but the consequences of not doing this could be fatal for human culture. Initially, all nation states should take control of basic natural resources, water, wood, oceans, oil, minerals etc. The shareholders of the entities that now own these resources would be compensated. Once these resources were under control of nation states, a 10% tax would be placed on the international commerce of these natural resources to pay for the infrastructure needed in developing countries, this tax plus their own revenue generated from the sale of these resources would pay for the building of homes, hospitals, infrastructure, schools, universities etc.

The second source of revenue for the international governing body would be a membership tax on all nations that enter the international organization. This tax would be a 50% tax on military spending. This would generate revenue and drastically reduce the amount of world military spending. These would be the only sources of revenue for the world governing body. Any military operations would be carried out by the militaries of member nations. As the party begins to win control of nations, these nations would enter the world governing body by parliamentary vote or referendum, much the same as has occurred with the EU.

Another source of revenue to fund the development of infrastructure across the world would be the creation of a new world currency. This new currency will be backed by the world’s natural resources. All national debts would be dissolved and reimbursed by the new currency. The freed tax revenue would be dedicated achieving the basic rights of men; food, housing, work, health care and education in the developing world, as well as creating a new, clean energy source and infrastructure in the developed world that can be quickly transferred to developing nations. New communities and energy sources will be created under a clean, sustainable, peaceful model.

The world governing body and world constitution will detail the legislative procedures to enact and realize the core values of the world constitution. War, corruption, oppression, and the unsustainable dissipation of the world’s natural resources will not be tolerated in member nations. In exchange for the immense resources that the world governing body will allocate, completely transparent democratic institutions must rule all member nations, above all person or party.

The world governing body will leave the vast majority of culture governance to national and regional governments. World holidays will be created, as well as educational databases, exhibitions and international budgets for the promotion of the great world traditions. There will be a complete and total separation of the world governing body from any religious affiliation whatsoever.

To summarize the ideological foundation of the world governing body, life, freedom, peace, democracy and sustainability. Once these have been reasonably assured for all humans, a new age of peace, harmony and sanity will prevail.

Robert Bonomo is a journalist, blogger and internet marketer. He has recently published a novel, Cactus Land, available on Amazon. PURCHASE CACTUS LAND ON AMAZON.

He also has a blog, Cactus Land, and works as an internet marketing consultant. See Professional Services Link on his blog for details. Read Robert’s blog CACTUS LAND BLOG.

Author: Robert Bonomo
Article Source: EzineArticles.com
Panasonic Lumix G2

Changing Sources of Power: American Politics in the 1970′s

Frederick G. Dutton,

McGraw-Hill Books, July, 1971 269 pages

Few would argue that political and social change unfolds in a vacuum. Social unrest, discontent and the eventual showdown of political ideologies erupt with sudden convulsion, catching bench sitters by surprise.

The cultural and political transformation that took place in the 1970′s was more than just a temporary or fleeting disaffection of the status quo.

While a few books have been written regarding the irreversible decade of cultural, social and education forces that changed our perspective and our national directions ever since, Frederick Dutton’s still stands out as the most insightful and comprehensive source to date.

Dutton, a Washington D.C., lawyer and political strategist, depicts the many elements necessary — beyond the political–that created the showdown between the majority of entrenched traditional conservative carriers of continuity and the agents of change.

Dutton brought his keen observations of American politics to the book having served as Secretary of the Cabinet for President John Kennedy, Assistant U.S. secretary of State for Congressional Relations and a Regent of the University of California.

It was Dutton’s belief, without a doubt, that the sixties illuminated a divided government that steadily evolved from rhetoric to dissatisfaction and eventually to the struggle for power from a new generation.

Throughout the book, Dutton offers examples of how and why the 1970′s would bring in the massive shift of power. He wrote that “…widespread social and political turmoil of the last half-dozen years and more has generally been considered in terms of the Vietnam war, the unrest of the young, black militancy and the responding backlash.”

To an extent, but more so these erratic breakdowns in law and order, the shifting of economic opportunities from the urban centers out to the suburbs (The Industrial Revolution was becoming suburbanized) and strong dissatisfaction with leadership lead to what Dutton described as the opportunity that created national regeneration that shaped the political landscape for decades that followed. No one predicted that a “George Wallace,” effect: a new Southern leader that appealed to a population that felt left out of the new educational opportunities, sophistication and activist new and younger elements.

Thirty years later, “The Changing Sources of Power” still holds the preeminent position as the most comprehensive and perceptive study written about the political shift of the 1970′s.

In comparison, Boston University history professor, Bruce Schulman, author of “The Seventies: The Great Shift in American Culture, Society, and Politics, Da Capo Press, focused more on the cultural elements of Village People and disco than the deep underpinnings of the political affects that were coming apart during the decade of ambiguity.

David Frum, a conservative pundit and author of How We Got Here: The 70′s, The Decade That Brought You Modern Life For Better Or Worse, Basic Books, offered a keen understanding of the impact of political upheaval Dutton predicted would happen if politicians would face urgent problems head on.

Frum cleverly observed that we “left behind a country that was more dynamic, more competitive, more tolerant; less deferential, less self-confident, less united; more socially equal, less economically equal; more expressive, more risk-averse, more sexual; less literate, less polite and less reticent.” However, in Frum’s account he never explains why the 70′s sustained its influence far into the 80′s while other political movements dissolved. There is never a main point about the decade except to say movement leaders tried to change social and economic programs of earlier decades.

A small but telling contrast ignored by both Schulman and Frum include the significant pieces that led up the political melee is Dutton’s observation. Dutton points out that the Free Speech movement of 1964 could never have occurred anywhere in the country except in California and at UC Berkeley. This is a simple sentence, but a major point about the cultural differences that participated in the move east of unrest “New Left.”

Dutton wrote: “Generational politics exploded in California not just on the periphery but in the political mainstream well before, and more several than, they have erupted in the rest of the country.”

Changing Sources of Power, written in 1972, ends with a profound and still relevant observation that reinforces the brilliance of this book lacking in the others. He wrote: “We will not easily move on during this decade. But what could be blowing in the wind with the newer elements is a national reinvigoration that will occupy American society for much of the rest of this century.”

One wonders what Dutton would say today?

Geri Spieler is the author of, “Taking Aim At The President: The Remarkable Story of the Woman Who Shot at Gerald Ford,” Palgrave Macmillan.

She is a former investigative reporter and has written for the Los Angeles Times and San Francisco Chronicle. She was a research director for Gartner and is an award winning public speaker and past president of the San Francisco/Peninsula California Writers Club.

Author: Geri Spieler
Article Source: EzineArticles.com
Provided by: Guest blogger

The first real political cartoons were drawn back in the early 1500′s in Germany during Martin Luther’s campaign against the excesses of the all-powerful Catholic Church. During this time of upheaval, Martin was looking for a way to use the new printing press to get his message out to the masses. Unfortunately, the “masses” were largely illiterate peasants who had previously relied entirely on Catholic Clergy for all access to the written word. Since the message Luther sought to distribute was inherently against the Church, he knew he needed a different way to reach the common people. The political cartoon was born.

Looking less like our modern cartoons and more like detailed illustrations, these early cartoons made use of familiar characters and stories to appeal to the peasants in a way that they could easily understand. One of these early cartoons shows the scene where Jesus throws the peddlers and hawkers out of the temple, a Bible story that all onlookers would easily recognize. Opposite the Bible scene is another which shows the Pope writing out and selling indulgences to the people. The comparison of the Pope to the hawkers is unmistakable. In this way, Martin could expose people of all classes to his radical and complex ideas in a way that was both simple and entertaining.

The first real use of political cartooning by an American was Benjamin Franklin’s 1754 cartoon “Join, or Die.” Its image of a snake cut into eight pieces, each of which was marked as one of the eight colonies, was a direct call to all of the British colonies to unite in common cause against the French and Indians and their plans to take over land west of the Appalachians. Later, in 1765, Franklin would again use the cartoon to try to persuade the colonies to unite in order to fight the British for independence. In both cases, the image of the snake became a stark and easily recognizable symbol around which the unity movement could coalesce.

Franklin’s famous cartoon is an example of how political cartoons have, historically, been a way for opposition groups to voice their opinions. The cartoon medium works well as a way for a new idea to gain a foothold in the public consciousness because of the brief and simple message it conveys. Since many cartoons couch their dissenting ideas in humor or satire, the artist can get away with making a radical idea seem more socially acceptable and less dangerous to the powers that be.

Cartoons continued to have huge importance in American politics during some of the more turbulent times in our nation’s history, like the government corruption of the late 1800′s, when Thomas Nast drew his famous “Boss” Tweed character to skewer thieving politicians. It was during this time that America’s first humor magazine, “Puck,” was started, creating a new, larger forum for political cartoons. This bargain priced publication pushed the cartoon even further onto the political stage, and the power and influence of cartoons on the public consciousness continued to grow over the years.

During the early 1950s, the term “McCarthyism” was coined by the cartoons of Herblock, one of the first people to publicly question Senator McCarthy’s communist witch hunt. Today, political cartoons still entertain and inflame readers of print publications, but perhaps a more modern incarnation of their ability to educate through humor and depictions of the absurd exists in television shows like “The Daily Show” and “The Colbert Report.” Using real news facts within satirical and sometimes ridiculous interviews, skits, and reports, these shows expose their audience to new ideas while entertaining them and making them laugh, just like political cartoons always have. These shows wouldn’t exist today as the pop-culture phenomenon they are without the groundbreaking legacy of political cartoons.

For further examination of this subject, historical political cartoons, pics and illustrations are available at various educational websites across the web.

Beth Schelle is an educational video consultant for the historical film company Quality Information Publishers, who maintain a library of historic film and video collections at http://www.qualityinformationpublishers.com .

Author: Beth Schelle
Article Source: EzineArticles.com
Tissot virtual reality

Adding a public web forum to a website is one of the best ways to easily acquire lots of targeted niche traffic. If you don’t have a decent amount of traffic (150+ visits/day) or a good sized list of emails (150+) don’t bother starting a forum. Nothing looks worse than an inactive forum. It is best to have around 500 leads and a $400 budget to start a forum. If you don’t have the traffic, or you can’t afford to buy the traffic required to start a web form, don’t spend the time setting one up.

What Forum Software Should I Use?

It is important to choose a software that will allow your forum community to grow. I have the most experience with Invision Power Board and I recommend using it in almost all situations.

If you can spare a few bucks, buy Invision Power Board(IPB) or vBulletin. They are both excellent web forum programs and in the end they will be worth the investment. Invision Power Board is more complicated to use, but it is full featured and more end user friendly. vBulletin is cheaper and easier to administer but offers less usability. Both vBulletin and IPB have excellent documentation and support.

PHPbb and Simple Machine Forums are both free solutions with excellent support. They don’t have all the features vBulletin and IPB have, but they are both easy to use and administer. While both of these forums are potential solutions, they tend to cause more problems than they are worth.

How Do I Jump Start My Web Forum?

Starting a web forum isn’t at all like building a website. Web forums need a lot of traffic in a short period of time in order to get started or else they flunk. Before releasing your forum to the public make sure everything is setup to perfection. Things can be changed later, but it is best if there aren’t any drastic changes during the release stage. Here are a few ways to help jump start your web forums.

1. Write articles and submit them to Article Directories. At the bottom of the article, mention the web forum. Continue to write at least one article a week. Do this before the opening day of the forum and continue to do it for a few months after the forum is open. Article submission will help boost your Google Page Rank and traffic will continue to trickle in to help maintain new user sign ups.

2. Format several very professional HTML messages to send out to your email list. I recommend having a list of at least 150 active relevant leads before starting a web forum. On opening day send a “Grand Opening” email to everybody on your list. Five to seven days later send another email to everybody on your list reminding them about the forum. Three weeks after that, remind them about the web forum again. Each time you send the reminder you will see an influx in forum activity. Its not necessarily important to send the messages out in that time frame just send the messages out as you see traffic die down on the forums. If your list contains over 500 leads, email 100 leads at a time every couple of days. Your leads will continually visit and post on the forums and you might not see a decrease in post activity if you email market correctly.

3. Create a “community newsletter” with a newsletter software like Aweber. There are a million newsletter softwares out there, but Awebers is definitely one of the better ones. If you are looking for a free solution open source solution, look at PHPList.

4. Setup a Google AdWords, AdBrite, Microsoft AdCenter and Yahoo Search Marketing accounts. Try to predict when user activity might decrease. Drive traffic to the forums on the day you predict the forum activity will simmer down. Definitely drive traffic on the first day the forums open.

5. Set the forum software to notify users when replies have been posted in threads they are active in. This is the most important tip. Often times people will post questions and forget to check back. If they are emailed when a response is posted, they are more likely to reply to their own post and then reply to another post.

6. Post articles on the forums in a locked section and email them to your list. Make sure the information in the article is high quality because the feelings associated with the article will also be associated with the forum. If the article is helpful, the user will come back to the forum in the future for help. When starting a forum, I normally post all my articles on a blog, a locked area of the forum and in Article Directories.

7. Create an off-topic forum. Allow general discussion in one forum or another. While this might not directly help drive relevant traffic to the website, it will help keep visitors active and entertained and in the end it will increase the relevant content.

8. Play devils advocate and ask questions. Web forums are known for creating debates. There isn’t a need to create a full fledged brawl, but try to create some sort of controversy. Politely try to point out multiple viewpoints on an issue and ask questions to spark user engagement. In the end, the discussion on the board is what will decide if it will take off.

Remember the Number One Rule: Forums are only good if they are active. An inactive web forum reflects negatively on your business.

You can see screenshots of the different forum softwares here:

[http://brendenwilson.com/2007/06/06/comprehensive-online-web-forum-guide.html]

For free Webinars and Articles visit http://BrendenWilson.com

Author: Brenden Wilson
Article Source: EzineArticles.com
Awe Inspiring Pictures

Tea party protesters turn extreme… conservatives go on rampage… the entire republican party are right-wing extremists!  Is it just me or is the media getting hysterical?  Knowing that a majority of news and media organizations are centered left, it does not surprise me when conservatives and republicans (not always the same) are negatively scrutinized with greater frequency in news media.  This is not your typical rant about the “liberal media” but rather an analysis of America as a whole.

America is a land of unique opportunity.  With so much going on in the news about politics and the availability to find answers to questions about political ethics and actions, every citizen has the opportunity to discuss politics on a regular basis. 

Fundamental to American society is the history of its’ revolution, rights, and religious freedom .  These foundational principles are part of all we do and discussing politics and religion is both complimentary and contentious. 

But was does this have to do with “right wing extremists” and the “left centered media”?  The debate today in American news and media and the people is over the fundamental principles.  The 3 R’s: Revolution, Rights, and Religious freedom.  These principles are determinant to every debate America has, but the nature of politics means that often we are going to come to a different conclusion.

The great challenge in discussing politics is the effort to be open minded and unoffensive.  You see there is a difference between agreeing with someone and trying to see their point.  When you agree with them you see their point of view as your own and it is fundamentally agreeing with your experiences and beliefs.  Seeing someone else’s point of view does not mean you have to agree with them though.

The problem in America is not that there are extremists or biased media sources, it is bound to happen because of the nature of humanity and our government.  The problem is with how we deal with these differences.

Understanding Others
Politics pose threats to any mild discussion because they are rooted deep within each individuals core identity.  Each person believes and understands things differently because of the way they were raised, educated, and experienced.  There unique identity comes from a mixture of experiences and personal preferences to form an ideological belief specific to each individual.  Within politics their also encompasses an ethical/moral belief system differing in every individual.  Thus the deeply personal nature of politics and why it is so divisive.

We must learn to understand others when trying to discuss politics and see events as they really are.  Because my experiences are unique to my own life, I see the world in a way that no other person on this earth can possibly have experienced.  This is because my previous experiences have formed my perspective uniquely to then experience new things.  So no two people are alike.  We must then learn to see things the way others see them.  Again, we do not have to reach the same conclusion (agree), but we should see the reasons for why they reach their results.

Once we understand why they think and feel the way they do, we can then determine whether we agree with them.  Not before.  Close minded and rude people are those never seeing or understanding the other person’s perspective because they decided it was wrong before they began to listen.  This characteristic is not a plague to either party, media organization, or ideologue but rather to people as a whole.

With a proper understanding of the other viewpoint, agreeing or disagreeing with them actually strengthens our answers because we know the other views answer context of their reasoning.  Thus the more we listen the finer and more specific our own understanding is for why we are right.  We also can become more civil. 

Avoid being rude and listen to others to understand them.  Then make your analysis after you have added what they have to say into what you already know and experience.  You may not change your mind, that is okay, but at least you thought critically about why you believe or think the way you do.  You now know a little bit more of what you believe.

Then we wont worry about labels, names, slandering, or bias because we will become secure in our own understanding and knowledgeable about the others reasoning.  For every argument there is a reason, often founded in good reasons, why things should be the way the need to be.  Our priorities just might not be the same as theirs, and that’s okay!

Learn more about the Art and Science of Politics with Political Tutor. Discussing how to Become a Politician, understand the American Political System, and make a real difference in other peoples lives.

Author: Seth Waite
Article Source: EzineArticles.com
Beading Necklace

So often we see political Blogs and Forums, which attack the Bush Administration, yet we allow this and say nothing. Some who are political adversaries or of the opposition party often join in, as it appears to be a rather trendy endeavor for them. Some may not realize that all this guerrilla style tactics takes a toll on our nation in the World Media and actually emboldens International Terrorists.

How unfortunate that any American would side with the enemy over the President of the United States of America who was duly elected by the people? Some observing this have said; What on Earth is the World Coming too? Interesting comment and indeed a question that needs to be answered and discussed.

You see anyone can purposefully misinterpret data, make up conspiracy theories or call into question another’s good name. Anyone can become part of the problem instead of the solution like this website has done. Anyone can slip into psychotic behavior condemning the greatest nation in the history of mankind.

And for all these nut cases out there; Why not put up your resume and all the great things you have done for mankind this week, before condemning another whose shoes you could never fill? That is what I am saying. Plus these negative Blog and Internet Forum posts and those bizarre conspiracy theory websites are generally a pack of lies anyway. And you either know or should have known this. Consider this in 2006.

“Lance Winslow” – Online Think Tank forum board. If you have innovative thoughts and unique perspectives, come think with Lance; www.WorldThinkTank.net/. Lance is an online writer in retirement.

Author: Lance Winslow
Article Source: EzineArticles.com
Canada duty tariff

From President Obama to the least popular host on MSNBC or progressive talk radio, the American political left cannot find anything to dislike in the Muslim religion. At least, if they do, they are not telling.

Considering Islam’s bad record on human rights (see Sudan) on women’s rights (see Afghanistan/Pakistan), its belief in a real God, its belief in a holy scripture, its history of 1,400 years of warfare, conquest, forced conversions, persecution of minorities; you’d think, the political left would loath the sound of the call to prayer or the sight of a minaret, like they do the Christian cross and the memory of Jerry Falwell.

What is it that the American left sees in Islam that makes them defend it with the passion of a convert to the Charismatic Catholic Renewal? Explanations todate range from the argument from cowardice: namely, that the left is afraid to criticize Islam because they fear becoming an intentional target of a suicide bomber; to the explanation from Machiavelli, that the left wants to use Islam as a foil against Christianity and Judaism to destroy Christian/Jewish power in America. Of course, the addendum on this argument is, because of the secular left’s antipathy to religion, that after their gambit works, they will turn on Islam, and so completely remove the influence of faith from American life.

As inventive as those answers are, I don’t see the left composed of a bunch of cowards afraid to criticize anyone or anything. I also disagree that the left would play the dangerous political game of elevating Islam and then turning on it, knowing that the very first purges of society made by an empowered Islam would be against those left-wing members of society.

The most satisfying answer that no one has yet offered is foundby looking at the kind of salvation offered by each of the great monotheistic religions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, and, of course, Secularism.

Salvation in Judaism

In Judaism, the salvation offered is national. We can prove that by reference to the Hebrew scriptures where it is recorded that the nation was offered a relationship with God. In Judaism, the actions of a single person can bring disaster on the nation; whereas, the righteousness of the nation is required for blessing. One’s individual relationship with God in some contexts is constrained by the Jewish nation’s relationship with God.

Salvation in Christianity

In Christianity, the salvation offered is personal. One’s ethnicity or national origin are facts that do not impede or aid one’s personal relationship to God. One is born Jewish, but all Christians are supposed to be converts. Even if your parents were Christians, that heritage does not automatically make you a Christian, at least not in the sense described in the New Testament. Christianity, with its emphasis on individual and personal responsibility before God, has been called the perfect religion for a capitalistic society.

Salvation in Islam

In Islam, the salvation offered is social, not national, and not personal in the way Christianity is personal. One becomes a Muslim by reciting a Koranic exclamation. Everyone is Islam has exactly the same responsibility, the words of the prayers recited are expressed publicly, everyone prays at the same time toward the same geographic spot on the earth, making It social prayer. In Islam, the world-wide religious tax collected from every Muslim goes to provide for the poor.

Look at Islamic societies, like Egypt. Everyone dresses alike, everyone’s houses are similar, and everyone speaks the same thoughts (at least publicly). Deviations from socially acceptable speech are punishable by law with beatings and imprisonment. Except for the elite few, everyone lives a similar life, with a similar income. It is only in business thatcitizens have a hope of gainingmaterially something more than their neighbors.

Political/Social Salvation

The social salvation offered by Islam is the reason the American political left so “loves” this one monotheistic religion and despises the others. The saying goes, “two cannot walk together unless they be agreed.” The American political left agrees with most of Islam’s goals and with many of their methods. A world under the control of the American left would look very much like a world under Islamic control. Social salvation (peace) is imposed because every member of society must look like, act like, and think like every other member.

For non-leftists, especially the right-wing commentators, the actions of the political left often seem perplexing and inconsistent. That is because non-leftists usually view political actions from the 30,000 foot level of the nation-state. Even the 50,000 foot multi-nation view of leftist’s actions doesn’t seem to account for all thepolitical positionsleftists take in American society. This is because the American left’s actions are driven from the high orbit of a world-viewing satellite. This view from space is primarily a moral view which gives the discourse of the secular leftits religious quality and air of moral superiority.

If one believes that no human being should have to choose between satisfying their hunger or their thirst, but not both at the same time, the view from orbit makes sense. From orbit, with the entire world illuminated against the blackness of space, earthly resources are limited. Some human beings have a miserable life because their economics are primative: if they have a drink of water, they cannot have a mid-day meal, if one family member gets a new shirt, the rest must go without shoes.

Other people can go to the richest city on earth, take a penthouse suite in the most expensive hotel, and live there for years without thoseexpenses in any way diminishing their personal wealth. Others can choose between the kinds of luxuries they enjoy, even though they cannot afford everything. Othersmust choose between wants, but have all their needs satisfied. Not so with many people throughout the world who must choose between basic human needs, and so suffer.

What the Left Believes

To the left, looking at today’s default distribution of world resources, the inequalities seems to provide another reason for not believing in a good God. If they (the left) could re-distribute resources so every single human being had at least their basic material needs met (water, food, shelter, clothing, employment), those who accomplished this redistribution would be the gods of this newworld order. It’s a high moral view, one that cares about human suffering and finds no technical reason that economic discrepancies between societies should continue.

Convergence of Islam and the Left

Islam believes if all humanity submits to Mohammed’s revelation, then there will be peace. Islam proclaims that until all the world submits, peace for any in non-Islamic society will not be allowed. Furthermore, Islamic societies are driven by top-down, non-democratic means. The elites make the social decisions, for everyone else those decisions amount tothe will of God. The political left loves this kind of societal organization because only in this way can their goals be achieved.

The American left is uncritical of Islamic societies not because they don’t privately opposes Islamic religious ideas, but because Islam and the left both offer a human, social salvation. Islam imposes their salvation in the name of God. The American left would impose their social salvation in the name of the moral goal of eliminating needs-based human suffering. For the political left to criticize Islamwould be to criticize themselves, something those with a high, external,moral purpose will not do.

This explains why Christianity, because of its emphasis on the personal and individual, cannot be tolerated and must be rebuked or marginalized at every opportunity. A Christian society, includingeven a degenerate western society originally based upon Christian ideas, is an enemy of both Islam and secular political thought. The elimination of human suffering caused by the inequitable distribution of resources is a goal that rises above the prosperity of a single nation orthe possible achievements of any single member of those societies. An all powerful God could have designed a better system, but because He didn’t, the left will rise to the challenge and do the work He should have done, but certainlyonlyin their own name, not in His.

It is true that achieving the end of human needs-based suffering is technically possible. That possibility makes it a moral imperative. It is such a lofty moral goal, that should a portion of the human race suffer in other ways from this necessary re-organization, so be it. At least, that is the perspective the left offers. Understanding this connection between Islamic and leftist political salvations explains everything. The left is often accused of condescending, arrogance, and elitism. But if your religion offered a salvation that could bring the world and all of humankind political and social peace, while your opponents followed the teachings of a God who couldn’t accomplish what you can, how else could you feel?

The citizens of any country cannot be allowed to think as individuals who are responsible to God first and only secondarily and tangentially responsible to government. National citizens must become world citizens and this means individuals in a society must think as a group, part of a world society in which every culture shares equally. In Islam this is God’s will for the world and so it is a salvation that must be imposed. So it also is for the true believers on the American political left. Their will, their high moral purpose, must also be imposed.

http://www.amazon.com/Time-of-the-Heathen/dp/B002TG4NTW/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1257447160&sr=1-2

Author: James Matteson
Article Source: EzineArticles.com
Canada duty rate

In the heat of the election season and as a life-long political junkie, I can’t wait for election night. It is always one of the biggest nights of the year around my house. Glued to multiple TV’s, tuned to every station (and now the Internet) I watch the returns roll in. Depending upon your investment in the campaign, the emotional highs and lows intensify. It’s even better to be at a party. Some friends ask why I don’t wait until the next morning to read the headlines. Would you turn off the TV before the end of the big game and find out the score tomorrow? This is an important political year full of excitement, so it’s easy to be engaged. We’re probably finding more people expressing their opinions about politics than ever before. But what about doing this at the workplace?

Political expression comes in a lot of forms. I have to admit I got a little uneasy when I pulled into my office parking lot and saw a bumper sticker that said something derogatory about meat-eaters. Now, I don’t have anything against my vegetarian friends, yet I do like a nice steak now and then. What might people think about the opinions displayed at work? Might they be offended?

What about expressing strong political opinions in a small office environment to co-workers and clients? Unless you’re working in the campaign office or at the legislature, this might have its limits. I did a little research on how well the workplace tolerates political discussions. We know that public employees (and many who work for private companies) have to adhere to specific guidelines. Those rules may include personal use of company computers and the wearing or distribution of political materials. In general, private, at-will employers have a great deal of latitude in how they manage their workplaces and what political tone they choose to set.

Even if the flexibility exists for employers, politics in the workplace can bring about workplace politics. There is some basic etiquette one can use to keep tensions down. How you handle yourself may depend if you’re in management or not. There appears to be a tolerance for conversations among co-workers, but managers are held to a different standard. A national survey conducted in May and June 2007 by Harris Interactive, found that nearly one out of four U.S. workers says they are uncomfortable when their top managers openly express their political preferences at work. More than a quarter of those polled said they don’t fit in with their company’s culture in terms of politics. The survey found generational differences between younger and older workers regarding talking politics at work. Seventy-six percent of younger employees (age 18-34) would share their political views, compared to 64% of those age 50+. Eight-four percent of younger employees were comfortable telling their boss which candidates they support. This is compared to 68% of older workers who would do the same.

So do you tip-toe around your passion for R’s or D’s? How can you inspire an excitement for politics at work while not creating unnecessary tensions? At a very minimum, you can create an environment that values voting. It is not inappropriate to inquire is employees or coworkers need registration information. If the outcome of certain ballot measures could affect your business or clients that could also be acceptable for discussion. Alerting family, friends and co-workers to important debates, forums or community meetings may also create involvement and engagement without appearing bias. If you’re in a politically charged environment that can be exciting, but what’s most important is that you vote, your vote is yours, it’s private and it’s important. I hope you’ll mail in your ballot and be part of this great process. Remember, on election night don’t call, I’ll be busy, unless you’re having a party…..

Author: Mary Louise Vannatta
Article Source: EzineArticles.com
Android phones

What role does the powerful new media play in Politics? The short and long term effects cannot be denied. But does the new media offer us sound political information or simply entertain us for profit and ratings?

The New Media

Every so often, the mass media system in the United States experiments significant transformations that signal a new plateau in its evolution. Widespread recognition of the new media’s role on the political scene occurred during the 1992 Presidential campaign. The candidates flocked to talk radio, television talk shows, news magazine programs and the internet. Although the media offered many options to deliver their views, the debate as to rather or not the content was informative or entertainment had begun.

Talk Radio

If there has been one communications format that has become emblematic of the new media, it is talk radio. Talk radio used to be the “night shift” of the airways. Talk radio reinvented itself. Talk radio became an important candidate forum in 1992. President George H. Bush interviewed with conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh. By 1994 nine talk radio hosts ran for statewide or local office. Most were unsuccessful, but their positions in talk radio gave them legitimacy as
candidates.

Other unsuccessful candidates such as former New York Governor Mario Cuomo and New York Mayor Ed Koch moved into local or national talk show host jobs. Talk radio had a political platform. Americans were tuning in. Ratings were up. Profits were rising. Talk radio had become a force to be reckoned with.

Television

Cable television opened the airways for an onset of media opportunities. Time slots were filled with talk shows and news programs that you could tune in twenty four hours a day. The television media quickly enhanced their position in the political process. Politicians and the mainstream press could not help but take them seriously. One of the criticisms levied against the television media was that they trivialized serious issues of governing by mixing politics with entertainment. Every political issue at hand could now be analyzed and scrutinized twenty four hours a day on cable news. Campaigns had to give a second look on the role of media in politics. The media could be a tool of support or a thorn in your side. Campaign strategy had to be changed. The power of television was not to be denied.

The Internet

Twenty five years ago the term “modem” did not even appear in the dictionary. Modems connect people to online computer services such as CompuServe,Prodigy, America Online or MSN, and to hundreds of thousands of world wide websites and home pages. Increasingly, the internet has become a tool for political communications as well. On the net you could gain political info, express political opinion, and mobilize other voters and political leaders. You could also make political donations. In this years Presidential race, candidates have raised literally millions of dollars online. The web has become a electronic town hall. In a brief time, the web has grown into a major player in the new media.

Conclusion

The media has found its niche in today’s politics. Rather its talk shows, television or the internet, they have laid a foundation, built a platform from which to voice their social agenda and flex their political muscle. How much of that voice is quality content is still up for debate. One thing is for sure, if you want to succeed in politics, it will not hurt to have the media in your corner.

William Curl
Contact info: maverick28666@yahoo.com
Phone: 828-640-7643

Author: William Curl
Article Source: EzineArticles.com
Digital Camera News